Micromanagers

In my past postings I have referred to a board “majority,” and I call this Blog, “The Minority Report of the KASB.”  Those who have been to a meeting could probably figure out to whom I am referring, but for those who have not attended a meeting, I will present a “cast of characters.”

After the last election the Board consisted of incumbents:

Alan Darion

Carl Ziegler

Jo Stevens

Dennis Ritter

Jasper Ho

Pat Bealer, and newly elected

Amy Faust

Craig Schroeder

Sally Sunday.

In the past, Carl Ziegler, Jo Stevens, Pastor Ritter, and I disagreed as much as we may have agreed.  However, after extensive public debate, the four of us agreed on some key issues, namely all day kindergarten, the elementary school reconfiguration, and the need to rebuild/renovate the Senior High. With the support of one or two other members of the previous Board, these issues were carried over the opposition of Mr. Ho, and Mrs. Bealer.  Following the election, Mrs. Sunday, Mrs. Faust, and Mr. Schroeder joined with Mr. Ho and Mrs. Bealer to form a majority that stopped the rebuilding/renovation of the High School.  (Future posts will address this issue.) 

It soon became apparent that this group of five was determined to vote as a block.  Issues were often tabled so that, I assume, they would have time to reach a decision as a group – perhaps in consultation with their political supporters.  This was most obvious when we filled the vacancy on the Board after Pastor Ritter resigned.  The Board majority initially limited public interviews to one other applicant besides their apparent choice. Public displeasure and parliamentary difficulties forced them to allow all the applicants to be interviewed, but clearly the outcome was never in doubt.  Leon Smith was appointed to the Board.  The majority of five was now six.  Mr. Ziegler, Mrs. Stevens and I were cast in the role of a minority even though we had never acted as a single block.  In fact, Mr. Ziegler joined in supporting the budget.  However, we seem to be a solid minority when it comes to understanding the role the Board of School Directors should play in the operations of the District.

I will lay claim to an expertise in teaching Physical Science to freshmen, but I would never presume to tell first grade teachers how to teach.  Yet the majority of the Board, with little or no teaching experience or expertise, seems to have no trouble doing exactly that.  This attitude is at the core of the elementary computer controversy, which I expect to be the topic of my next posting.  In this post, I would like to remark on a seemingly small matter, the salary set for our support staff, which reveals a great deal about the arrogance of the Board majority.

Our support staff consists of our maintenance and custodial staff, our cafeteria workers, and our secretaries and clerks. Their performance reviews determine the salary increase they will receive and are set in a salary schedule.  The majority block voted against the salary schedule recommended by the administration.  Following that vote, they insisted on reviewing the individual performance evaluations of our entire support staff.  Although there was some overall decrease in the salary schedule eventually passed, it became apparent that the true objection of the majority was not the size of the increases, but the evaluation of a particular employee.  It was only after this person’s evaluation, and subsequent pay raise was changed, that the salary schedule was allowed to pass.  I have intentionally avoided determining this individual’s identity.  His or her name is not the issue; there are matters of much greater concern.

First, the Board majority clearly does not trust the judgment of our supervisors, or believe their own evaluations are superior to those in day-to-day contact and responsibility for these workers.  This sort of action represents micromanaging of the worst sort.  We often hear that the schools should be run more like a business.  I cannot imagine that in the business world the board of directors of a company, such as Air Products for example, would review and change the performance evaluation of their line workers.

Second, this action throws into doubt the notion of merit pay.  It seems that political connections are more important than actual job performance.  Almost everyone is in favor of the principle of merit pay, but only if it is based on performance instead of politics, a special danger for public employees.  Teachers, like police officers, often must make decisions that penalize some individuals.  They should not have to worry about the political consequences of those decisions.  The current Board majority illustrates why those public employees need the special protection that tenure and civil service rules afford.

           Although I believe the cost consciousness of the Board majority has harmed our children’s education, it can be argued that they believed they had no choice.  I am much more concerned that in the belief that they know best how to educate all our children, and how to run the day-to-day operations of the district, they will do real damage to our system. Telling our teachers how to teach their students, and our administrators how to supervise their schools, is like telling your surgeon where the incision should be made, or your lawyer what statute should be applied.  We can only hope that the majority block’s continued interference in the day-to-day operations of our schools does no irreparable harm.

This year's budget

I hope to have a report after every meeting of the School Board, but there are fewer meetings in the summer, and action on the key issue of the last two meetings, that of leasing computers for the middle and elementary schools, is still pending.  Instead, I will take this opportunity to talk about the budget the majority enacted last June.

To give you some perspective, the Board could have increased taxes by about 2.9% without going to a referendum.  Taxes could have gone even higher if exceptions were granted for increases in pension or special education expenses.  The administration prepared a budget that would have allowed all current programs to continue, but require a tax increase of 2%.  This was unacceptable to the majority of the Board.  Not only did they demand no tax increase, they refused to use our “fund balance” – think of it as unused money from previous taxes, much of the surplus from this year’s budget, or any of the money saved by abandoning the building project.  (I’ll have more on that later.)  The budget passed over my and Mrs. Stevens dissent did not replace the four teachers who retired.  Three of these are at the High School where enrollment will be essentially unchanged next year.  At some point in the debate a Board member asked, “Why not no tax increase?”  Here is an answer to that question.

One of the positions not being replaced is a full time Business teacher.  As a result:

The full year courses that will not be offered next year are:

A second section of accounting I

A section of advanced accounting (2nd level)

A section of accelerated accounting (3rd level)

The semester courses that will not be offered next year are:

3 sections of Desktop Publishing

3 sections of Web Page Design 

            Another position not being replaced is a full time Language Arts teacher.  To fill this void, teacher assignments are being shuffled – moving an English as a Second Language teacher into Language Arts. This transfer involves moving three teachers to positions where, while they may be certified, they will not be teaching in areas where they have had experience and been able to develop their expertise.

            Of greater concern is that we are also expanding the Language Arts program so that next year it will include:

4 sections of Read 180

3 electives -- yearbook, newspaper and creative writing

These courses effectively make up the load of the full time teacher we are not replacing.  As a result, class size will increase beyond the ability of teachers to effectively teach writing in the manner they have shown to be most effective.  There will no longer be time to conference with students about their writing.  Without conferencing, it will impossible to continue the program as it now exits.  In effect, we must choose between an effective writing program, or an improved reading program. Without the cut we could have had both.

We are reducing a full time position by 20% by no longer offering classroom instruction in driver education.  Several insurance companies have determined that this instruction makes kids safer drivers, thus putting the entire community, who will share the road with these young people, at greater risk. 

Combined with the loss of business electives these reductions will vastly increase the population in our study halls.  However, at the same time, we are not continuing to employ an aide as our study hall monitor.  Teachers will have to assume that duty, replacing a person whose hourly rate is somewhere around $10 per hour with teachers who are paid considerably more.  Admittedly, we will not be “out of pocket” for teachers’ salary, but for much of the time in a study hall, those teachers will not be available for conferencing, tutoring, or classroom preparation -- the job they are actually being paid to do. 

We are not replacing a middle school science teacher, but instead are transferring a Special Education teacher into that position.  This cut will increase the number of students in Special Education classes by about 2 students.  While not an overwhelming number, these are the children of greatest need, and will put us perilously close to the limit on the teaching load we are permitted by the state.

Last but far from least we are arbitrarily cutting $5000 from the library budget.  I have trouble coming up with a cut this small that would have a larger adverse impact on our kids.  At some point students will need a resource that is not available as a result of this reduction.

It is one thing to say that we can no longer afford to give our children the same quality of education as students were provided it the past.  Although I vehemently disagree, it might be a tenable position in this economy.  However, to maintain that this budget will not have an adverse effect on our children’s education is delusional at best and fraudulent at worst.