Yawn...public notices...
This appeared in the Friday BCCT and it might be good to review the rights of both parents and students when it comes to special education.
Notice of Special Education Services
The public school districts of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and the Bucks County Intermediate Unit ("the Bucks County school entities"), provide special education and related service to resident children with disabilities who are ages three through twenty-one. The purpose of this notice is to describe (1) the types of disabilities that might qualify the child for such programs and services, (2) the special education programs and related services that are available, (3) the process by which each of the Bucks County School entities screens and evaluates such students to determine eligibility, and (4) the special rights that pertain to such children and their parents or legal guardians.
What types of disability might qualify a child for special education and related services?
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly referred to as the "IDEA," children qualify for special education and related services if they have one or more of the following disabilities and, as a result, demonstrate a need for special education and related services: (1) mental retardation, (2) hearing impairments, including deafness, (3) speech or language impairments, (4) visual impairments, including blindness, (5) serious emotional disturbance, (6) orthopedic impairments, (7) autism, including pervasive developmental disorders; (8) traumatic brain injury, (9) other health impairment, (10) specific learning disabilities, (11) multiple disabilities, or (12) for preschool age children, developmental delays. If a child has more than one of the above-mentioned disabilities, the child could qualify for special education and related services as having multiple disabilities. Children age three through the age of admission to first grade are also eligible if they have developmental delays and, as a result, need special education and related services. Developmental delay is defined as a child who is less than the age of beginners and at least 3 years of age is considered to have a developmental delay when one of the following exists: (i) The child's score, on a developmental assessment device, on an assessment instrument which yields a score in months, indicates that the child is delayed by 25% of the child's chronological age in one or more developmental areas. (ii) The child is delayed in one or more of the developmental areas, as documented by test performance of 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on standardized tests. Developmental areas include cognitive, communicative, physical, social/emotional and self-help.
The legal definitions of these disabilities, which the public schools are required to apply under the IDEA, may differ from those used in medical or clinical practice. Moreover, the IDEA definitions could apply to children with disabilities that have very different medical or clinical disorders. A child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, for example, could qualify for special education and related services as a child with "other health impairments," "serious emotional disturbance," or "specific learning disabilities" if the child meets the eligibility criteria under one or more of these disability categories and if the child needs special education and related services as a result.
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, some school age children with disabilities who do not meet the eligibility criteria under the IDEA might nevertheless be eligible for special protections and for adaptations and accommodations in instruction, facilities, and activities. Children are entitled to such protections, adaptations, and accommodations if they have a mental or physical disability that substantially limits or prohibits participation in or access to an aspect of the school program.
What programs and services are available for children with disabilities?
The public school must ensure that children with disabilities are educated to the maximum extent appropriate with their non-disabled peers, commonly referred to as the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Programs and services available to students with disabilities, in descending order of preference, are (1) regular class placement with supplementary aides and services provided as needed in that environment, (2) regular class placement for most of the school day with itinerant service by a special education teacher either in or out of the regular classroom, (3) regular class placement for most of the school day with instruction provided by a special education teacher in a resource classroom, (4) part time special education class placement in a regular public school or alternative setting, and (5) special education class placement or special education services provided outside the regular class for most or all of the school day, either in a regular public school or alternative setting.
Depending on the nature and severity of the disability, a Bucks County School entity can provide special education programs and services in (1) the public school the child would attend if not disabled, (2) an alternative regular public school either in or outside the school district of residence, (3) a special education center operated by a public school entity, (4) an approved private school or other private facility licensed to serve children with disabilities, (5) a residential school, (6) approved out-of-state program, or (7) the home.
Special education services are provided according to the primary educational needs of the child, not the category of disability. The types of service available are (1) learning support, for students who primarily need assistance with the acquisition of academic skills, (2) life skills support, for students who primarily need assistance with development of skills for independent living, (3) emotional support, for students who primarily need assistance with social or emotional development, (4) deaf or hearing impaired support, for students who primarily need assistance with deafness, (5) blind or visually impaired support, for students who primarily need assistance with blindness, (6) physical support, for students who primarily require physical assistance in the learning environment, (7) autistic support, for students who primarily need assistance in the areas affected by autism spectrum disorders, and (8) multiple disabilities support, for students with more than one disability the result of which is severe impairment requiring services primarily in the areas of academic, functional, vocational skills necessary for independent living.
Related services are designed to enable the child to participate in or access his or her program of special education. Examples of related services are speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, nursing services, audiologist services, counseling, and family training.
Children of preschool age are served by the Bucks County Intermediate Unit in a variety of home and school-based settings that take into account the chronological and developmental age and primary needs of the child. As with school age programs, preschool programs must ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with non-disabled peers.
Each Bucks County School entity, in conjunction with the parents of each identified child, determines the type and intensity of special education and related services that a particular child needs based exclusively on the unique program of special education and related services that the school develops for that child. The child's program is described in writing in an individualized education program, commonly referred to as an "IEP," which is developed by an IEP team consisting of educators, parents, and other persons with special expertise or familiarity the child. The parents of the child have the right to be notified of and to participate in all meetings of their child's IEP team. The IEP is revised as often as circumstances warrant but at least annually. The law requires that the program and placement of the child, as described in the IEP, be reasonably calculated to ensure meaningful educational progress to the student at all times. IEPs contain, at a minimum, the projected start date and duration for the IEP, a statement of the child's present levels of educational and functional performance, an enumeration of annual goals, a description of the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and reported, a statement of the special education, program modifications, and related services to be provided, an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with non-disabled children, the anticipated frequency and location of the services and a statement of any accommodations necessary to measure academic achievement and functional performance of the child on state and district wide assessments. For children aged fourteen and older, the IEP must also include a transition plan to assist in the attainment of post-secondary objectives. The public school must invite the child to the IEP team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the post-secondary goals and transition services needed for the child.
All Bucks County School entities are required to allow parents of children with disabilities reasonable access to their child's classrooms, subject to the provisions of each entity's school visitation policy or guidelines.
How do the public schools screen and evaluate children to determine eligibility for special education and related services?
Multidisciplinary team evaluation
Bucks County School entities must conduct a multidisciplinary team evaluation of every child who is thought to have a disability. The multidisciplinary team is a group of professionals who are trained in and experienced with the testing, assessment, and observation of children to determine whether they have disabilities and, if so, to identify their primary educational strengths and needs. Parents are members of the multidisciplinary team. Bucks County School entities must reevaluate school-age students receiving special education services every three years and must reevaluate children with mental retardation and pre-school-age children receiving special education services every two years.
Parents may request a multidisciplinary team evaluation of their children at any time. They must do so in writing. Every public school has a procedure in place by which parents can request an evaluation. For information about each Bucks County School entity's procedures applicable to your child, contact the school district, which your child attends. Telephone numbers and addresses for the school districts can be found at the end of this notice. Parents of preschool age children, age three through five, may request an evaluation in writing by addressing a letter as follows: Bucks County Intermediate Unit, Early Childhood Services, 705 N. Shady Retreat Road, Doylestown, PA 18901. The telephone number for the Early Intervention Program is (215)-348-2940, ext 1716. You may call that number to schedule a screening appointment for your preschool age child.
Parents of children in private schools may request a multidisciplinary team evaluation of their children without enrolling in their public schools. However, while some services might be available to some private school children who are found eligible by the responsible Bucks County School entity, that entity is not required to provide all or any of the special education and related services those children would receive if enrolled in the public schools. If, after an evaluation, the multidisciplinary team determines that the child is eligible for special education and related services, the responsible Bucks County School entity must offer the child a Free Appropriate Public Educations (FAPE), unless the parents of the child are not interested in such an offer. If parents wish to take advantage of such an offer, they may be required to enroll or re-enroll their child in the responsible Bucks County School entity to do so.
Before a Bucks County School entity can proceed with an evaluation, it must notify the parents in writing of the specific types of testing and assessment it proposes to conduct, of the date and time of the evaluation, and of the parents' rights. The evaluation cannot begin until the parent has signed the written notice indicating that he or she consents to the proposed testing and assessments and has returned the notice to the public school.
Screening
All Bucks County School entities undertake screening activities before referring students for a multidisciplinary team evaluation. Screening activities could involve an instructional support team, commonly referred to as the "IST," or an alternative screening process. Regardless of the particular screening method employed, the screening process must include (1) periodic vision and hearing assessments by the school nurse as mandated by the School Code and (2) screening at reasonable intervals to determine whether all students are performing based on grade-appropriate standards in core academic subjects.
If early intervening activities produce little or no improvement, the child will then be referred for a multidisciplinary team evaluation.
For information about the dates of various screening activities in your child's school or to request screening activities for a particular child, contact the local public school directly. Telephone numbers and addresses for the school districts can be found at the end of this notice. Parents of preschool age children, age three through five, may obtain information about screening activities, or may request a screening of their children, by calling or writing the Bucks County Intermediate Unit, Early Childhood Services, 705 N. Shady Retreat Road, Doylestown, PA 18901. The telephone number for the Early Childhood Program is (215) 348-2940, ext 1716.
Private school administrators, teachers, and parent groups, or individual parents of students in private schools who are interested in establishing systems in those schools for locating and identifying children with disabilities who might need a multidisciplinary team evaluation may contact the Ms. Carole Smith at Bucks County Intermediate Unit, 705 N. Shady Retreat Road, Doylestown, PA 18901; telephone number (215) 348-2940.
What special rights and protections do children with disabilities and their parents have?
State and federal law affords many rights and protections to children with disabilities and their parents. A summary of those rights and protections follows. Interested persons may obtain a complete written summary of the rights and protections afforded by the law, together with information about free or low cost legal services and advice, by contacting their school district's special education or student services department. Telephone numbers and addresses for the school districts can be found at the end of this notice. The written summary is also available through the Bucks County Intermediate Unit, Early Childhood Services, 705 N. Shady Retreat Road, Doylestown, PA 18901; telephone number (215) 348-2940.
Rights and Protections
Prior Written Notice. The responsible Bucks County School entity must notify you in writing whenever it proposes to initiate or to change the identification, evaluation, educational program or placement of a child or whenever it refuses to initiate or make a change in the identification, evaluation, educational program or placement requested by a parent. Such notice must be accompanied by a written description of the action proposed or rejected, the reasons for the proposal or refusal, a description of the evaluation information and other relevant factors used as a basis for the decision, the other options considered, if any, the reasons why such options were rejected and a statement that the parent has the right to procedural safeguards.
Consent. Bucks County School entities cannot proceed with an evaluation or reevaluation, or with the initial provision of special education and related services, without the written consent of the parents. However, a Bucks County School entity may seek approval for an initial evaluation or reevaluation by requesting the approval of an impartial hearing officer by filing a due process request. Additionally, in the case of a parent's failure to respond to a request to conduct a reevaluation, a Bucks County School entity may proceed with the proposed reevaluation without parental consent if it can show that it made a reasonable effort to obtain parental consent and that the parent failed to respond. A public school entity may not seek a hearing to nullify the refusal of a parent to consent to an initial placement in special education.
Protection in Evaluation Procedures. Evaluations to determine eligibility and the current need for special education and related services must be administered in a manner that is free of racial, cultural, or linguistic bias and in the native language of the child. The evaluation must assess the child in all areas related to the suspected disability and include a variety of technically sound instruments, assessment tools and strategies. The assessments and evaluation materials must be used for the purposes for which the assessments or measure are valid and reliable. They must be administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessment and must be trained to assess special areas of need. Moreover, evaluation determinations cannot be based upon any single measure or assessment.
Independent Educational Evaluation. If parents disagree with the evaluation conducted by the responsible Bucks County School entity, they may request in writing an independent educational evaluation, commonly referred as an "IEE," at public expense. If an IEE is provided at public expense, the criteria under which the IEE is privately obtained must be the same as the criteria that the responsible Bucks County School entity uses when it initiates an evaluation. Information concerning each school entity's evaluation criteria can be obtained through the Office of Special Education or Student Services of that entity. If the Bucks County School entity refuses to pay for the IEE, it must provide legal notice of its decision, including the reason for its denial.
Due Process Hearing Procedures
The parent or the responsible Bucks County school entity, commonly referred to as the Local Educational Agency (LEA), may request a due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education, commonly referred to as "FAPE". The party requesting the hearing must submit a "Due Process Hearing Request" form to the Office for Dispute Resolution, 6340 Flank Drive, Suite 600, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112; telephone (800) 222-3353; TTY (800) 654-5984. A due process hearing will not proceed until all required information is provided and procedures followed.
Timeline for requesting Due Process. The parent or LEA must request a due process hearing by filing a Due Process Hearing Request within two (2) years of the date to parent or the LEA knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the request. There are limited exceptions to this timeline. This timeline will not apply if the parent was prevented from filing a Due Process Hearing Request due to either (1) specific misrepresentations by the LEA that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the hearing request, or (2) the LEA's withholding of information from the parent that the LEA was required provide.
Filing and Service of the Due Process Hearing Request. The party requesting the hearing must send a copy of the Due Process Hearing Request to the other party and, at the same time, to the Office for Dispute Resolution by mail addressed to the Office for Dispute Resolution, 6340 Flank Drive, Suite 600, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112, or by electronic mail addressed to ODR.pattan.net, or by facsimile at (717) 657-5983.
Contents of Due Process Hearing Request. The Due Process Hearing Request must contain the following information:
1. The name of the child, the address where the child lives, and the name of the school the child is attending or, if the child is homeless, available contact information for the child and the name of the school the child is attending;
2. A description of the nature of the problem, including facts relating to such problem; and
3. A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party filing the Due Process Hearing Request.
Challenging Sufficiency of the Due Process Hearing Request. The Due Process Hearing Request will be considered to be sufficient unless the party receiving it notifies the Hearing Officer and the other party in writing within fifteen (15) days of receipt that the receiving party believes the Request does not meet the requirements listed above.
Response to Request. If the LEA has not sent a prior written notice, such as a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement, commonly referred to as a "NOREP", to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the parent's Due Process Hearing Request, the LEA must send to the parent, within ten (10) days of receiving the Due Process Hearing Request, a response including the following Information: (1) an explanation of why the LEA proposed or refused to take the action raised in the Hearing Request, (2) a description of other options the Individualized Education Program ("IEP") Team considered, if any, (3) and the reasons why those options were rejected, (4) a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the LEA used as the basis for the proposed or refused action and (5) a description of the factors that are relevant to the proposal or refusal. Filing this response to the parent's Due Process Hearing Request does not prevent the LEA from challenging the sufficiency of the Due Process Hearing Request. If it is the parent receiving the Due Process Hearing Request, then a response to the Due Process Hearing Request must be sent to the other side within ten (10) days of receipt of the request. The response should specifically address the issues raised in the Due Process Hearing Request.
Hearing Officer Determination of Sufficiency of the Due Process Hearing Request. Within five (5) days of receiving a party's challenge to the sufficiency of the Due Process Hearing Request, the Hearing Officer must make a determination based solely on the information contained within the Request whether the Request meets content requirements listed above. The Hearing Officer must immediately notify both parties in writing of his or her determination.
Subject Matter of the Hearing. The party requesting the due process hearing is not permitted to raise issues at the due process hearing that were not raised in the Due Process Hearing Request (or Amended Due Process Hearing Request) unless the other party agrees otherwise.
Resolution Session. Before a due process hearing can take place, the LEA must convene a preliminary meeting with the parent and the relevant member or members of the IEP Team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the Due Process Hearing Request in an attempt to resolve those issues without the need to proceed to a due process hearing. This meeting must be held unless the parent and the LEA agree, in writing, to waive this meeting, or agree to use the mediation process. This preliminary meeting must be convened within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the Due Process Hearing Request. A representative of the LEA who has decision-making authority must be present at this meeting. The LEA may not have an attorney attend the meeting, unless, the parent is also accompanied by an attorney. Parent advocates may attend the meeting. At the meeting, the parent will discuss the Due Process Hearing Request, and the LEA will be provided the opportunity to resolve the Due Process Hearing Request or agree to use the mediation process. If the parent and LEA resolve the issues in the Due Process Hearing Request at the preliminary meeting, they must put the agreement terms in writing, and both the parent and a representative of the LEA who has the authority to bind the LEA must sign the agreement. The agreement is a legally binding document and may be enforced by a court. Either the parent or LEA may void the agreement within three (3) business days of the date of the agreement. After three (3) business days, the agreement is binding on both parties.
Amended Due Process Hearing Request. Either the parent or a LEA may amend its Due Process Hearing Request only if the other party consents in writing to the amendment and is given the opportunity to resolve the issues raised in the Due Process Hearing Request through a resolution session, or the Hearing Officer grants permission for the party to amend the Due Process Hearing Request. However, the Hearing Officer may grant this permission not later than five (5) days before a due process hearing occurs.
Timeline for Completion of Due Process Hearing. If the LEA has not resolved the Due Process Hearing Request within thirty (30) days of receiving it, or within thirty (30) days of receiving the Amended Due Process Hearing Request the due process hearing may proceed and applicable timelines commence. The timeline for completion of due process hearings is forty-five (45) days, unless the Hearing Officer grants specific extensions of time at the request of either party.
Disclosure of Evaluations and Recommendations. Not less than five (5) business days prior to a due process hearing, each party must disclose to all other parties all evaluations completed by that date, and recommendations based on the offering party's evaluations that the party intends to use at the due process hearing. Failure to disclose this information may result in a Hearing Officer prohibiting the party from introducing the information at the hearing unless the other party consents to its introduction.
Due Process Hearing Rights. The hearing for a child with a disability or thought to have a disability must be conducted and held in the LEA at a place and time reasonably convenient to the parent and child involved. The hearing must be an oral, personal hearing and must be closed to the public unless the parent requests an open hearing. If the hearing is open, the decision issued in the case, and only the decision, will be available to the public. If the hearing is closed, the decision will be treated as a record of the child and may not be available to the public. The decision of the Hearing Officer must include findings of fact, discussion, and conclusions of law. Although technical rules of evidence will not be followed, the decision must be based upon substantial evidence presented at the hearing. A written or, at the option of the parent, electronic verbatim record of the hearing will be provided to the parent at no cost. Parents may be represented by legal counsel and accompanied and advised by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities. Parents or parent representatives must be given access to educational records, including any tests or reports upon which the proposed action is based. A party has the right to compel the attendance of and question witnesses who may have evidence upon which the proposed action might be based. A party has the right to present evidence and confront and cross-exam witnesses. A party has the right to present evidence and testimony, including expert medical, psychological, or educational testimony.
Decision of Hearing Officer. A decision made by a Hearing Officer must be made on substantive grounds, based upon a determination of whether the child received a FAPE. In disputes alleging procedural violations, a Hearing Officer may award remedies only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the child's right to a FAPE; significantly impeded the parents opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. A Hearing Officer may still order the LEA to comply with procedural requirements even if the Hearing Officer determines that the child received a FAPE. The parent may still file a Complaint with the Bureau of Special Education within the Pennsylvania Department of Education regarding procedural violations.
Civil Action. A party that disagrees with the findings and decision of the Hearing Officer has the right to file an appeal in state or federal court. In notifying the parties of the decision, the Hearing officer shall indicate the courts to which an appeal may be taken. The party filing an appeal is encouraged to seek legal counsel to determine the appropriate court with which to file an appeal. A party filing an appeal to state or federal court has ninety (90) days from the date of the decision to do so.
Attorney's Fees. A court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorney's fees to the parent of a child who is a prevailing party or to a State Educational Agency or LEA against the attorney of the parent who files a Due Process Hearing Request or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of the parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation; or to a prevailing State Educational Agency or LEA against the attorney of the parent, or against the parent, if the parent's Due Process Hearing Request or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Fees awarded will be based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quantity of attorney services furnished.
The federal law imposes certain requirements upon the parent and LEA and in some circumstances may limit attorney fee awards. Parents should consult with their legal counsel regarding these matters. The following rules apply: Attorney's fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement to the parent if the offer is made within the time prescribed by Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, or, in the case of an administrative hearing, at any time more than ten (10) days before the proceeding begins; the offer is not accepted within ten (10) days; and the court finds that the relief finally obtained by the parent is not more favorable to the parent than the offer of settlement. Attorney's fees may not be awarded for time spent attending any meeting of the IEP team unless the meeting is convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action. A due process resolution session is not considered to be a meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action, nor an administrative hearing or judicial action for purposes of reimbursing attorney's fees. The Court may reduce the amount of any attorney's fee award when: (a) the parent, or the parent's attorney, during the course of the action or proceeding unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy; (b) the amount of the attorney's fees otherwise authorized to be awarded unreasonably exceeds the hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, reputation, and experience; (c) the time spent and legal services furnished were excessive considering the nature of the action or proceeding; or (d) the attorney representing the parent did not provide to LEA the appropriate information in the Due Process Hearing Request. These reductions do not apply in any action or proceeding if the court finds that the State or LEA unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the action or proceeding.
Child's Status During Administrative Proceedings. Except for discipline cases, which have specific rules, while the due process case, including appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction, is pending, the child must remain in his or her present educational placement unless the parent and LEA or State agree otherwise. If the due process hearing involves an application for initial admission to public school, the child, with parental consent, must be placed in the public school program until completion of all the proceedings, unless the parent and LEA agree otherwise.
Private School Tuition Reimbursement. In some cases, parents of children who were identified by the public school as eligible for special education and related services and who received such services can recover in a due process hearing or from a court an award of private school tuition reimbursement. Parents can also receive such awards if their child was in need of special education and related services but were not offered such services in a timely manner. To obtain an award of tuition reimbursement, parents must notify their public school of their intent to enroll their child in a private school either verbally at the last IEP team meeting prior to withdrawing their child or in writing received by the public school at least ten days prior to the date on which the child is withdrawn from public school. Parents can obtain tuition only when they can prove at a special education due process hearing that (1) the public school failed to offer an appropriate program or placement to the child, (2) the parents therefore placed their child in a private school, and (3) the private school placement was proper. Tuition reimbursement awards can be denied or reduced if the parent' s behavior was improper or if the parents delay unreasonably in asserting a claim against the public school in a due process hearing. Such awards can also be denied or reduced if the parents fail to do one of the following: (1) notify the public school of their intent to place the child in a private school at the last IEP team meeting prior to the planned placement or (2) notify the public school in writing of their intent to place the student in a private school at least ten days before withdrawing the student for that purpose.
Mediation. Parties may agree to submit their dispute to the mediation process by requesting mediation from the Office for Dispute Resolution. Mediation may be requested in place of or in addition to a due process hearing. If a hearing is also requested, mediation cannot delay the scheduling of the due process hearing, unless the Hearing Officer grants a continuance for that purpose at the request of a party. An impartial, trained mediator facilitates the mediation process, which is scheduled at a time and location convenient to the parties. The parties are not permitted to have attorneys participate in the process. Any resolution reached through mediation must be reduced to writing, which will be binding on the parties.
Rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As noted above, some students with disabilities who are not in need of special education and related services are nevertheless entitled to adaptations and accommodations in their school program or in the physical environment of school buildings, grounds, vehicles, and equipment, when such adaptations or accommodations are required to enable the student to access and participate meaningfully in educational programming and extracurricular activities. Parents are entitled to a written description of the adaptations and accommodations that the public school is willing to offer. This written description is called a "service agreement" or "accommodation plan." The rights and protections described above under the headings "Notice," "Consent," "Protection in Evaluation Procedures," and "Maintenance of Placement" apply to students receiving adaptations and accommodations under Section 504. Parents who have complaints concerning the evaluation, program, placement, or provision of services to a student may request either an informal conference with the public school or a due process hearing. The hearing must be held before an impartial hearing officer at a time and location convenient to the parents. Parents have the right to request a free written or electronic transcript or recording of the proceedings, to present evidence and witnesses disclosed to the public school, to confront evidence and testimony presented by the public school, to review their child's complete educational record on request before the hearing, to receive a written decision from the hearing officer, and to be represented by counsel or an advocate of their choice. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the hearing officer to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Compliance Complaints. In addition to the above hearing rights, parents and others with complaints concerning the education of a child with disabilities or violations of rights guaranteed by either the IDEA or Section 504 may file complaints with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, which must investigate such complaints and issue written findings and conclusions. Information concerning such complaints can be obtained at the following address:
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Bureau of Special Education
Division of Compliance Monitoring and Planning
333 Market Street, 7th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
(800) 879-2301
Notice of Services for Gifted Students
While "gifted" is not one of the "disabilities" required under the Federal IDEA legislation, the State Board of Education's regulations as set forth in 22 Pa. Code Chapter 16 - Special Education for Gifted Students, provides recognition that gifted students are considered to be "children with exceptionalities" under the Public School Code of 1949 and are in need of special designed instruction.
What is the school district's responsibility for identifying children of school age who have gifted abilities?
A district shall conduct public awareness activities to inform the public of gifted education services and programs and the manner by which to request these services and programs. These awareness activities shall be designed to reach parents of students enrolled in the public schools.
(22 Pa. Code§ 16.21(b))
How do the public schools screen and evaluate children to determine eligibility for gifted education and services?
Screening:
Chapter 16 requires that "Each school district shall adopt and use a system to locate and identify all students within the district who are thought to be gifted and in need of specially designed instruction."
"Each school district shall determine the student's needs through a screening and evaluation process which meets the requirements of this chapter."(22 Pa. Code § 1621(a)(c))
Screening is a two-step process. The first step is a systematic "first look" at all students and the second step is a more intense review of potentially gifted students. The screening procedures should generate data from a variety of sources, which should be, compared to a predetermined multiple criteria for gifted potential/performance. Students who are thought to be gifted should be referred for a Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation that would include an IQ test.
Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation:
For students who are potentially gifted students, the district should perform the following steps:
" Conduct the Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation
" Compile a Gifted Written Report
" Convene a Gifted Individualized Education program team meeting to determine whether the student is gifted; and,
" Develop a Gifted Individualized Education program if the student is a gifted student.
Parents may, in writing, request a Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation (GMDE) once per school year. When a parent's request for a GMDE is received by the school district, the evaluation must be completed with regulatory timelines. The timeline begins from the date the school district receives the signed Permission to Evaluate from the parent. If a parent makes a verbal request for an evaluation, the school district must tell parents to put their request in writing and must provide a form for that purpose.
The process shall include information from the parent or others who interact with the student on a regular basis and may include information from the student
The process may not use one test or type of test, as the sole criterion for determining that a student is/is not exceptional.
The process may not use intelligence test yielding an IQ score as the only measure of aptitude for students of limited English proficiency, or for students of racial, linguistic or ethnic minority background.
Test and similar evaluation materials that are used to determine giftedness must be:
" Selected and administered in a manner that is free from racial and cultural bias and bias based on disability,
" Selected and administered so that test results accurately reflect the student's aptitude, achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure,
" Professionally validated for the specific purpose for which they are used,
" Administered by certified school psychologist under instructions provided by the producer of the tests and sound professional practice,
" Selected and administered to assess specific areas of educational need and ability and not merely a single general IQ.
(22 Pa. Code§ 16.22(g)(3)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv), and (v))
Independent Evaluations:
Parents, at their own expense, may obtain an independent evaluation by a certified school psychologist. The school district is required to consider this information when making decisions regarding student identification. (22 Pa. Code § 16.61(e)(3))
Dual Exceptionalities:
If a student is both gifted and eligible for special education, the procedures in Chapter 14 shall take precedence. For these students identified with dual exceptionalities, the needs established under the gifted status must be fully addressed in the procedures required in Chapter 14. ( 22 Pa. Code § 16.7(b))
For students who are gifted and eligible for special education, it is not necessary for school districts to conduct separate screening and evaluations, develop separate IEPs, or use separate procedural safeguards processes to provide for a student's needs as both a gifted and eligible student. (22 Pa. Code § 16.7(c))
Gifted Written Report (GWR)
The Gifted Multidisciplinary Team must prepare a written report that brings together the information and findings from the evaluation or reevaluation concerning the student's educational needs and strengths. The report must make recommendations as to whether the student is gifted and in need of specially designed instruction, must indicate the basis for those recommendations, and must indicate the names and positions of the members of the team. (22 Pa. Code§16.22 (h))
Gifted Individual Education Program (GIEP)
A Gifted Individual Education Program is a written plan describing the education to be provided to a gifted student. The initial plan shall be based on and responsive to the results of the evaluation and shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Chapter 16. (22 Pa. Code § 16.31 (a))
The Gifted IEP should reflect the needs of the student. The needs of the culturally diverse, disadvantaged, underachieving, female, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities who may also be gifted may require different assessment and attention to their multiple special needs in the development of the GIEP. There should be a description of the student's present educational levels and other information necessary to develop appropriate goals and outcomes by subject area to provide acceleration, enrichment, or both as needed. The student's placement must provide an instructional environment that can meet the accelerated learning needs and enrichment needs of the gifted student and must be documented in the GIEP.
The writing of the GIEP is a duty of the school district. To foster discussion and understanding, school districts are encouraged to compose GIEPs that are understandable to educators who will be delivering the GIEP, to parents to ensure the student's active participation and understanding of the gifted education program that will be delivered and, where appropriate, to the student.
Notice of Recommended Assignment
A Notice of Recommended Assignment (NORA) must be completed at the conclusion of each GIEP review and any time that a significant change has been made to the GIEP. (22 Pa. Code §16.61 (2))
Student Relocation
If a student moves from one school district in the Commonwealth to another, the new district must implement the existing GIEP to the extent possible or must provide the services and programs specified in an interim GIEP agreed to by the parents until a new GIEP is developed and implemented. (22 Pa. Code § 16.31 (b))
Educational Placement
Chapter 16 requires that the educational placement of gifted school-age exceptional students in Pennsylvania includes specially designed instruction that is individualized to include acceleration, enrichment or both as appropriate. (22 Pa. Code § 16.2 (d)(3), §16.41 (b)(3))
Districts may use administrative and instructional strategies and techniques in the provision of gifted education for gifted students which do not require, but which may include, the categorical grouping of students. The placements must:
" Enable the provision of appropriate specially designed instruction based on the student's need and ability §16.41 (b)(1))
" Ensure that the student is able to benefit meaningfully from the rate, level, and manner of instruction §16.41 (b)(2))
" Provide opportunities to participate in acceleration or enrichment, or both, as appropriate for the student's need. These opportunities must go beyond the program that the student would receive as a part of the general education. (22 Pa. Code §16.41 (b)(1),(2), and (3))
Notices
The school must comply with the written notice and consent requirements under 22 Pa. Code §16.61 and §16.62. Written notices are required 10 school days prior to:
" Conducting a gifted multidisciplinary evaluation or reevaluation (22 Pa. Code § 16.61 (a)(1))
" Initiating, changing or refusing to initiate or change identification, evaluation or placement (22 Pa. Code § 16.61 (a)(2))
" Making or refusing to make any significant changes in the GIEP (22 Pa. Code § 16.61 (a)(2))
Content of Notices must be:
" Written in language understandable to the general public
" Communicated orally in native language or directly so parents understand the content of the notices (22 Pa. Code §16.61 (c))
Written Parental Consent Must Be Obtained Prior to:
" Conducting an initial multidisciplinary evaluation (22 Pa. Code §16.62 (1))
" Placing a gifted student in a gifted program (22 Pa. Code §16.62 (2))
" Disclosing to unauthorized persons information identifiable to a gifted student (22 Pa. Code §16.62 (3))
" Placing a student in the recommended assignment (22 Pa. Code §16.62 (4))
Timelines
The Gifted Multidisciplinary Evaluation must be completed within 45 school days after receiving parental permission for an initial evaluation or after notifying the parents of a reevaluation or after receiving an order of a court or hearing officer to conduct a multidisciplinary evaluation.
The Gifted Written Report must be written within 10 school days after the evaluation report is completed, and a copy of the Gifted Written Report must be given to parents within 5 school days after it is completed. (22 Pa. Code § 16.22 (j)(1)(2)(3))
The Invitation to the Gifted IEP meeting must be sent 10 calendar days before the Gifted IEP meeting. (22 Pa. Code §16.2 (d)(6))
A Notice of Recommended Assignment is presented to parents at the Gifted IEP meeting or by certified mail within 5 calendar days after the completion of the Gifted IEP meeting. (22 Pa. Code § 16.2 (f) and §16.62 (4))
The Gifted IEP must be completed within 30 calendar days after the Gifted Written Report is written. (22 Pa. Code § 16.2 (g)(1))
The Gifted IEP must be implemented no more than 10 school days after it is signed or the start of the following school year if the GIEP was developed fewer than 30 days prior to the last day of the school year. (22 Pa. Code §16.2 (g)(2))
Private School Placement
Parents may choose to have their gifted child educated at a private school completely at private expense. (22 Pa. Code §16.42 (a))
The parent may choose a home program for the gifted student. If a home program is chosen, Sections 1327 and 1327.1 of the School Code (24 P.S. §§13-1327 and 1327.1) govern the provisions of the gifted student's education. (22 Pa. Code §16.42(b))
A child can be identified as both a child with a disability and mentally gifted. In such cases, the rights of the child and his or her parents are governed by the rules applicable to children with disabilities and their parents, as described above.
Student Records
The public schools of Bucks County maintain records concerning all children enrolled in public school, including students with disabilities. Records containing personally identifiable information about or related to children with disabilities could include, but are not limited to, cumulative grade reports, discipline records, enrollment and attendance records, health records, individualized education programs, notices of recommended assignment, notices of intent to evaluate and reevaluate, comprehensive evaluation reports, other evaluation reports by public school staff and by outside evaluators, work samples, test data, data entered into the Penn Data system, correspondence between school staff and home, instructional support team documents, referral data, memoranda, and other education-related documents. Records can be maintained on paper, on microfiche, on audio or videotape, and electronically. Records can be located in the central administrative offices of the public school, the administrative offices of the Bucks County Intermediate Unit, the school building or building at which the student attended or attends school, private schools and facilities at which the public school has placed the child for educational purposes, central storage facilities and electronic storage systems, and in the secure possession of teachers, building administrators, specialists, psychologists, counselors, and other school staff with a legitimate educational interest in the information contained therein. All records are maintained in the strictest confidentiality.
Records are maintained as long as they remain educationally relevant. The purposes of collecting and maintaining records are (1) to ensure that the child receives programs and services consistent with his or her IEP; (2) to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of programming for the child; (3) to document for the public school and the parents that the student is making meaningful progress; (4) to satisfy the requirements of state and federal agencies who have an interest in inspecting or reviewing documents concerning particular students or groups of students for purposes of compliance monitoring, complaint investigation, and fiscal and program audits; and (5) to inform future programming for and evaluations of the child. When educational records, other than those, which must be maintained, are no longer educationally relevant, the public school must so notify the parents in writing and may destroy the records or, at the request of the parents, must destroy them. Public schools are not required to destroy records that are no longer educationally relevant unless the parents so request in writing.
Parent consent. Parent consent is required in writing prior to the release of any personally identifiable information concerning a child with disabilities. Parent consent is not required, however, prior to the release of information (1) to a hearing officer in a special education due process hearing; (2) to public school staff and contractors with a legitimate educational interest in the information; (3) to officials or staff of other schools and school systems at which the student is enrolled or intends to enroll; (4) to federal or state education officials and agencies and to the Comptroller of the United States; (5) to accrediting organizations to carry out their accrediting functions; (6) to comply with a lawful subpoena or judicial order; (7) in conjunction with a health or safety emergency to the extent necessary to protect the health and safety of the child or others; or (8) that the public schools have designated as "directory information." Disclosure without consent of the parent is subject to certain conditions more fully described in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C § 1332g, and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.
Parent access. Upon submitting a request to do so in writing, parents have the right to access the educational records of their child within forty-five days or before any due process hearing or IEP team meeting, whichever is sooner. Access entitles the parent to the following: (1) an explanation and interpretation of the records by public school personnel; (2) copies of the records if providing copies is the only means by which the parent can effectively exercise his or her right of inspection and review; and (3) inspection and review of the records by a representative of the parent's choosing upon presentation to the records custodian of a written authorization from the parent. The public school may charge a fee not to exceed its actual costs for copying records.
"Directory information." Public school entities designate certain kinds of information as "directory information." The public schools of Bucks County typically designate the following as "directory information": (1) the name, address, telephone number, and photographs of the child; (2) the date and place of birth of the child; (3) participation in school clubs and extracurricular activities; (4) weight and height of members of athletic teams; (5) dates of attendance; (6) diplomas and awards received; (7) the most recent previous institution or school attended by the child; and (8) names of parents, siblings, and other family members. The District will provide this information to any interested person, including armed forces recruiters who request it, without seeking consent from the parents of the student or the student. Parents who do not want the District to disclose such information must so notify the District in writing on or before the first day of the school term. Written notice must identify the specific types of directory information that the parent does not want the District to disclose without consent. If the parent fails to notify the District in writing by the first day of the school term, the District may release directory information upon request and without consent.
Disclosure of records containing personally identifiable information to other schools and institutions. Public school entities disclose personally identifiable information concerning students to educational agencies or institutions at which the student seeks to enroll, intends to enroll, or is enrolled, or from which the student receives services, when that agency or institution requests such records.
Access to records by school officials with a "legitimate educational interest." School officials with a legitimate educational interest in the personally-identifiable information contained in education records can have access to personally identifiable information without parent or student consent. Each school entity designates in its education records policy those persons who have a "legitimate educational interest" that would allow such access to education records. Such persons typically include teachers of the child, building administrators, guidance counselors to whom the child is assigned, members of instructional support and multidisciplinary teams in the course of screening and evaluation activities, records custodians and clerks, public school administrators with responsibility for programs in which the student is enrolled or intends to be enrolled, school board members sitting in executive session in consideration of matters concerning the child upon which only the school board can act, program specialists and instructional aides working with the child, therapeutic staff working with the child, and substitutes for any of the foregoing persons
Amendment of education records. After reviewing records, a parent or a student who has attained the age of 18 can request that records be amended. The school will make the requested changes or reject the request within forty-five days of the receipt of the request in writing. If the school rejects the request, the parent or student may request an informal hearing. The hearing can be held before any public school official who does not have a direct interest in its outcome. If the parents are dissatisfied with the outcome of the informal hearing, they may submit to the public school a statement outlining their disagreement with the record. The school thereafter must attach a copy of that statement to all copies of the record disclosed to third parties.
Complaints to the United States Department of Education. Complaints concerning alleged failure of a public school entity to comply with the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act may be addressed to the United States Department of Education as follows:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202-4605
This notice is only a summary of the special education services, evaluation and screening activities, and rights and protections pertaining to children with disabilities, children thought to be disabled, and their parents. For more information or to request evaluation or screening of a public or private school child contact the responsible Bucks County School entity listed below. For preschool age children, information, screenings and evaluations requested, may be obtained by contacting the Bucks County Intermediate Unit. The addresses of these schools are as follows:
Bucks County Intermediate Unit Council Rock School District
Early Intervention Services Administrative and Business Office
705 Shady Retreat Road 30 N. Chancellor Street
Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901-2501 Newtown, PA 18940
(215) 348-2940 or 1-800-770-4822 (215) 944-1000
Bensalem Township School District Morrisville School District
Dorothy D. Call District Office
Administrative Center West Palmer Street
3000 Donallen Drive Morrisville, PA 19067-2195
Bensalem, PA 19020 (215) 736-2681
(215) 750-2800
Bristol Borough School District Neshaminy School District
District Office 2001 Old Lincoln Highway
420 Buckley Street Langhorne, PA 19047
Bristol, PA 19007 (215) 809-6000
(215) 781-1000
Bristol Township School District New Hope-Solebury School District
Administration Building Administration Office
6401 Mill Creek Road 180 W. Bridge Street
Levittown, PA 19057-3200 New Hope, PA 18938
(215) 943-3200 (215) 862-2552
Centennial School District Palisades School District
Administration Building District Office Building
433 Centennial Road 39 Thomas Free Drive
Warminster, PA 18974 Kintnersville, PA 18930
(215) 441-6000 (610) 845-5131
Central Bucks School District Pennridge School District
Administrative Offices Education Center
16 Welden Drive 1506 N. Fifth Street
Doylestown, PA 18901-2501 Perkasie, PA 18944-2295
267-893-2000 (215) 257-5011
Pennsbury School District Quakertown School District
Pennsbury Central Office Administrative Office
134 Yardley Avenue 600 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 338 Quakertown, PA 18951-1588
Fallsington, PA 19058-0038 215-529-2000
(215) 428-4100
Bucks County Montessori School
219 Tyburn Road
Fariless Hills, PA 19030
(215) 547-5230
School Lane Charter School
2400 Bristol Pike
Bensalem, PA 19020
(215) 245-6055
Center for Student Learning
134 Yardley Avenue
PO Box 338
Fallsington, PA 19058
(215) 428-4100 ext. 66100
The Bucks County Intermediate Unit will not discriminate in employment, educational programs, or activities based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap, creed, marital status or because a person is a disabled veteran or a veteran of the Vietnam era. No preschool, elementary or secondary school pupil enrolled in an Intermediate Unit program shall be denied equal opportunity to participate in age and program appropriate instruction or activities due to race, color, handicap, creed, national origin, marital status or financial hardship.
Appeared in: Bucks County Courier Times on Friday, 09/26/2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"The schools need to be renewed to attract new residents."
From the Norristown Times Herald. I wonder if anyone from the Morrisville Borough Council or the Morrisville School Board would attend or host a similar conference right here at home.
Event to address suburban issues
CARL ROTENBERG, Times Herald Staff, 09/27/2008
NORRISTOWN - The problems of ever-increasing school budgets, crumbling water and sewer infrastructure and blighted housing in the Philadelphia suburbs will be addressed Sunday afternoon in a unique "First Suburbs" public forum at St. Patrick's R.C. Church.
The 4 to 6 p.m. public program will feature Gov. Ed Rendell with 600 elected and appointed officials from Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Delaware counties. It is free and open to the public, but requires pre-registration.
A coalition of clergy and public officials organized the agenda to address problems specific to the first-ring suburbs adjacent to Philadelphia.
John McKelligott, the former school board president of William Penn School District in eastern Delaware County, will talk about reducing unfunded state and federal mandates for local school districts while increasing the funding base for schools.
"This is about fighting blight and preventing blight in the older suburbs. One prime issue are the financially burdensome school districts that cost more than the residents can pay," McKelligott said. "The schools need to be renewed to attract new residents."
McKelligott praised Rendell's education budget for making the school funding system "reasonable and equitable."
"We need to proceed with this school financing going forward," he said. "We need to diminish the excessive property tax burden on older communities."
McKelligott argued that because school taxes are a big chunk of the total tax burden it inhibits township government from creating innovative programs.
"The First Suburbs program will present our needs and our petitions to significant state legislators and public officials," McKelligott said.
Several area state representatives are slated to attend the forum.
State Rep. Jay Moyer, R-70th Dist., said he was in agreement with the First Suburbs agenda and will attend.
"I'm in synch with what they want to do. The revitalization of Norristown is one of my top priority items," Moyer said.
"On the school finance reform, I was proud to vote for the additional $1.5 million for the Norristown Area School District," Moyer said. "We changed the formula around and the governor agreed."
Moyer will support a $100 million earmark from the federal government for water and sewer repairs in Pennsylvania.
"I've been working with (Sen.) Arlen Specter's office on this," Moyer said.
David Forrest, the Norristown Municipal Administrator, is looking forward to the forum.
"The aim of the project is to bring all the community leaders together to identify the challenges we all have in common and ask our legislative leaders to support us in addressing those challenges," Forrest said.
"We've gotten over 400 people who have pre-registered," Forrest said. "We're expecting at least 200 on Sunday who have not registered yet."
Father William Murphy of St. Patrick's Church, said the church hierarchy had decided to host the event "because it will bring together people of different faiths and anyone interested in the welfare of Norristown."
Montgomery County Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III, state Rep. Lawrence Curry, D-154th Dist., and eight state senators and representatives from neighboring districts will attend the forum.
The William Penn Foundation and several charitable organizations are sponsoring the forum.
"After this convention we'll come away with a work plan to put this into action," said Alison Murawski, the communications manager of Good Schools Pennsylvania. "We will see more gatherings of this organization and discussions on how we will roll out this agenda."
Event to address suburban issues
CARL ROTENBERG, Times Herald Staff, 09/27/2008
NORRISTOWN - The problems of ever-increasing school budgets, crumbling water and sewer infrastructure and blighted housing in the Philadelphia suburbs will be addressed Sunday afternoon in a unique "First Suburbs" public forum at St. Patrick's R.C. Church.
The 4 to 6 p.m. public program will feature Gov. Ed Rendell with 600 elected and appointed officials from Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Delaware counties. It is free and open to the public, but requires pre-registration.
A coalition of clergy and public officials organized the agenda to address problems specific to the first-ring suburbs adjacent to Philadelphia.
John McKelligott, the former school board president of William Penn School District in eastern Delaware County, will talk about reducing unfunded state and federal mandates for local school districts while increasing the funding base for schools.
"This is about fighting blight and preventing blight in the older suburbs. One prime issue are the financially burdensome school districts that cost more than the residents can pay," McKelligott said. "The schools need to be renewed to attract new residents."
McKelligott praised Rendell's education budget for making the school funding system "reasonable and equitable."
"We need to proceed with this school financing going forward," he said. "We need to diminish the excessive property tax burden on older communities."
McKelligott argued that because school taxes are a big chunk of the total tax burden it inhibits township government from creating innovative programs.
"The First Suburbs program will present our needs and our petitions to significant state legislators and public officials," McKelligott said.
Several area state representatives are slated to attend the forum.
State Rep. Jay Moyer, R-70th Dist., said he was in agreement with the First Suburbs agenda and will attend.
"I'm in synch with what they want to do. The revitalization of Norristown is one of my top priority items," Moyer said.
"On the school finance reform, I was proud to vote for the additional $1.5 million for the Norristown Area School District," Moyer said. "We changed the formula around and the governor agreed."
Moyer will support a $100 million earmark from the federal government for water and sewer repairs in Pennsylvania.
"I've been working with (Sen.) Arlen Specter's office on this," Moyer said.
David Forrest, the Norristown Municipal Administrator, is looking forward to the forum.
"The aim of the project is to bring all the community leaders together to identify the challenges we all have in common and ask our legislative leaders to support us in addressing those challenges," Forrest said.
"We've gotten over 400 people who have pre-registered," Forrest said. "We're expecting at least 200 on Sunday who have not registered yet."
Father William Murphy of St. Patrick's Church, said the church hierarchy had decided to host the event "because it will bring together people of different faiths and anyone interested in the welfare of Norristown."
Montgomery County Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III, state Rep. Lawrence Curry, D-154th Dist., and eight state senators and representatives from neighboring districts will attend the forum.
The William Penn Foundation and several charitable organizations are sponsoring the forum.
"After this convention we'll come away with a work plan to put this into action," said Alison Murawski, the communications manager of Good Schools Pennsylvania. "We will see more gatherings of this organization and discussions on how we will roll out this agenda."
From High School to the Workforce
From the Inquirer
Philly-area program moves students to workforce
RACHEL CANELLI
The Associated Press Posted on Sat, Sep. 27, 2008
NEWTOWN, Pa. - As Max Clamper sat waiting for the interviewer to call his name, he lightly patted his hands against his legs in an anxious rhythm.
"Don't be nervous," he told himself as he took a deep breath to relax, and comforted himself with words of wisdom. "Speak with confidence. Give a firm handshake; otherwise it'll be like a dead fish. Sit up straight and try not to repeat yourself."
To 20-year-old Max, the meeting wasn't just about a post, or a paycheck. It was about self-sufficiency.
"I'm praying I get the job," said Max as his dark, wide eyes smiled through his thin glasses. That's why he's been getting some extra help to prepare for the working world.
A former Council Rock High School South student, Max is one of several teens and young adults enrolled in the Council Rock Educational Center's office skills training program.
Located in an office building in Newtown Township, the course is run by the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22. It's a transition for participants who've moved beyond their respective school or district's special education program, administrators said.
"This is about more than just getting a job , it's about keeping one," said lead teacher Christopher Polzer. "School is much different than work. That's why we emphasize social aspects like team-building, working together, and realizing their strengths and weaknesses."
Several districts, including Council Rock, Neshaminy, Pennsbury and Bristol Borough, feed into the program, which serves 18- to 21-year-olds, Polzer added.
Besides practicing interviewing skills, the students learn about dress codes, making eye contact, hooking up computers to the Internet and phrases like "rolling with the punches" and "tooting your own horn."
"They're good workers," said Joyce Mosticchio, job developer and trainer. "It's all about gaining independence."
The men and women also receive work experience from various training sites around the county like the I.U., Mosticchio said.
"This program is fabulous because it gets you out there and ready for the outside world," said Clamper. "I'm a very knowledgeable kid, but my goal is to live on my own. And maybe drive a car in the next 10 years."
While Max was rehearsing questions to ask his interviewers, he found out that he's now one step closer to those goals , he got a job with the I.U.
Philly-area program moves students to workforce
RACHEL CANELLI
The Associated Press Posted on Sat, Sep. 27, 2008
NEWTOWN, Pa. - As Max Clamper sat waiting for the interviewer to call his name, he lightly patted his hands against his legs in an anxious rhythm.
"Don't be nervous," he told himself as he took a deep breath to relax, and comforted himself with words of wisdom. "Speak with confidence. Give a firm handshake; otherwise it'll be like a dead fish. Sit up straight and try not to repeat yourself."
To 20-year-old Max, the meeting wasn't just about a post, or a paycheck. It was about self-sufficiency.
"I'm praying I get the job," said Max as his dark, wide eyes smiled through his thin glasses. That's why he's been getting some extra help to prepare for the working world.
A former Council Rock High School South student, Max is one of several teens and young adults enrolled in the Council Rock Educational Center's office skills training program.
Located in an office building in Newtown Township, the course is run by the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22. It's a transition for participants who've moved beyond their respective school or district's special education program, administrators said.
"This is about more than just getting a job , it's about keeping one," said lead teacher Christopher Polzer. "School is much different than work. That's why we emphasize social aspects like team-building, working together, and realizing their strengths and weaknesses."
Several districts, including Council Rock, Neshaminy, Pennsbury and Bristol Borough, feed into the program, which serves 18- to 21-year-olds, Polzer added.
Besides practicing interviewing skills, the students learn about dress codes, making eye contact, hooking up computers to the Internet and phrases like "rolling with the punches" and "tooting your own horn."
"They're good workers," said Joyce Mosticchio, job developer and trainer. "It's all about gaining independence."
The men and women also receive work experience from various training sites around the county like the I.U., Mosticchio said.
"This program is fabulous because it gets you out there and ready for the outside world," said Clamper. "I'm a very knowledgeable kid, but my goal is to live on my own. And maybe drive a car in the next 10 years."
While Max was rehearsing questions to ask his interviewers, he found out that he's now one step closer to those goals , he got a job with the I.U.
Obama-McCain on education
From the Harrisburg Patriot News/pennlive.com
Both want more school accountability
Sunday, September 28, 2008
BY JAN MURPHY
Of The Patriot-News
When it comes to educating children in classrooms, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama have presented voters with a clear choice on some key issues.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, supports school vouchers that would give parents money to move their children to a better performing school.
Obama, his Democratic opponent, generally doesn't support vouchers. But he is supportive of charter schools and putting federal aid into expanding public school options.
Obama wants the federal government to fully fund the No Child Left Behind law, which seeks to bring all students to math and reading proficiency in six years. Many educators say the government hasn't provided the money to meet the law's requirements.
McCain would prefer to build on No Child Left Behind and direct some money now going to schools directly to students for tutoring.
Obama wants to move toward voluntary universal preschool, a goal shared by Gov. Ed Rendell. McCain looks to expand Head Start, a federally funded preschool program for low-income children.
But the two candidates hold similar views on other issues.
Both call for increased accountability measures on failing schools. Obama advocates meaningful report cards on their children's progress. McCain speaks of giving school principals greater control of funds and holding them accountable for raising student achievement.
Both candidates want to reward top teachers and those who take jobs in urban areas. Both speak of increasing the number of charter schools. Both have called for stepping up federal support of special education, which Pennsylvania has sought for years.
Obama's plan, laid out over 20 pages, invests heavily in early education and school readiness and extends to higher education, where he offers $4,000 in exchange for community service.
McCain's nine-page plan invests far less new money in educational programs, redirects aid to individuals rather than institutions, and targets $500 million of current funds to build virtual schools and develop online courses.
His virtual-school program and Obama's innovative-schools fund could help Pennsylvania, which recently launched a study of creating a state-run virtual high school.
To people such as Jim Testerman, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the choice as to which would be better for Pennsylvania is clear. It's Obama all the way.
"McCain's answer to everything is privatize it," Testerman said. "He really has no interest in taking public education and improving it. His interest is in just destroying it and let the wealthy kids go to private schools."
Obama wants to restructure the weakest parts of No Child Left Behind such as removing the emphasis of punishing underperforming schools and assessing students beyond just math and reading tests. Testerman likes Obama's emphasis on small class sizes and early education, both initiatives that Rendell has promoted. And he favors Obama's support for providing more aid for college.
McCain is the obvious choice to Eugene Hickok, a former state education secretary and a former political science professor at Dickinson College in Carlisle.
"If I had to summarize McCain's approach, it really is about empowering families, empowering students, empowering teachers as opposed to funding the system," Hickok said. "That doesn't mean he's against funding the system, but his argument is we need to rethink the system."
Goldsboro parent Gale Mitchell, a registered Democrat, said she is torn about which candidate to support when it comes to education.
"With all this economic situation, I don't know that either of them will be able to deliver on what they are saying they can do," she said.
No Child Left Behind
Parents and educators interviewed for this story agreed that President Bush's signature education law has done some good. It has forced districts to examine the performance of all students, including those with special needs or limited English proficiency.
"But kids are being tested to death. It's just crazy," said Cheryl Desmond, a Millersville University education professor. Neither of the candidates is "really looking at what No Child Left Behind has done to schools in terms of the emphasis on these incredibly high-stakes tests."
Kathy Swope, the president of the Lewisburg Area School Board, has two complaints about the law: the penalties that schools face if they don't improve -- such as leadership changes -- and the law's failure to recognize special-education students' circumstances. She said she has yet to hear what the candidates would do to address them.
Swope dislikes McCain's plan to pay parents directly for tutoring instead of giving it to schools, which takes away schools' control while still holding them accountable for student learning. She is not enthralled with the targeted funding that both candidates espouse.
"Neither platform ... [allows] individual districts the opportunity to tell the federal government what our needs are and funding those needs. That concerns me," said Swope, an undecided Republican.
School choice
The willingness of Obama and McCain to support options to traditional public schools delights Larry Jones, president of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Charter Schools.
"I think Senator Obama and Senator McCain both are showing school choice does not have to be an enemy of public schools. It can actually be one of the saving graces," said Jones, CEO of the Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School in Philadelphia.
Jones, a Democrat, said he can see a distinction between the two candidates' views.
Obama supports public school choice, particularly in underperforming districts. He advocates creating a fund to help states and districts create public school options such as charter schools, theme-based schools and career academies that could be partially supported with private sources.
McCain embraces public and private school choice, including school vouchers.
"Parents deserve a choice in the education of their children," McCain said at the Republican convention. "And I intend to give it to them."
None of this school choice sounds good to Kim Loch, a parent of three children in the West Shore School District.
"It doesn't fix what's wrong with our public schools," said Loch, a registered Republican. "It leaves kids who don't have an option in failing schools."
Susan Haesseler, dean of Messiah College's School of Education and Social Sciences, said her concern over school choice is the heavy reliance on parents to know what choices are available.
"These are very challenging issues for parents for whom English is not their first language, who are living in poverty," Haesseler said. "I haven't seen how either candidate addresses that."
Desmond said that most vouchers fall short of covering private schools' tuition.
"It couldn't be extended to every child unless John McCain really wanted to fully fund that," Desmond said. "But he is interested in reducing government spending, so it doesn't make sense."
Affording college
McCain wants to provide tax incentives for families to save for college. Obama would provide a $4,000 refundable credit for students who commit to 100 hours of public service a year.
McCain calls for consolidating some federal aid programs to make paying for college less complex. Obama proposes to do this by simplifying the process of applying for federal student aid by allowing families to check a box on their federal income tax forms.
Some financial aid officers said this might complicate the process of applying for state and college aid programs, which rely on the federal student aid form.
Mitchell, a mother of a high school student and two college students, said neither is proposing what she wants to see -- having all the money available to pay for college in one place.
"You hear that there's all this money out there that goes unused every year," she said. "We've been looking and looking and looking and can't find it."
JAN MURPHY: 232-0668 or jmurphy@patriot-news.com
A SERIES OF ISSUES
Starting today and on the next four Sundays, The Patriot-News will look at key issue in the presidential election and how they affect you. TODAY: Education Oct. 5: National security Oct. 12: Economy Oct. 19: Energy Oct. 26: Health care
Both want more school accountability
Sunday, September 28, 2008
BY JAN MURPHY
Of The Patriot-News
When it comes to educating children in classrooms, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama have presented voters with a clear choice on some key issues.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, supports school vouchers that would give parents money to move their children to a better performing school.
Obama, his Democratic opponent, generally doesn't support vouchers. But he is supportive of charter schools and putting federal aid into expanding public school options.
Obama wants the federal government to fully fund the No Child Left Behind law, which seeks to bring all students to math and reading proficiency in six years. Many educators say the government hasn't provided the money to meet the law's requirements.
McCain would prefer to build on No Child Left Behind and direct some money now going to schools directly to students for tutoring.
Obama wants to move toward voluntary universal preschool, a goal shared by Gov. Ed Rendell. McCain looks to expand Head Start, a federally funded preschool program for low-income children.
But the two candidates hold similar views on other issues.
Both call for increased accountability measures on failing schools. Obama advocates meaningful report cards on their children's progress. McCain speaks of giving school principals greater control of funds and holding them accountable for raising student achievement.
Both candidates want to reward top teachers and those who take jobs in urban areas. Both speak of increasing the number of charter schools. Both have called for stepping up federal support of special education, which Pennsylvania has sought for years.
Obama's plan, laid out over 20 pages, invests heavily in early education and school readiness and extends to higher education, where he offers $4,000 in exchange for community service.
McCain's nine-page plan invests far less new money in educational programs, redirects aid to individuals rather than institutions, and targets $500 million of current funds to build virtual schools and develop online courses.
His virtual-school program and Obama's innovative-schools fund could help Pennsylvania, which recently launched a study of creating a state-run virtual high school.
To people such as Jim Testerman, president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the choice as to which would be better for Pennsylvania is clear. It's Obama all the way.
"McCain's answer to everything is privatize it," Testerman said. "He really has no interest in taking public education and improving it. His interest is in just destroying it and let the wealthy kids go to private schools."
Obama wants to restructure the weakest parts of No Child Left Behind such as removing the emphasis of punishing underperforming schools and assessing students beyond just math and reading tests. Testerman likes Obama's emphasis on small class sizes and early education, both initiatives that Rendell has promoted. And he favors Obama's support for providing more aid for college.
McCain is the obvious choice to Eugene Hickok, a former state education secretary and a former political science professor at Dickinson College in Carlisle.
"If I had to summarize McCain's approach, it really is about empowering families, empowering students, empowering teachers as opposed to funding the system," Hickok said. "That doesn't mean he's against funding the system, but his argument is we need to rethink the system."
Goldsboro parent Gale Mitchell, a registered Democrat, said she is torn about which candidate to support when it comes to education.
"With all this economic situation, I don't know that either of them will be able to deliver on what they are saying they can do," she said.
No Child Left Behind
Parents and educators interviewed for this story agreed that President Bush's signature education law has done some good. It has forced districts to examine the performance of all students, including those with special needs or limited English proficiency.
"But kids are being tested to death. It's just crazy," said Cheryl Desmond, a Millersville University education professor. Neither of the candidates is "really looking at what No Child Left Behind has done to schools in terms of the emphasis on these incredibly high-stakes tests."
Kathy Swope, the president of the Lewisburg Area School Board, has two complaints about the law: the penalties that schools face if they don't improve -- such as leadership changes -- and the law's failure to recognize special-education students' circumstances. She said she has yet to hear what the candidates would do to address them.
Swope dislikes McCain's plan to pay parents directly for tutoring instead of giving it to schools, which takes away schools' control while still holding them accountable for student learning. She is not enthralled with the targeted funding that both candidates espouse.
"Neither platform ... [allows] individual districts the opportunity to tell the federal government what our needs are and funding those needs. That concerns me," said Swope, an undecided Republican.
School choice
The willingness of Obama and McCain to support options to traditional public schools delights Larry Jones, president of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Charter Schools.
"I think Senator Obama and Senator McCain both are showing school choice does not have to be an enemy of public schools. It can actually be one of the saving graces," said Jones, CEO of the Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School in Philadelphia.
Jones, a Democrat, said he can see a distinction between the two candidates' views.
Obama supports public school choice, particularly in underperforming districts. He advocates creating a fund to help states and districts create public school options such as charter schools, theme-based schools and career academies that could be partially supported with private sources.
McCain embraces public and private school choice, including school vouchers.
"Parents deserve a choice in the education of their children," McCain said at the Republican convention. "And I intend to give it to them."
None of this school choice sounds good to Kim Loch, a parent of three children in the West Shore School District.
"It doesn't fix what's wrong with our public schools," said Loch, a registered Republican. "It leaves kids who don't have an option in failing schools."
Susan Haesseler, dean of Messiah College's School of Education and Social Sciences, said her concern over school choice is the heavy reliance on parents to know what choices are available.
"These are very challenging issues for parents for whom English is not their first language, who are living in poverty," Haesseler said. "I haven't seen how either candidate addresses that."
Desmond said that most vouchers fall short of covering private schools' tuition.
"It couldn't be extended to every child unless John McCain really wanted to fully fund that," Desmond said. "But he is interested in reducing government spending, so it doesn't make sense."
Affording college
McCain wants to provide tax incentives for families to save for college. Obama would provide a $4,000 refundable credit for students who commit to 100 hours of public service a year.
McCain calls for consolidating some federal aid programs to make paying for college less complex. Obama proposes to do this by simplifying the process of applying for federal student aid by allowing families to check a box on their federal income tax forms.
Some financial aid officers said this might complicate the process of applying for state and college aid programs, which rely on the federal student aid form.
Mitchell, a mother of a high school student and two college students, said neither is proposing what she wants to see -- having all the money available to pay for college in one place.
"You hear that there's all this money out there that goes unused every year," she said. "We've been looking and looking and looking and can't find it."
JAN MURPHY: 232-0668 or jmurphy@patriot-news.com
A SERIES OF ISSUES
Starting today and on the next four Sundays, The Patriot-News will look at key issue in the presidential election and how they affect you. TODAY: Education Oct. 5: National security Oct. 12: Economy Oct. 19: Energy Oct. 26: Health care
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Schools News Around the Blogosphere
Bidding for Dollars: Online Auctions Help Schools Earn Cash
As budgets stretch to the breaking point, many schools are discovering the powerful fundraising possibilities of the auction with a technological twist. Schools and their parent-teacher organizations are capitalizing on the flexibility, convenience, and popularity of online auctions to tap a limitless base of supporters nearby and far away.
My book is called "Betrayed."
by Laurie Rogers
Curiosity, questions and a tape recorder: That's what I had in January 2007 when I met with the superintendent and the curriculum director of Spokane Public Schools. I thought I'd write an article about why my daughter's 4th-grade class wasn't working. I brought my recorder because I'm a former journalist, and that's what journalists do.
Can't Anybody Here Run a School?
Washington Post
Michael Casserly
The failure of the D.C. public school system has been a team effort. In 1962, after the New York Mets had lost a record 120 games in the franchise's first year, Casey Stengel, the team's legendary manager, walked into the locker room and reportedly said, "I don't want you boys to feel bad about this. It's been a team effort. No one or two of you guys could have done all this by yourselves."
Taking the gifted down
Washington Times
Charles Murray
College is usually pretty easy for the gifted who go into the humanities or social sciences. Those who major in mathematics, engineering and the hard sciences have to pass a tough curriculum, but all the other gifted can readily find undemanding courses in today's colleges that allow them to get a degree without approaching their intellectual limits.
Data highlight achievement gap in Phila. schools
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia School District officials have known they had an achievement gap on their hands for years. Yesterday, they saw the raw data, and were collectively horrified.
As budgets stretch to the breaking point, many schools are discovering the powerful fundraising possibilities of the auction with a technological twist. Schools and their parent-teacher organizations are capitalizing on the flexibility, convenience, and popularity of online auctions to tap a limitless base of supporters nearby and far away.
My book is called "Betrayed."
by Laurie Rogers
Curiosity, questions and a tape recorder: That's what I had in January 2007 when I met with the superintendent and the curriculum director of Spokane Public Schools. I thought I'd write an article about why my daughter's 4th-grade class wasn't working. I brought my recorder because I'm a former journalist, and that's what journalists do.
Can't Anybody Here Run a School?
Washington Post
Michael Casserly
The failure of the D.C. public school system has been a team effort. In 1962, after the New York Mets had lost a record 120 games in the franchise's first year, Casey Stengel, the team's legendary manager, walked into the locker room and reportedly said, "I don't want you boys to feel bad about this. It's been a team effort. No one or two of you guys could have done all this by yourselves."
Taking the gifted down
Washington Times
Charles Murray
College is usually pretty easy for the gifted who go into the humanities or social sciences. Those who major in mathematics, engineering and the hard sciences have to pass a tough curriculum, but all the other gifted can readily find undemanding courses in today's colleges that allow them to get a degree without approaching their intellectual limits.
Data highlight achievement gap in Phila. schools
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia School District officials have known they had an achievement gap on their hands for years. Yesterday, they saw the raw data, and were collectively horrified.
Friday, September 26, 2008
New school nearing completion
From the BCCT. Congrats to the Bristol School District.
New school nearing completion
Bristol’s new school is roughly 70 percent complete, according to the architect who designed the facility.
“We’re making very good progress with all of our prime [contractors],” said Michael Minton, a VITETTA architect, during the district’s school board meeting Thursday night.
The estimated $33.2 million school will house Bristol’s prekindergarten through eighth grade classes. It will be able to accommodate up to 1,100 students.
The building is located off Buckley Street adjacent to the current Warren Snyder-John Girotti Elementary School.
It originally was supposed to be completed in time for the beginning of the current school year, but was delayed for four months early on in the project while urban fill was removed from the site.
The building likely will be completed in early 2009, school district officials said.
New school nearing completion
Bristol’s new school is roughly 70 percent complete, according to the architect who designed the facility.
“We’re making very good progress with all of our prime [contractors],” said Michael Minton, a VITETTA architect, during the district’s school board meeting Thursday night.
The estimated $33.2 million school will house Bristol’s prekindergarten through eighth grade classes. It will be able to accommodate up to 1,100 students.
The building is located off Buckley Street adjacent to the current Warren Snyder-John Girotti Elementary School.
It originally was supposed to be completed in time for the beginning of the current school year, but was delayed for four months early on in the project while urban fill was removed from the site.
The building likely will be completed in early 2009, school district officials said.
Fuel Costs Update
Another story from the BCCT today about the fuel costs and how waiting things out worked for Centennial and Central Bucks while the other districts are paying higher prices.
It was a gamble. We all know that. This time it paid off. Prudent and responsible business management goes with the better solution: lock in the savings on a cooperative rate.
I'm told that a member of the school board had a problem understanding that Wednesday night. That person understood that locking in is great and if the price goes higher, the district "wins" by paying the lower locked in rate. But they did not understand the reverse of that premise. They wanted a guarantee that if the price drops, the district would still "win" by receiving the new, lower rate from the oil supplier.
Free enterprise doesn't work that way.
I also make that point to the BCCT editorial board. Their "thumbs up" award to these two school districts is dubiously earned. The districts rolled the dice and came up on top this time. Would they have earned a "thumbs down" for lack of planning had the prices continued to rise? The Centennial/CB gamble was not a prudent course of action. Even the Emperor says he will not gamble with public money.
Districts’ wait pays off with savings on fuel
The volatile cost of diesel fuel drove most districts to buy sooner instead of risking higher costs later.
By MANASEE WAGH
In an economy that has people second-guessing tomorrow’s prices for commodities, two Bucks school districts got a lucky deal on diesel fuel for school buses.
Centennial and Central Bucks stuck it out several weeks longer than 13 other Bucks districts and educational institutions, seeking a less expensive fuel supply over the next 15 months.
The gamble worked.
Now the two districts will be paying about a dollar less per gallon than the rest of the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22 Cooperative Purchasing Group — a savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most districts chose to lock in the fixed price of $4.33 per gallon in early summer with Sunoco Inc., the lowest of several bidders.
Sandy Homel, Centennial School District’s acting superintendent, compared bidding on volatile fuel prices these days to a crapshoot.
“That particular day they were bidding the price was up very high and it appeared it would just be escalating. A bit of a risk was involved. Are you going to have the good fortune that it would come down?” she said.
The other districts preferred to lock in a fixed price because of budgetary concerns and a fear that the price would keep rising, said Wendy Macauley, the business administrator at the IU. Each could opt for either the fixed price or a floating price, which entailed locking in a price at a later date.
At the time, projections said oil prices would skyrocket this time of year.
Lasher, Centennial’s facilities director, advised waiting to see if the price of diesel would go down, an option that Central Bucks also liked. It was a risk, because if the price had increased, the two districts would have ended up paying more.
The newspaper was unable to reach Lasher for comment because he is on vacation.
Now the price Centennial and Central Bucks will get is $3.28 per gallon for deliveries of 6,000 gallons or more, from Oct. 1 until June 30. From July 1 through Dec. 31, 2009, they will pay $3.37 per gallon.
“[Lasher] did the right thing,” Homel said. “I guess you’d say it’s intuition and having the courage to take the risk and know that it’ll be supported.”
Centennial uses close to a quarter of a million gallons of fuel per year and operates approximately 100 school buses. That would be a savings of $250,000 over what the district would pay in the consortium pact.
Waiting was worth it for Central Bucks too, which has 235 school buses.
Morrisville and Bristol Borough did not join the diesel fuel bid at the IU because neither has daily bus service.
The IU’s Cooperative Purchasing Group is a consortium of county districts that commonly join together to get lower rates on a variety of school necessities, from paper to nursing supplies. Usually it’s a cost-saving system because items are bought in bulk.
“Whenever the opportunity presents itself, we like to join forces. Generally speaking, everybody is going to get a better deal. On this particular bid, given the pricing, we didn’t feel it was a good choice,” said Tom McCambridge, director of finance for Central Bucks School District.
Individual school systems made what they judged to be the best decision at the time, said Joseph Paradise, Neshaminy School District’s business administrator. His district got stuck with the higher price.
“It’s a major risk to wait,” he said. “Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Most times in the past we’ve won. Nobody knows what’s happening with fuel and oil today.”
-----------------------------------------
THUMBS UP -- To Centennial and Central Bucks school district officials for shopping around and coming up with a better deal for diesel fuel than they would have paid as part of a county consortium.
The Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22 Cooperative Purchasing Group early this summer inked a deal that will cost all but two of the county’s 15 school districts $4.33 per gallon of school bus diesel. Central Bucks and Centennial decided to wait and see what would happen. By July prices began to fall, and the two districts recently got contracts for $3.28 a gallon through June 30, 2009 and $3.37 a gallon from July 1, 2009 through the end of next year.
By prudently shopping around, Centennial and Central Bucks officials will save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It was a gamble. We all know that. This time it paid off. Prudent and responsible business management goes with the better solution: lock in the savings on a cooperative rate.
I'm told that a member of the school board had a problem understanding that Wednesday night. That person understood that locking in is great and if the price goes higher, the district "wins" by paying the lower locked in rate. But they did not understand the reverse of that premise. They wanted a guarantee that if the price drops, the district would still "win" by receiving the new, lower rate from the oil supplier.
Free enterprise doesn't work that way.
I also make that point to the BCCT editorial board. Their "thumbs up" award to these two school districts is dubiously earned. The districts rolled the dice and came up on top this time. Would they have earned a "thumbs down" for lack of planning had the prices continued to rise? The Centennial/CB gamble was not a prudent course of action. Even the Emperor says he will not gamble with public money.
Districts’ wait pays off with savings on fuel
The volatile cost of diesel fuel drove most districts to buy sooner instead of risking higher costs later.
By MANASEE WAGH
In an economy that has people second-guessing tomorrow’s prices for commodities, two Bucks school districts got a lucky deal on diesel fuel for school buses.
Centennial and Central Bucks stuck it out several weeks longer than 13 other Bucks districts and educational institutions, seeking a less expensive fuel supply over the next 15 months.
The gamble worked.
Now the two districts will be paying about a dollar less per gallon than the rest of the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22 Cooperative Purchasing Group — a savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most districts chose to lock in the fixed price of $4.33 per gallon in early summer with Sunoco Inc., the lowest of several bidders.
Sandy Homel, Centennial School District’s acting superintendent, compared bidding on volatile fuel prices these days to a crapshoot.
“That particular day they were bidding the price was up very high and it appeared it would just be escalating. A bit of a risk was involved. Are you going to have the good fortune that it would come down?” she said.
The other districts preferred to lock in a fixed price because of budgetary concerns and a fear that the price would keep rising, said Wendy Macauley, the business administrator at the IU. Each could opt for either the fixed price or a floating price, which entailed locking in a price at a later date.
At the time, projections said oil prices would skyrocket this time of year.
Lasher, Centennial’s facilities director, advised waiting to see if the price of diesel would go down, an option that Central Bucks also liked. It was a risk, because if the price had increased, the two districts would have ended up paying more.
The newspaper was unable to reach Lasher for comment because he is on vacation.
Now the price Centennial and Central Bucks will get is $3.28 per gallon for deliveries of 6,000 gallons or more, from Oct. 1 until June 30. From July 1 through Dec. 31, 2009, they will pay $3.37 per gallon.
“[Lasher] did the right thing,” Homel said. “I guess you’d say it’s intuition and having the courage to take the risk and know that it’ll be supported.”
Centennial uses close to a quarter of a million gallons of fuel per year and operates approximately 100 school buses. That would be a savings of $250,000 over what the district would pay in the consortium pact.
Waiting was worth it for Central Bucks too, which has 235 school buses.
Morrisville and Bristol Borough did not join the diesel fuel bid at the IU because neither has daily bus service.
The IU’s Cooperative Purchasing Group is a consortium of county districts that commonly join together to get lower rates on a variety of school necessities, from paper to nursing supplies. Usually it’s a cost-saving system because items are bought in bulk.
“Whenever the opportunity presents itself, we like to join forces. Generally speaking, everybody is going to get a better deal. On this particular bid, given the pricing, we didn’t feel it was a good choice,” said Tom McCambridge, director of finance for Central Bucks School District.
Individual school systems made what they judged to be the best decision at the time, said Joseph Paradise, Neshaminy School District’s business administrator. His district got stuck with the higher price.
“It’s a major risk to wait,” he said. “Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Most times in the past we’ve won. Nobody knows what’s happening with fuel and oil today.”
-----------------------------------------
THUMBS UP -- To Centennial and Central Bucks school district officials for shopping around and coming up with a better deal for diesel fuel than they would have paid as part of a county consortium.
The Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22 Cooperative Purchasing Group early this summer inked a deal that will cost all but two of the county’s 15 school districts $4.33 per gallon of school bus diesel. Central Bucks and Centennial decided to wait and see what would happen. By July prices began to fall, and the two districts recently got contracts for $3.28 a gallon through June 30, 2009 and $3.37 a gallon from July 1, 2009 through the end of next year.
By prudently shopping around, Centennial and Central Bucks officials will save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
UPDATE: School Board Meets Tonight
You can make your own buzzword bingo card! Thanks to the emailer who sent me this link: http://www.misterharold.net/joker/bingo/
Anyone want to add to the word list?
Using this group of words, I came up with this bingo card
procurement card, budget, Morrisville, taxes
defeasement, Hellmann, Mrs Reethmeyer, it's Reithmeyer
I don't get email, move this along, speed it up, are you done
so moved, second, who seconded that, Emperor
Radosti, Dunford, Yonson, Fitzpatrick
Steve Worob, Brenda Worob, Heater, 2 Worobs in 1 sentence
Mihok, Kemp, Buckman, Farrell
Ferrara, Taylor, Huggins
it generates a card for anyone to use
Anyone want to add to the word list?
Using this group of words, I came up with this bingo card
procurement card, budget, Morrisville, taxes
defeasement, Hellmann, Mrs Reethmeyer, it's Reithmeyer
I don't get email, move this along, speed it up, are you done
so moved, second, who seconded that, Emperor
Radosti, Dunford, Yonson, Fitzpatrick
Steve Worob, Brenda Worob, Heater, 2 Worobs in 1 sentence
Mihok, Kemp, Buckman, Farrell
Ferrara, Taylor, Huggins
it generates a card for anyone to use
Saving Money
Does everyone remember how the Emperor screeched incessantly about how the old board was bad and the new board was good because they defeased the bond and saved so much on interest charges? I do. I also remember when he was confronted with the question on how it would have looked if the interest rates had behaved differently. Screeching: not so much. Dodging and evasion: Bingo!
From the BCCT today comes a lesson on conventional wisdom. It's not always that conventional or wise. Morrisville uses the IU purchasing group for many items, including fuel oil. We don't need to use the diesel for our buses. Everyone walks here.
CENTENNIAL
Thanks to an independent fuel bid, the Centennial School District will be saving its taxpayers thousands of dollars through June 2009.
Centennial was considering joining group trying to get a low rate on diesel for school buses.
Instead of joining the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22’s Cooperative Purchasing Group, the district made a contract with Sunoco that will save about a dollar per gallon.
For a delivery of at least 6,000 gallons, the district will be paying $3.28 per gallon from Oct. 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009.
After that, the price will be $3.37 per gallon from July 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009.
The IU cooperative group’s rate is $4.33 per gallon.
From the BCCT today comes a lesson on conventional wisdom. It's not always that conventional or wise. Morrisville uses the IU purchasing group for many items, including fuel oil. We don't need to use the diesel for our buses. Everyone walks here.
CENTENNIAL
Thanks to an independent fuel bid, the Centennial School District will be saving its taxpayers thousands of dollars through June 2009.
Centennial was considering joining group trying to get a low rate on diesel for school buses.
Instead of joining the Bucks County Intermediate Unit No. 22’s Cooperative Purchasing Group, the district made a contract with Sunoco that will save about a dollar per gallon.
For a delivery of at least 6,000 gallons, the district will be paying $3.28 per gallon from Oct. 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009.
After that, the price will be $3.37 per gallon from July 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009.
The IU cooperative group’s rate is $4.33 per gallon.
School Board Meets Tonight
Reminders from the BCCT and the mv.org district website
These tedious meetings can last until well past midnight. Anyone imaginative out there who can develop a MVSB version of Buzzword Bingo? Imagine Mrs. Mihok uttering the words "procurement card" and someone yells "BINGO!"
Morrisville school board: 7:30 p.m., Large Group Instruction Room of the Middle/Senior High School, 550 W. Palmer St. Agenda: Consider painting and renovating high school auditorium, other issues. 215-736-2681 [Could they consider some padding on the seats? Those seats are pretty uncomfortable.]
Board of Ed
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Education Committee Meeting Time: 6:30PM
The Education Committee Meeting will be in held the G Hall Conference Room at 6:30PM in the Middle Senior High School.
HR Committee Meeting Time: 7:00PM
The HR Committee Meeting will be held in the G Hall Conference Room at 7:000PM in the Middle Senior High School.
Board Meeting Time: 7:30PM [Keep checking for an agenda to be posted]
The monthly school board meeting will be held in the LGI room located in the Middle Senior High School at 7:30 p.m. in the LGI Room of the Morrisville Middle Senior High School, 550 W. Palmer Street, Morrisville, PA.
These tedious meetings can last until well past midnight. Anyone imaginative out there who can develop a MVSB version of Buzzword Bingo? Imagine Mrs. Mihok uttering the words "procurement card" and someone yells "BINGO!"
Morrisville school board: 7:30 p.m., Large Group Instruction Room of the Middle/Senior High School, 550 W. Palmer St. Agenda: Consider painting and renovating high school auditorium, other issues. 215-736-2681 [Could they consider some padding on the seats? Those seats are pretty uncomfortable.]
Board of Ed
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Education Committee Meeting Time: 6:30PM
The Education Committee Meeting will be in held the G Hall Conference Room at 6:30PM in the Middle Senior High School.
HR Committee Meeting Time: 7:00PM
The HR Committee Meeting will be held in the G Hall Conference Room at 7:000PM in the Middle Senior High School.
Board Meeting Time: 7:30PM [Keep checking for an agenda to be posted]
The monthly school board meeting will be held in the LGI room located in the Middle Senior High School at 7:30 p.m. in the LGI Room of the Morrisville Middle Senior High School, 550 W. Palmer Street, Morrisville, PA.
Baltimore Special Education Woes
From the Baltimore Sun.
The Milwaukee special education issue is dispiriting enough, but here's an article describing the decades long battles in the Baltimore school system.
The lesson is not that big school systems have big problems. These are just the districts and problems that everyone notices.
The lesson here is that bells cannot be unrung. Once the mistake is made, there are years, and maybe even decades, spent paying for and fixing the mistake.
Alonso calls for a loosening of court controls
Education official tells judge that Baltimore schools have made progress in special education under 20-year-old consent decree
By Sara Neufeld September 22, 2008
Riding high on recent improvements in student test scores, Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso says special education in the city should be subject to less court oversight under a decades-old lawsuit.
State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick also says there's been improvement, and she'd like to see the court begin transferring responsibilities back to the state, which monitors special education in Maryland's other 23 school districts. "If we were talking about the Cold War, we would normalize the operation," she said.
The city school system and the state education department are defendants in a 1984 federal class action suit filed on behalf of students with disabilities.
In a required update to U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis filed this month, the school system does not officially ask for relief but says it is turning around under the leadership of Alonso, who became CEO in July 2007. The filing, which Alonso described as "aggressive," goes beyond the specifics of the case to describe scores of new initiatives, from reorganizing the central office to giving principals more autonomy to revising curriculum. As evidence that reform is beginning to take hold, it cites the improved test scores.
Though their academic performance still lags, the city's special education students improved more than the student body as a whole on this year's standardized tests for children in third through eighth grades. And city students improved more than their peers across the state.
"The dramatic gains in achievement and other outcomes for students overall, and for special education students in particular, are expected to continue or accelerate due to a series of bold new reforms under the direction of Dr. Alonso," the court papers say.
But the tests do not measure the performance of high school students, and the system's secondary schools have had more problems in special education than have elementary schools. To get out from under the consent decree that's been in place since 1988, the system must show it can sustain improvement. It's too soon to know whether many of Alonso's initiatives will work; nearly a third of city schools have new principals this year.
The parties in the suit seem to agree there's been progress, but they disagree about how much. A state monitoring report issued last month found improvement, but not the same extent as the system claims.
The system's court filing contends that Baltimore "is performing better than other school districts across Maryland in a number of areas in providing services to special education students," and those districts aren't the subject of lawsuits.
"This doesn't mean in any way that I think we have our act together," Alonso said in an interview, but said improvement should be rewarded. He said the system is spending a "flabbergasting" amount of time and money on professional development for special education.
In 2000, the parties in the suit agreed to 15 measures by which the system would be evaluated. Over the years, the court agreed the system was in compliance with eight of the 15.
Of the seven areas remaining, the system says it is now in full or substantial compliance with three: It's integrating students with disabilities into classes with their nondisabled peers, with appropriate support; it's sending them to schools in their neighborhoods; and it's taking their disabilities into account in determining and executing appropriate discipline.
The state monitoring report, however, says "there has been no significant progress made" in reducing the disproportionate number of special education students who are subject to disciplinary action.
The lawsuit's special master, Amy Totenberg, issued a report last winter concluding that the system was integrating most special education students into regular classes but often without giving them the support they need, particularly in secondary schools.
Since the system has in the past improved only to slide backward again, Alonso said he could understand if Garbis isn't ready to start loosening the reins. "If I were a judge, I might be nervous," he said.
The system had made strides before a budget crisis in 2004, which prompted a breakdown in serving special education students. In 2005, Garbis ordered a team of state-appointed managers into the system. The team remains, but with fewer people and with a relationship that Alonso describes as more collaborative than supervisory. Grasmick attributes much of the recent improvement to the team's work.
Alonso said he wants a clear definition from the court of what constitutes success and how long that success must be maintained before the court will lift the oversight, which costs the system millions of dollars a year. The system must cover the costs not only of its own lawyers but also of the plaintiffs' attorneys, the special master's office, the four state managers and expensive makeup services to children as determined by a court formula.
System officials say they are out of compliance with only one of the seven measures the court is monitoring: the requirement that they provide legally mandated services such as speech therapy and counseling without interruption.
They say they are in partial compliance with three measures, two involving the graduation rates for students with disabilities. Since 2005, the system says, the graduation rate has increased 8.9 percentage points. Still, it's only 36 percent. Last week, Alonso ordered the city's high schools to try to track down 925 students - some with disabilities and some without - who have dropped out since January and get them back into class.
In the lawsuit, the next step will be a response from Totenberg, who is expected to provide her assessment of the city's compliance. Alonso said the system will determine how to proceed based on her feedback. Totenberg also monitors a continuing special education lawsuit in Washington, where she recently issued a scathing report.
The students' lawyers, at the Maryland Disability Law Center, declined to comment on the status of Baltimore's special education program.
The Milwaukee special education issue is dispiriting enough, but here's an article describing the decades long battles in the Baltimore school system.
The lesson is not that big school systems have big problems. These are just the districts and problems that everyone notices.
The lesson here is that bells cannot be unrung. Once the mistake is made, there are years, and maybe even decades, spent paying for and fixing the mistake.
Alonso calls for a loosening of court controls
Education official tells judge that Baltimore schools have made progress in special education under 20-year-old consent decree
By Sara Neufeld September 22, 2008
Riding high on recent improvements in student test scores, Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso says special education in the city should be subject to less court oversight under a decades-old lawsuit.
State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick also says there's been improvement, and she'd like to see the court begin transferring responsibilities back to the state, which monitors special education in Maryland's other 23 school districts. "If we were talking about the Cold War, we would normalize the operation," she said.
The city school system and the state education department are defendants in a 1984 federal class action suit filed on behalf of students with disabilities.
In a required update to U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis filed this month, the school system does not officially ask for relief but says it is turning around under the leadership of Alonso, who became CEO in July 2007. The filing, which Alonso described as "aggressive," goes beyond the specifics of the case to describe scores of new initiatives, from reorganizing the central office to giving principals more autonomy to revising curriculum. As evidence that reform is beginning to take hold, it cites the improved test scores.
Though their academic performance still lags, the city's special education students improved more than the student body as a whole on this year's standardized tests for children in third through eighth grades. And city students improved more than their peers across the state.
"The dramatic gains in achievement and other outcomes for students overall, and for special education students in particular, are expected to continue or accelerate due to a series of bold new reforms under the direction of Dr. Alonso," the court papers say.
But the tests do not measure the performance of high school students, and the system's secondary schools have had more problems in special education than have elementary schools. To get out from under the consent decree that's been in place since 1988, the system must show it can sustain improvement. It's too soon to know whether many of Alonso's initiatives will work; nearly a third of city schools have new principals this year.
The parties in the suit seem to agree there's been progress, but they disagree about how much. A state monitoring report issued last month found improvement, but not the same extent as the system claims.
The system's court filing contends that Baltimore "is performing better than other school districts across Maryland in a number of areas in providing services to special education students," and those districts aren't the subject of lawsuits.
"This doesn't mean in any way that I think we have our act together," Alonso said in an interview, but said improvement should be rewarded. He said the system is spending a "flabbergasting" amount of time and money on professional development for special education.
In 2000, the parties in the suit agreed to 15 measures by which the system would be evaluated. Over the years, the court agreed the system was in compliance with eight of the 15.
Of the seven areas remaining, the system says it is now in full or substantial compliance with three: It's integrating students with disabilities into classes with their nondisabled peers, with appropriate support; it's sending them to schools in their neighborhoods; and it's taking their disabilities into account in determining and executing appropriate discipline.
The state monitoring report, however, says "there has been no significant progress made" in reducing the disproportionate number of special education students who are subject to disciplinary action.
The lawsuit's special master, Amy Totenberg, issued a report last winter concluding that the system was integrating most special education students into regular classes but often without giving them the support they need, particularly in secondary schools.
Since the system has in the past improved only to slide backward again, Alonso said he could understand if Garbis isn't ready to start loosening the reins. "If I were a judge, I might be nervous," he said.
The system had made strides before a budget crisis in 2004, which prompted a breakdown in serving special education students. In 2005, Garbis ordered a team of state-appointed managers into the system. The team remains, but with fewer people and with a relationship that Alonso describes as more collaborative than supervisory. Grasmick attributes much of the recent improvement to the team's work.
Alonso said he wants a clear definition from the court of what constitutes success and how long that success must be maintained before the court will lift the oversight, which costs the system millions of dollars a year. The system must cover the costs not only of its own lawyers but also of the plaintiffs' attorneys, the special master's office, the four state managers and expensive makeup services to children as determined by a court formula.
System officials say they are out of compliance with only one of the seven measures the court is monitoring: the requirement that they provide legally mandated services such as speech therapy and counseling without interruption.
They say they are in partial compliance with three measures, two involving the graduation rates for students with disabilities. Since 2005, the system says, the graduation rate has increased 8.9 percentage points. Still, it's only 36 percent. Last week, Alonso ordered the city's high schools to try to track down 925 students - some with disabilities and some without - who have dropped out since January and get them back into class.
In the lawsuit, the next step will be a response from Totenberg, who is expected to provide her assessment of the city's compliance. Alonso said the system will determine how to proceed based on her feedback. Totenberg also monitors a continuing special education lawsuit in Washington, where she recently issued a scathing report.
The students' lawyers, at the Maryland Disability Law Center, declined to comment on the status of Baltimore's special education program.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Backed
From the BCCT
Council backs plan to revitalize downtown
Forty-two percent of all residential properties in the borough are rentals.
By DANNY ADLER
A common theme in Morrisville’s new comprehensive plan is to revitalize the borough’s downtown and make it a focus of future economic development efforts.
The 156-page plan, which gained unanimous support from the borough council last week, also addresses housing issues in Morrisville, where 42 percent of all residential properties are rentals.
The plan was created by the borough and Bucks County planning commissions and serves as a policy guide to decisions regarding the town’s physical development. It makes dozens of recommendations.
“We’re trying to enhance the borough,” said council President Nancy Sherlock. However, she later added, the problem is that there isn’t a lot of room to build in Morrisville.
Councilwoman Jane Burger said many of the goals in the plan can be achieved “but not quickly.”
“All of these things probably won’t happen in 10 years, but we need to keep working toward that,” she said. “It’s a guideline. If you were doing a painting, I’d describe the comprehensive plan as the background. … It takes time.”
The plan says the borough can increase its tax base by attracting non-residential development. One such area to develop, the plan says, is south of Bridge Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and the Delaware Canal, which could serve as an extension to the downtown business district.
It also asks Morrisville officials to adopt form-based zoning that can control the design of the borough’s downtown. Form-based zoning codes, according to the Form-Based Codes Institute’s Web site, “address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks,” with less of a focus on land use.
As far as housing is concerned, the plan recommends Morrisville look at sources of funding for housing rehabilitation and explore creating a program to turn duplexes and other rental conversions back to single family, owner-occupied housing.
Sherlock said the borough has been taking some steps to revert rentals back to owner occupancy; when a house sells, it reverts back to single-family home ownership.
So many rental units increase transience and absentee landlords who “only care about the rent check,” Burger said.
Some other recommendations in the plan: develop community greening and gardening programs; update the borough’s 1999 open space plan; market the borough as a historic and an affordable town; establish a shade tree commission; require all new developments to plant trees along streets; designate a historic district; work with the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission to implement solutions to congestion problems.
Council backs plan to revitalize downtown
Forty-two percent of all residential properties in the borough are rentals.
By DANNY ADLER
A common theme in Morrisville’s new comprehensive plan is to revitalize the borough’s downtown and make it a focus of future economic development efforts.
The 156-page plan, which gained unanimous support from the borough council last week, also addresses housing issues in Morrisville, where 42 percent of all residential properties are rentals.
The plan was created by the borough and Bucks County planning commissions and serves as a policy guide to decisions regarding the town’s physical development. It makes dozens of recommendations.
“We’re trying to enhance the borough,” said council President Nancy Sherlock. However, she later added, the problem is that there isn’t a lot of room to build in Morrisville.
Councilwoman Jane Burger said many of the goals in the plan can be achieved “but not quickly.”
“All of these things probably won’t happen in 10 years, but we need to keep working toward that,” she said. “It’s a guideline. If you were doing a painting, I’d describe the comprehensive plan as the background. … It takes time.”
The plan says the borough can increase its tax base by attracting non-residential development. One such area to develop, the plan says, is south of Bridge Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and the Delaware Canal, which could serve as an extension to the downtown business district.
It also asks Morrisville officials to adopt form-based zoning that can control the design of the borough’s downtown. Form-based zoning codes, according to the Form-Based Codes Institute’s Web site, “address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks,” with less of a focus on land use.
As far as housing is concerned, the plan recommends Morrisville look at sources of funding for housing rehabilitation and explore creating a program to turn duplexes and other rental conversions back to single family, owner-occupied housing.
Sherlock said the borough has been taking some steps to revert rentals back to owner occupancy; when a house sells, it reverts back to single-family home ownership.
So many rental units increase transience and absentee landlords who “only care about the rent check,” Burger said.
Some other recommendations in the plan: develop community greening and gardening programs; update the borough’s 1999 open space plan; market the borough as a historic and an affordable town; establish a shade tree commission; require all new developments to plant trees along streets; designate a historic district; work with the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission to implement solutions to congestion problems.
"We’re Playing Games With People’s Lives"
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. MPS has had their share of bad news, and now the school board is ready to cut and run. With $700,000,000,000 ready to bail out the bankers, who would notice another $100 billion for the schools?
Wouldn't that be a great idea? Instead of saddling future generations with debt that paid for salaries and perks and lunches, at least in this case it would be an investment in the future.
Sorry. There's no white knights here in this story. It's just another story where people in power play with people lives just because they can.
Nobody’s waiting to bail MPS out
Posted: Sept. 20, 2008
Eugene Kane
In a week when America’s financial markets experienced a meltdown, perhaps it shouldn’t have been that surprising to learn Milwaukee Public Schools was also apparently in dire financial straits.
Last week, a shake-up of major Wall Street firms sent shock waves through the stock market. The federal government announced a risky, multibillion-dollar bailout of endangered institutions amid concerns about the worst financial crisis in decades. With all that turmoil afoot, it was almost anticlimactic to learn the School Board had voted to look into ways to dissolve the public school system because of increasing financial problems.
Yes, that’s right; dissolve it.
Most folks knew things were bad at MPS; nobody suspected it was that bad. At least one board member, Michael Bonds, still isn’t convinced.
“I was outraged,” said Bonds, who left the room shortly after a 6-3 vote by MPS board members to consider options for dissolving the state’s largest school district. “Yes, that’s why I left the room.”
Bonds said he understood the daunting budget considerations that led to the vote. But as a new board member, he’s been encouraged by positive developments at MPS, such as restoring driver education courses, music and art curricula and other measures to address the poverty of some MPS students.
Instead of passing such a controversial resolution, he thought the board should have concentrated more on resolving budget problems.
“I think it was one of the most disgusting and cowardly acts I’ve ever seen,” he said during an interview. He noted that talks about dissolving MPS essentially meant discussing the future of more than 80,000 students and 13,000 district employees.
“It’s like we’re playing games with people’s lives,” he said.
Bonds, a university professor elected to the board in 2007 on a reform ticket, was skeptical anyone had really thought the measure through.
“What are we going to put in its place?” he asked rhetorically.
It’s comforting to know that Bonds didn’t agree with the high-stakes game of chicken that other board members and MPS Superintendent William Andrekopoulos appear to be playing with the public and legislators.
Frankly, even though local governments have taken over the schools in some cities, the results have been mixed. At least in New Orleans, they had a good reason: Hurricane Katrina.
In Milwaukee, the only natural disaster seems to be the failure of some local politicians and bureaucrats to deal with increasing costs and declining aid from the state to finance the state’s largest education system for the most at-risk minority students in Wisconsin. Even with all that, Bonds insists the district wasn’t at a crisis point yet.
“After all, we’re not talking bankruptcy,” he said.
There’s been talk of the City of Milwaukee taking over MPS, but Bonds thinks Mayor Tom Barrett isn’t serious about such plans. He also doubts if the city’s financial situation would be that much better.
“The city has its own problems,” he said.
There’s also some doubt whether the School Board can even dissolve the system on its own. According to state officials, the Legislature would have to get involved.
It makes you wonder if the School Board’s vote was nothing more than an attention-getting gimmick that caused unnecessary anxiety in some households. Bonds said “it’s already caused a panic” among some constituents he’s heard from.
Like others in town, Bonds worries that the amount of money spent on the school choice program in Milwaukee contributes to the district’s woes. He’s also concerned about political interference by members of the business community who strongly support more school choice and have ties to various School Board members.
That’s why he’s not willing to discount talk of dissolving MPS as just a scare tactic to get a solution for current budget problems.
“I have colleagues (on the board) who would love to see it,” he said. “There are lots of people in town who want control over our budget.”
It’s disheartening to realize the School Board has either decided to govern through fear by alarming parents, students and employees, or is seriously thinking about blowing up MPS in favor of something yet to be determined.
It’s time to consider innovative changes, renewed strategies for success and alternative funding sources for MPS, but dissolving the school district doesn’t seem like a good solution for thousands of students who depend on a stable educational system.
Unlike on Wall Street, if it fails, there will likely be nobody waiting to bail them out.
Wouldn't that be a great idea? Instead of saddling future generations with debt that paid for salaries and perks and lunches, at least in this case it would be an investment in the future.
Sorry. There's no white knights here in this story. It's just another story where people in power play with people lives just because they can.
Nobody’s waiting to bail MPS out
Posted: Sept. 20, 2008
Eugene Kane
In a week when America’s financial markets experienced a meltdown, perhaps it shouldn’t have been that surprising to learn Milwaukee Public Schools was also apparently in dire financial straits.
Last week, a shake-up of major Wall Street firms sent shock waves through the stock market. The federal government announced a risky, multibillion-dollar bailout of endangered institutions amid concerns about the worst financial crisis in decades. With all that turmoil afoot, it was almost anticlimactic to learn the School Board had voted to look into ways to dissolve the public school system because of increasing financial problems.
Yes, that’s right; dissolve it.
Most folks knew things were bad at MPS; nobody suspected it was that bad. At least one board member, Michael Bonds, still isn’t convinced.
“I was outraged,” said Bonds, who left the room shortly after a 6-3 vote by MPS board members to consider options for dissolving the state’s largest school district. “Yes, that’s why I left the room.”
Bonds said he understood the daunting budget considerations that led to the vote. But as a new board member, he’s been encouraged by positive developments at MPS, such as restoring driver education courses, music and art curricula and other measures to address the poverty of some MPS students.
Instead of passing such a controversial resolution, he thought the board should have concentrated more on resolving budget problems.
“I think it was one of the most disgusting and cowardly acts I’ve ever seen,” he said during an interview. He noted that talks about dissolving MPS essentially meant discussing the future of more than 80,000 students and 13,000 district employees.
“It’s like we’re playing games with people’s lives,” he said.
Bonds, a university professor elected to the board in 2007 on a reform ticket, was skeptical anyone had really thought the measure through.
“What are we going to put in its place?” he asked rhetorically.
It’s comforting to know that Bonds didn’t agree with the high-stakes game of chicken that other board members and MPS Superintendent William Andrekopoulos appear to be playing with the public and legislators.
Frankly, even though local governments have taken over the schools in some cities, the results have been mixed. At least in New Orleans, they had a good reason: Hurricane Katrina.
In Milwaukee, the only natural disaster seems to be the failure of some local politicians and bureaucrats to deal with increasing costs and declining aid from the state to finance the state’s largest education system for the most at-risk minority students in Wisconsin. Even with all that, Bonds insists the district wasn’t at a crisis point yet.
“After all, we’re not talking bankruptcy,” he said.
There’s been talk of the City of Milwaukee taking over MPS, but Bonds thinks Mayor Tom Barrett isn’t serious about such plans. He also doubts if the city’s financial situation would be that much better.
“The city has its own problems,” he said.
There’s also some doubt whether the School Board can even dissolve the system on its own. According to state officials, the Legislature would have to get involved.
It makes you wonder if the School Board’s vote was nothing more than an attention-getting gimmick that caused unnecessary anxiety in some households. Bonds said “it’s already caused a panic” among some constituents he’s heard from.
Like others in town, Bonds worries that the amount of money spent on the school choice program in Milwaukee contributes to the district’s woes. He’s also concerned about political interference by members of the business community who strongly support more school choice and have ties to various School Board members.
That’s why he’s not willing to discount talk of dissolving MPS as just a scare tactic to get a solution for current budget problems.
“I have colleagues (on the board) who would love to see it,” he said. “There are lots of people in town who want control over our budget.”
It’s disheartening to realize the School Board has either decided to govern through fear by alarming parents, students and employees, or is seriously thinking about blowing up MPS in favor of something yet to be determined.
It’s time to consider innovative changes, renewed strategies for success and alternative funding sources for MPS, but dissolving the school district doesn’t seem like a good solution for thousands of students who depend on a stable educational system.
Unlike on Wall Street, if it fails, there will likely be nobody waiting to bail them out.
2 Out of 3 Ain't Bad? Now It's 1 Out of 2.
From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
In these days of mega-bailouts for mega-stupid financial decisions, this seems almost, well, reasonable. Try hard and you'll get 50%.
It's sort of like, a participation trophy to real life. You get half credit for respiration and a body temperature.
Yeah. Anyone try that with their boss lately? How did that turn out?
Hey, Mr. Landlord! I can pay 50% of the rent. Wait...Why are you throwing my stuff out the window?
Eyebrows raised over city school policy that sets 50% as minimum score
1+1=3? In city schools, it's half right
Monday, September 22, 2008
By Joe Smydo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Public Schools officials say they want to give struggling children a chance, but the district is raising eyebrows with a policy that sets 50 percent as the minimum score a student can receive for assignments, tests and other work.
The district and teachers union last week issued a joint memo to ensure staff members' compliance with the policy, which was already on the books but enforced only at some schools. Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers President John Tarka said the policy is several years old.
While some districts use "F" as a failing grade, the city uses an "E."
"The 'E' is to be recorded no lower than a 50 percent, regardless of the actual percent earned. For example, if the student earns a 20 percent on a class assignment, the grade is recorded as a 50 percent," said the memo from Jerri Lippert, the district's executive director of curriculum, instruction and professional development, and Mary VanHorn, a PFT vice president.
In each subject, a student's percentage scores on tests and other work are averaged into a grade for each of the four marking periods. Percentages for marking periods later are averaged into semester and year-end grades.
A student receives an "A" for scores ranging from 100 percent to 90 percent, a "B" for scores ranging from 89 percent to 80 percent, a "C" for scores ranging from 79 percent to 70 percent, a "D" for scores ranging from 69 percent to 60 percent and an "E" for scores ranging from 59 percent to the cutoff, 50 percent.
The district and union insist the policy still holds students accountable for performance.
"A failing grade is a failing grade," district spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said.
At the same time, they said, the 50 percent minimum gives children a chance to catch up and a reason to keep trying. If a student gets a 20 percent in a class for the first marking period, Ms. Pugh said, he or she would need a 100 percent during the second marking period just to squeak through the semester.
"We want to create situations where students can recover and not give up," she said, adding a sense of helplessness can lead to behavior and attendance problems.
"It's not grade inflation. We're not saying, 'Give people passing grades,' " Ms. Pugh said.
But the policy strikes some teachers and parents as rewarding bad work and at odds with the district's "Excellence for All" improvement campaign.
"Clearly, some people will not be pleased with this policy," Mr. Tarka said. But he added, "We stand by that decision."
Judy Leonardi, a Stanton Heights resident and retired district home economics teacher, said she objected to the notion that a student could "walk in the door, breathe the air and get 50 percent for that."
"I don't think it sets kids up properly for college, for competition in life," she said.
To Ms. Leonardi, a 20 percent score means a student isn't trying or needs more help with the material. Automatically putting 50 percent in the grade book, she said, doesn't help the student in either case.
"To me, it's morally wrong," she said.
Ms. Leonardi worries that the policy could cause high-performing students to goof off from time to time, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to bounce back from anything lower than a 50 percent.
And she said one teacher she knows already worries about how awkward it will look when a student correctly answers three of 10 questions on a math quiz -- and gets a 50 percent.
The state Department of Education doesn't regulate grading scales, and schools and districts across the state use various models. Districts nationwide have debated use of a 50 percent minimum.
Northside Urban Pathways, a Downtown charter school, gives students zero credit for any work below a "C." Linda Clautti, chief executive officer, said that approach complements the school's college-preparatory mission.
"I have not had any complaints. We do parent surveys every year," Ms. Clautti said.
In a recent article in Harvard Educational Review, Freedom Area School District Superintendent Ron Sofo recounted an experimental program that he said helped to dramatically raise the math scores of struggling sixth-graders. Among other features, the program included "A, B, Not Yet" grading, in which students were required to redo work until it merited an A or B.
Some Freedom Area teachers opposed the special grading scale, calling it coddling of bad students, Dr. Sofo said.
In suburban Philadelphia, a Bensalem School District task force on testing and grading has recommended that 50 percent be the minimum score a student receive.
Superintendent James Lombardo said he's in favor of implementing the idea, partly as a fairness issue. He noted that a failing grade carries far more mathematical weight than any other grade if the "E" or "F" has a range of zero to 59 percent.
"I guess I laud the Pittsburgh district for recognizing some of the foibles of our numerical system," he said, adding low percentage scores sometimes are given to students because of their attitude or work ethic, rather than their level of accomplishment.
Asked whether she agreed with the 50 percent minimum, Regina Holley, principal of Pittsburgh Lincoln K-8 and president of the Pittsburgh Administrators Association, said: "Well, that's the board's policy, and that's what we have to use."
She said teachers and principals should take other steps to give parents a clearer picture of how their children are performing in class.
"Our school provides that to the parents in a conference. We provide it in a letter. We give it to the parents in a phone call," Dr. Holley said.
In these days of mega-bailouts for mega-stupid financial decisions, this seems almost, well, reasonable. Try hard and you'll get 50%.
It's sort of like, a participation trophy to real life. You get half credit for respiration and a body temperature.
Yeah. Anyone try that with their boss lately? How did that turn out?
Hey, Mr. Landlord! I can pay 50% of the rent. Wait...Why are you throwing my stuff out the window?
Eyebrows raised over city school policy that sets 50% as minimum score
1+1=3? In city schools, it's half right
Monday, September 22, 2008
By Joe Smydo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Public Schools officials say they want to give struggling children a chance, but the district is raising eyebrows with a policy that sets 50 percent as the minimum score a student can receive for assignments, tests and other work.
The district and teachers union last week issued a joint memo to ensure staff members' compliance with the policy, which was already on the books but enforced only at some schools. Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers President John Tarka said the policy is several years old.
While some districts use "F" as a failing grade, the city uses an "E."
"The 'E' is to be recorded no lower than a 50 percent, regardless of the actual percent earned. For example, if the student earns a 20 percent on a class assignment, the grade is recorded as a 50 percent," said the memo from Jerri Lippert, the district's executive director of curriculum, instruction and professional development, and Mary VanHorn, a PFT vice president.
In each subject, a student's percentage scores on tests and other work are averaged into a grade for each of the four marking periods. Percentages for marking periods later are averaged into semester and year-end grades.
A student receives an "A" for scores ranging from 100 percent to 90 percent, a "B" for scores ranging from 89 percent to 80 percent, a "C" for scores ranging from 79 percent to 70 percent, a "D" for scores ranging from 69 percent to 60 percent and an "E" for scores ranging from 59 percent to the cutoff, 50 percent.
The district and union insist the policy still holds students accountable for performance.
"A failing grade is a failing grade," district spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said.
At the same time, they said, the 50 percent minimum gives children a chance to catch up and a reason to keep trying. If a student gets a 20 percent in a class for the first marking period, Ms. Pugh said, he or she would need a 100 percent during the second marking period just to squeak through the semester.
"We want to create situations where students can recover and not give up," she said, adding a sense of helplessness can lead to behavior and attendance problems.
"It's not grade inflation. We're not saying, 'Give people passing grades,' " Ms. Pugh said.
But the policy strikes some teachers and parents as rewarding bad work and at odds with the district's "Excellence for All" improvement campaign.
"Clearly, some people will not be pleased with this policy," Mr. Tarka said. But he added, "We stand by that decision."
Judy Leonardi, a Stanton Heights resident and retired district home economics teacher, said she objected to the notion that a student could "walk in the door, breathe the air and get 50 percent for that."
"I don't think it sets kids up properly for college, for competition in life," she said.
To Ms. Leonardi, a 20 percent score means a student isn't trying or needs more help with the material. Automatically putting 50 percent in the grade book, she said, doesn't help the student in either case.
"To me, it's morally wrong," she said.
Ms. Leonardi worries that the policy could cause high-performing students to goof off from time to time, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to bounce back from anything lower than a 50 percent.
And she said one teacher she knows already worries about how awkward it will look when a student correctly answers three of 10 questions on a math quiz -- and gets a 50 percent.
The state Department of Education doesn't regulate grading scales, and schools and districts across the state use various models. Districts nationwide have debated use of a 50 percent minimum.
Northside Urban Pathways, a Downtown charter school, gives students zero credit for any work below a "C." Linda Clautti, chief executive officer, said that approach complements the school's college-preparatory mission.
"I have not had any complaints. We do parent surveys every year," Ms. Clautti said.
In a recent article in Harvard Educational Review, Freedom Area School District Superintendent Ron Sofo recounted an experimental program that he said helped to dramatically raise the math scores of struggling sixth-graders. Among other features, the program included "A, B, Not Yet" grading, in which students were required to redo work until it merited an A or B.
Some Freedom Area teachers opposed the special grading scale, calling it coddling of bad students, Dr. Sofo said.
In suburban Philadelphia, a Bensalem School District task force on testing and grading has recommended that 50 percent be the minimum score a student receive.
Superintendent James Lombardo said he's in favor of implementing the idea, partly as a fairness issue. He noted that a failing grade carries far more mathematical weight than any other grade if the "E" or "F" has a range of zero to 59 percent.
"I guess I laud the Pittsburgh district for recognizing some of the foibles of our numerical system," he said, adding low percentage scores sometimes are given to students because of their attitude or work ethic, rather than their level of accomplishment.
Asked whether she agreed with the 50 percent minimum, Regina Holley, principal of Pittsburgh Lincoln K-8 and president of the Pittsburgh Administrators Association, said: "Well, that's the board's policy, and that's what we have to use."
She said teachers and principals should take other steps to give parents a clearer picture of how their children are performing in class.
"Our school provides that to the parents in a conference. We provide it in a letter. We give it to the parents in a phone call," Dr. Holley said.
Monday, September 22, 2008
How Would I Know?
From Epitome, a leadership blog, answering the question, "What Does a Leader Look Like?"
Leadership Attributes
How do we suitably define the role of leadership? We cannot. Like wisdom, truth, love, and life, leadership cannot be adequately defined in a library full of books. But what we do identify with, having been subject to good leadership, is the following eight (8) characteristics that surely speak volumes in the study of leadership:
1. Leaders ooze authenticity:
Good leaders are genuine and their integrity is beyond question. They lead in transparent what-you-see-is-what-you-get ways. They can’t be second-guessed because their thinking is based in the moment with the exact information at hand. They only deal covertly for the overall benefit of the team i.e. for instance, when a time calls for temporarily keeping one’s cards close to the chest.
2. Leaders conform:
This may appear to be wrong but it paradoxically isn’t. We might say, ‘Don’t leaders set the pace, not merely ‘following’?’ Uh-huh! Leaders work for organisations. Organisations have macro-objectives. Leaders must not only conform to organisation’s agenda, they must also believe in it; they’re active advocates for it. Now, there’s a selfless commitment required right there. Leaders who do not conform weaken organisations. True leaders don’t have a problem re-setting their priorities to align with the organisation’s provided their core values aren’t compromised.
3. Leaders are models (for safety, values etc):
Leaders are role models of the positive variety through and through. They’re examples that stand out to the casual observer and particularly to the impressionable. Integrity has already been mentioned, but good leaders know the effect they have on others and they appreciate the privilege of leadership; they don’t take their role of model to others lightly. They will staunchly model the best behaviours.
4. Providing context and alignment:
As the environment inevitably changes, the leader provides the necessary flux to assist in clarifying specific targets and goals. Whilst they elucidate the bigger picture and the ‘must do’s,’ they also identify clearly the smaller critical issues determining milestone success. And they do all this in a way that fits back into the organisation’s strategy lattice, as they always seek feedback from senior personnel in the organisation and persistently look for cues toward alignment and re-alignment.
5. Provide coaching and empowerment:
Leaders of note are great one-on-one, but not only that, they can influence individuals in the collective environment, embracing opportunities to provide feedback and encouragement. They don’t overdo supervision and they trust their charges. They genuinely value the ability for the team to diversify and delegation is a key tool in their kit. In this way again, like the captain of a successful sporting team, they’re selfless for the greater team gain. Their leadership cultivates more leadership and the acceptance of responsibility.
6. Leaders develop their team:
Going on from above, exceptional leaders know the value of team multiplicity. They don’t see the investment in people as a threat and they don’t become disconcerted when well-developed team members go on to better things; they simply wish them well, and have the ability to be genuinely thankful for their contributions. They know that other leaders also develop their people and they have faith that they too will certainly benefit directly from this. It’s a free exchange with no regret and everyone’s a winner.
7. Leaders communicate well and broadly:
Understanding is difficult to achieve and the outstanding leader is constantly wary of this; their communications are imprinted with care. They pitch their language, pace, tone, and media for the situation, and they also recognise the impact of broadening the message so everyone can benefit. They’re champions of promotion and feedback and in this way their courage and faith are continuously on display.
8. Leaders show empathy and care:
Finally, leaders are people who care for people. They have the ability to experience joy and sorrow at appropriate times in appropriate ways. For this reason they’re often popular and are ‘around’ things that people discuss. Team members of great leaders have no problem sharing their concerns, frustrations, and disappointments, as well as their successes.
Leadership is many things. Ultimately, I believe it’s inspirational and motivational or nothing at all.
Leadership Attributes
How do we suitably define the role of leadership? We cannot. Like wisdom, truth, love, and life, leadership cannot be adequately defined in a library full of books. But what we do identify with, having been subject to good leadership, is the following eight (8) characteristics that surely speak volumes in the study of leadership:
1. Leaders ooze authenticity:
Good leaders are genuine and their integrity is beyond question. They lead in transparent what-you-see-is-what-you-get ways. They can’t be second-guessed because their thinking is based in the moment with the exact information at hand. They only deal covertly for the overall benefit of the team i.e. for instance, when a time calls for temporarily keeping one’s cards close to the chest.
2. Leaders conform:
This may appear to be wrong but it paradoxically isn’t. We might say, ‘Don’t leaders set the pace, not merely ‘following’?’ Uh-huh! Leaders work for organisations. Organisations have macro-objectives. Leaders must not only conform to organisation’s agenda, they must also believe in it; they’re active advocates for it. Now, there’s a selfless commitment required right there. Leaders who do not conform weaken organisations. True leaders don’t have a problem re-setting their priorities to align with the organisation’s provided their core values aren’t compromised.
3. Leaders are models (for safety, values etc):
Leaders are role models of the positive variety through and through. They’re examples that stand out to the casual observer and particularly to the impressionable. Integrity has already been mentioned, but good leaders know the effect they have on others and they appreciate the privilege of leadership; they don’t take their role of model to others lightly. They will staunchly model the best behaviours.
4. Providing context and alignment:
As the environment inevitably changes, the leader provides the necessary flux to assist in clarifying specific targets and goals. Whilst they elucidate the bigger picture and the ‘must do’s,’ they also identify clearly the smaller critical issues determining milestone success. And they do all this in a way that fits back into the organisation’s strategy lattice, as they always seek feedback from senior personnel in the organisation and persistently look for cues toward alignment and re-alignment.
5. Provide coaching and empowerment:
Leaders of note are great one-on-one, but not only that, they can influence individuals in the collective environment, embracing opportunities to provide feedback and encouragement. They don’t overdo supervision and they trust their charges. They genuinely value the ability for the team to diversify and delegation is a key tool in their kit. In this way again, like the captain of a successful sporting team, they’re selfless for the greater team gain. Their leadership cultivates more leadership and the acceptance of responsibility.
6. Leaders develop their team:
Going on from above, exceptional leaders know the value of team multiplicity. They don’t see the investment in people as a threat and they don’t become disconcerted when well-developed team members go on to better things; they simply wish them well, and have the ability to be genuinely thankful for their contributions. They know that other leaders also develop their people and they have faith that they too will certainly benefit directly from this. It’s a free exchange with no regret and everyone’s a winner.
7. Leaders communicate well and broadly:
Understanding is difficult to achieve and the outstanding leader is constantly wary of this; their communications are imprinted with care. They pitch their language, pace, tone, and media for the situation, and they also recognise the impact of broadening the message so everyone can benefit. They’re champions of promotion and feedback and in this way their courage and faith are continuously on display.
8. Leaders show empathy and care:
Finally, leaders are people who care for people. They have the ability to experience joy and sorrow at appropriate times in appropriate ways. For this reason they’re often popular and are ‘around’ things that people discuss. Team members of great leaders have no problem sharing their concerns, frustrations, and disappointments, as well as their successes.
Leadership is many things. Ultimately, I believe it’s inspirational and motivational or nothing at all.
Education Policy: Obama vs. McCain
From the Christian Science Monitor.
Schools: Obama stresses more investment, McCain parental choice
A growing chorus of business and education-reform advocates are hoping the next president will create a ‘Sputnik moment’ for education.
By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo | Staff writer / September 21, 2008 edition
Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama offer different visions for how the federal government can help America’s students get ahead.
Senator McCain’s drumbeat is parental choice and empowerment – making it easier for students in substandard schools to take funding with them, whether to a tutoring company or another public or private school. Senator Obama’s thrust is strategic investment – more federal dollars to put good teachers into high-needs schools, increase charter-school options, and boost early childhood development to stave off achievement gaps.
But in an election dominated by economics, war, and a surprise vice presidential pick, such education issues resemble a kid in the back of the class, frantically waving for attention. Still, a growing chorus of business and education-reform advocates are on that kid’s side. They hope that whoever becomes the next president will help create the educational equivalent of the “Sputnik moment” – when America reached for the moon.
Whose vision will enter the Oval Office?
“The key difference is that Obama puts the emphasis on improving the public schools, working through the schools themselves, and McCain believes in outside pressures through the free market,” says Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington that advocates for more-effective public schools.
While McCain has offered several policies to increase parental choice, such as an expansion of a voucher program in the District of Columbia, he has not put out a broad voucher proposal, senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin says.
McCain energized the audience at the Republican National Convention when he emphasized standing up to entrenched interests in education, saying, “We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, … attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.” By contrast, Mr. Holtz-Eakin says, “Senator Obama’s not really taking on … the unions, the school boards, the entire hierarchy.”
Obama has been endorsed by the major teachers unions, as Democratic candidates typically are. But he prompted boos from union members this summer by embracing aspects of accountability that they traditionally oppose.
Obama’s plan, for instance, supports merit-pay plans, if developed in cooperation with teachers. In a speech on education this month in Dayton, Ohio, he said, “[We] need to give every child the assurance that they’ll have the teacher they need to be successful…. Teachers who are doing a poor job, they’ve got to get extra support, but if they don’t improve, then they have to be replaced.”
“[Obama] has really been a champion for investment in our kids … but at the same time pushing hard on accountability, on standards, on parental choice in a way that strengthens public education,” Jonathan Schnur, an adviser to Obama, said at the Aspen Institute’s recent national education summit in Washington.
One of Obama’s criticisms of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that it has asked schools to achieve vastly more without delivering the resources promised when it passed with bipartisan support in 2001. His campaign criticizes McCain for planning to hold education spending even and just reallocate the dollars. Obama proposes to spend an additional $19 billion on his pre-K-12 proposals by using money from cuts in other parts of the federal budget.
Both candidates have called attention to the need for high-quality teaching, particularly in underperforming schools. McCain wants to give states incentives to recruit teachers from among the top 25 percent of college graduates. Obama’s education plan is longer and more detailed than McCain’s, including details on recruiting, training, and retaining teachers. One proposal would pay for teacher education for those willing to work four years in a hard-to-staff location or field, such as special education.
The two candidates also share a hesitancy to offer much detail about how they would handle the key education item come January: the long overdue reauthorization of NCLB. “They’re doing this dance of talking about education without talking about No Child Left Behind,” says Michael Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research group in Washington that supports standards and school choice. “A lot of the country hates No Child Left Behind … and yet the principles within the law around accountability and transparency both candidates want to embrace, because they want to show they are reformers.”
Both campaigns have praised the goals of NCLB and suggested they would make changes to it, such as testing the individual gains of students rather than relying on group averages. But “the guts of it, test-based accountability, that’s likely to stay,” says Patrick McGuinn, a political scientist at Drew University in Madison, N.J.
The law has prompted splits within each party. Among Republicans, one camp wants to continue NCLB’s momentum, while another says control should be returned to states and local school districts. A key education adviser to McCain, former Arizona schools superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, has said McCain will champion assessment and federal accountability. While education circles debate how to even out vastly different state standards, she said during last week’s Washington summit, “what would concern me is if we take our eye off the improvement of the kids in the classroom today. We’ve got data right now [showing low achievement].”
Among Democrats, teachers unions and civil rights groups are facing off over issues such as the law’s testing regimen. Obama has acknowledged both sides: “Don’t tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend most of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test,” he said in Dayton. Yet his plan is not to throw out tests, but rather to help states develop broader assessments to measure skills such as problem-solving and scientific investigation.
A sample of Obama’s policy proposals:
K-12
• Double funding for quality charter schools.
• Invest in and improve teaching
• Require professional accreditation of teacher preparation programs.
• Expand mentoring for beginner teachers and give them a stipend during training in exchange for service in a high-needs district.
• Support districts that work with teachers to create compensation systems that recognize accomplishment in the classroom and leadership in hard-to-staff locations.
• $200 million in grants for longer school days or school years to assist students in need.
• Double funding for after-school 21st Century Learning Centers.
• Help create appropriate tests for students learning English and hold schools accountable for making sure they reach graduation.
Early education
• Expand tax credits so low-income families can receive up to 50 percent credit for child-care expenses.
• Grants to promote “zero to five” efforts focused on young children and parents, and to help states move toward voluntary universal preschool.
• Increase Head Start funding, quadruple the size of Early Head Start, and improve the quality of both.
Higher education
• Create an American Opportunity Tax Credit – a $4,000 tax credit per year for low- and moderate-income students to attend college for up to four years, in exchange for community service (those not earning enough to pay taxes would also qualify).
• Simplify the application for financial aid by allowing people to check a box on their tax return to determine aid eligibility.
• Community College Partnership Program to reward schools where more students graduate or transfer to four-year colleges.
A sample of McCain’s policy proposals
K-12
• Expand online learning.
• $500 million of current education funds would go toward building virtual schools.
• $250 million would support states to expand online offerings.
• $250 million would create “digital passport scholarships” to help low-income students do online courses or tutoring.
• Encourage alternative teacher certification and give states incentives to recruit teachers from the top 25 percent of their college class.
• Bonuses to teachers who locate in challenging settings and raise student achievement.
• In schools failing to meet federal standards, allow students to access tutoring more quickly. Tutoring providers certified by the federal government would be able to market directly to parents and be paid directly, rather than through the child’s school.
Early education
• Create Centers of Excellence in Head Start. One Head Start Center in each state would be chosen as a model and receive a grant to expand its reach and share best practices.
Higher education
• Simplify higher education tax benefits and federal financial aid so that more families understand their eligibility.
Schools: Obama stresses more investment, McCain parental choice
A growing chorus of business and education-reform advocates are hoping the next president will create a ‘Sputnik moment’ for education.
By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo | Staff writer / September 21, 2008 edition
Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama offer different visions for how the federal government can help America’s students get ahead.
Senator McCain’s drumbeat is parental choice and empowerment – making it easier for students in substandard schools to take funding with them, whether to a tutoring company or another public or private school. Senator Obama’s thrust is strategic investment – more federal dollars to put good teachers into high-needs schools, increase charter-school options, and boost early childhood development to stave off achievement gaps.
But in an election dominated by economics, war, and a surprise vice presidential pick, such education issues resemble a kid in the back of the class, frantically waving for attention. Still, a growing chorus of business and education-reform advocates are on that kid’s side. They hope that whoever becomes the next president will help create the educational equivalent of the “Sputnik moment” – when America reached for the moon.
Whose vision will enter the Oval Office?
“The key difference is that Obama puts the emphasis on improving the public schools, working through the schools themselves, and McCain believes in outside pressures through the free market,” says Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington that advocates for more-effective public schools.
While McCain has offered several policies to increase parental choice, such as an expansion of a voucher program in the District of Columbia, he has not put out a broad voucher proposal, senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin says.
McCain energized the audience at the Republican National Convention when he emphasized standing up to entrenched interests in education, saying, “We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, … attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.” By contrast, Mr. Holtz-Eakin says, “Senator Obama’s not really taking on … the unions, the school boards, the entire hierarchy.”
Obama has been endorsed by the major teachers unions, as Democratic candidates typically are. But he prompted boos from union members this summer by embracing aspects of accountability that they traditionally oppose.
Obama’s plan, for instance, supports merit-pay plans, if developed in cooperation with teachers. In a speech on education this month in Dayton, Ohio, he said, “[We] need to give every child the assurance that they’ll have the teacher they need to be successful…. Teachers who are doing a poor job, they’ve got to get extra support, but if they don’t improve, then they have to be replaced.”
“[Obama] has really been a champion for investment in our kids … but at the same time pushing hard on accountability, on standards, on parental choice in a way that strengthens public education,” Jonathan Schnur, an adviser to Obama, said at the Aspen Institute’s recent national education summit in Washington.
One of Obama’s criticisms of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that it has asked schools to achieve vastly more without delivering the resources promised when it passed with bipartisan support in 2001. His campaign criticizes McCain for planning to hold education spending even and just reallocate the dollars. Obama proposes to spend an additional $19 billion on his pre-K-12 proposals by using money from cuts in other parts of the federal budget.
Both candidates have called attention to the need for high-quality teaching, particularly in underperforming schools. McCain wants to give states incentives to recruit teachers from among the top 25 percent of college graduates. Obama’s education plan is longer and more detailed than McCain’s, including details on recruiting, training, and retaining teachers. One proposal would pay for teacher education for those willing to work four years in a hard-to-staff location or field, such as special education.
The two candidates also share a hesitancy to offer much detail about how they would handle the key education item come January: the long overdue reauthorization of NCLB. “They’re doing this dance of talking about education without talking about No Child Left Behind,” says Michael Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research group in Washington that supports standards and school choice. “A lot of the country hates No Child Left Behind … and yet the principles within the law around accountability and transparency both candidates want to embrace, because they want to show they are reformers.”
Both campaigns have praised the goals of NCLB and suggested they would make changes to it, such as testing the individual gains of students rather than relying on group averages. But “the guts of it, test-based accountability, that’s likely to stay,” says Patrick McGuinn, a political scientist at Drew University in Madison, N.J.
The law has prompted splits within each party. Among Republicans, one camp wants to continue NCLB’s momentum, while another says control should be returned to states and local school districts. A key education adviser to McCain, former Arizona schools superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, has said McCain will champion assessment and federal accountability. While education circles debate how to even out vastly different state standards, she said during last week’s Washington summit, “what would concern me is if we take our eye off the improvement of the kids in the classroom today. We’ve got data right now [showing low achievement].”
Among Democrats, teachers unions and civil rights groups are facing off over issues such as the law’s testing regimen. Obama has acknowledged both sides: “Don’t tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend most of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test,” he said in Dayton. Yet his plan is not to throw out tests, but rather to help states develop broader assessments to measure skills such as problem-solving and scientific investigation.
A sample of Obama’s policy proposals:
K-12
• Double funding for quality charter schools.
• Invest in and improve teaching
• Require professional accreditation of teacher preparation programs.
• Expand mentoring for beginner teachers and give them a stipend during training in exchange for service in a high-needs district.
• Support districts that work with teachers to create compensation systems that recognize accomplishment in the classroom and leadership in hard-to-staff locations.
• $200 million in grants for longer school days or school years to assist students in need.
• Double funding for after-school 21st Century Learning Centers.
• Help create appropriate tests for students learning English and hold schools accountable for making sure they reach graduation.
Early education
• Expand tax credits so low-income families can receive up to 50 percent credit for child-care expenses.
• Grants to promote “zero to five” efforts focused on young children and parents, and to help states move toward voluntary universal preschool.
• Increase Head Start funding, quadruple the size of Early Head Start, and improve the quality of both.
Higher education
• Create an American Opportunity Tax Credit – a $4,000 tax credit per year for low- and moderate-income students to attend college for up to four years, in exchange for community service (those not earning enough to pay taxes would also qualify).
• Simplify the application for financial aid by allowing people to check a box on their tax return to determine aid eligibility.
• Community College Partnership Program to reward schools where more students graduate or transfer to four-year colleges.
A sample of McCain’s policy proposals
K-12
• Expand online learning.
• $500 million of current education funds would go toward building virtual schools.
• $250 million would support states to expand online offerings.
• $250 million would create “digital passport scholarships” to help low-income students do online courses or tutoring.
• Encourage alternative teacher certification and give states incentives to recruit teachers from the top 25 percent of their college class.
• Bonuses to teachers who locate in challenging settings and raise student achievement.
• In schools failing to meet federal standards, allow students to access tutoring more quickly. Tutoring providers certified by the federal government would be able to market directly to parents and be paid directly, rather than through the child’s school.
Early education
• Create Centers of Excellence in Head Start. One Head Start Center in each state would be chosen as a model and receive a grant to expand its reach and share best practices.
Higher education
• Simplify higher education tax benefits and federal financial aid so that more families understand their eligibility.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Teacher Strikes: Not Going Away
From leighvalleylive.com
Pennsbury's contract is up next year. Was the strike the last time worth it?
Morrisville's is up in a few years. Is there anyone who thinks the teachers would willingly go along with the Emperor's farm plan? Think about this last line from the article, "...historically PSEA is a very active association that bargains hard with school boards..." Would you willingly sign a contract that eliminated the jobs of more than one third of your co-workers?
Teacher strikes likely to stay in Pennsylvania
Little appetite in Harrisburg for changing law. State among few that allows walkouts.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
By SARA K. SATULLO
The Express-Times
Every time a Pennsylvania school district goes on strike, Harrisburg takes notice.
Eyes are on the Saucon Valley School District this month as its more than 180 teachers head into their second week of picketing -- exercising a right enjoyed by teachers in only 12 other states.
But it is doubtful the renewed attention will result in any major overhauls to Act 88, the 16-year-old law that governs teachers' strikes. Pennsylvania is a union state where collective bargaining is often considered an ingrained right.
"Historically, there's been no appetite on the part of the Legislature -- Republicans or Democrats -- or any governor to take away the right to strike," said former state Rep. Ron Cowell, who is now president of The Education Policy and Leadership Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.
Lawmakers sound off
While there isn't support among Lehigh Valley state lawmakers to ban strikes outright or change the law, many warned that shifts in public opinion force change.
State Rep. Karen Beyer, R-Lehigh/Northampton, a district resident and former school board president, calls herself a champion for teachers and education. But she says the strike leaves her scratching her head since the 4.7 percent salary raise offer is so generous.
"Saucon Valley teachers are making it increasingly difficult for legislators who have been supportive of their ability to strike to continue to be supportive," Beyer said.
State Rep. Doug Reichley, R-Lehigh, is looking at modifying bargaining with secret ballots for teacher strike votes and presentations of offers to a quorum of teachers before a strike vote.
The Pennsylvania State Education Association opposes revising Act 88, although it admits it has its flaws.
"We just think there is the potential to make it worse," PSEA spokesman Wythe Keever said. "We think striking should be a last option but we think it should be a legal last option."
One of the hottest issues on the bargaining table leading to recent strikes has been health insurance contributions.
On Monday, the state House is expected to consider creating a commission that would look at putting all public school employees into a state benefits program, something the PSEA supports.
When unions resist making health insurance contributions, as most taxpayers do, they often lose public support if negotiation details are released, says the Pennsylvania School Board Association.
"(Employee contributions) are happening in every other place of employment, so it just seems very equitable to the public," said PSBA director of school personnel services Tom Templeton. "That is the constant drum beat."
Teachers' strike history
Nationally, teachers' strikes are less than half a century old; the first one took place in New York City in 1960. Pennsylvania teachers earned the right to strike in 1970. New Jersey teachers aren't allowed to strike.
From 1970 to 1991, Pennsylvania saw 775 strikes, according to the PSBA, many of which happened with little notice and for long periods. Act 88 was passed in 1992 in an attempt to preserve the right to strike with limits. Under the act, teachers unions must give 48 hours notice of a strike, and it spells out deadlines if the two sides aren't voluntarily negotiating.
It also gives the state power to step in if the strike is jeopardizing the 180-day school year ending June 30.
Saucon Valley teachers may strike until Oct. 17, when they must enter nonbinding arbitration, according to the law. If either side rejects the arbitrator's recommendation, they can strike again until they hit the point they jeopardize the 180-day calendar.
In the years since Act 88, rumblings about revamping it or even banning strikes have been frequent in Harrisburg, politicians and education officials say. But few gain momentum, Cowell said.
Despite the passage of Act 88, Pennsylvania is still the leader among states that allow teachers to strike.
From 2000 to 2007, 137 strikes occurred, 82 of which were in Pennsylvania, according to a 2007 Allegheny Institute for Public Policy study of teacher strikes. The institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education research group.
Those numbers can be misleading, warned Keever, the PSEA spokesman. Hawaii has the right to strike but it is one statewide district. Pennsylvania has 600-plus local districts, with about 200 bargaining each year and an average of 10 strikes a year, he said.
The state school board association acknowledges since 1992 there's been a measurable decline in teachers' strikes.
But historically PSEA is a very active association that bargains hard with school boards, which are trying to balance the needs of employees, taxpayers and students.
"All of that mixed together can still cause work stoppages," Templeton said.
Pennsbury's contract is up next year. Was the strike the last time worth it?
Morrisville's is up in a few years. Is there anyone who thinks the teachers would willingly go along with the Emperor's farm plan? Think about this last line from the article, "...historically PSEA is a very active association that bargains hard with school boards..." Would you willingly sign a contract that eliminated the jobs of more than one third of your co-workers?
Teacher strikes likely to stay in Pennsylvania
Little appetite in Harrisburg for changing law. State among few that allows walkouts.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
By SARA K. SATULLO
The Express-Times
Every time a Pennsylvania school district goes on strike, Harrisburg takes notice.
Eyes are on the Saucon Valley School District this month as its more than 180 teachers head into their second week of picketing -- exercising a right enjoyed by teachers in only 12 other states.
But it is doubtful the renewed attention will result in any major overhauls to Act 88, the 16-year-old law that governs teachers' strikes. Pennsylvania is a union state where collective bargaining is often considered an ingrained right.
"Historically, there's been no appetite on the part of the Legislature -- Republicans or Democrats -- or any governor to take away the right to strike," said former state Rep. Ron Cowell, who is now president of The Education Policy and Leadership Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.
Lawmakers sound off
While there isn't support among Lehigh Valley state lawmakers to ban strikes outright or change the law, many warned that shifts in public opinion force change.
State Rep. Karen Beyer, R-Lehigh/Northampton, a district resident and former school board president, calls herself a champion for teachers and education. But she says the strike leaves her scratching her head since the 4.7 percent salary raise offer is so generous.
"Saucon Valley teachers are making it increasingly difficult for legislators who have been supportive of their ability to strike to continue to be supportive," Beyer said.
State Rep. Doug Reichley, R-Lehigh, is looking at modifying bargaining with secret ballots for teacher strike votes and presentations of offers to a quorum of teachers before a strike vote.
The Pennsylvania State Education Association opposes revising Act 88, although it admits it has its flaws.
"We just think there is the potential to make it worse," PSEA spokesman Wythe Keever said. "We think striking should be a last option but we think it should be a legal last option."
One of the hottest issues on the bargaining table leading to recent strikes has been health insurance contributions.
On Monday, the state House is expected to consider creating a commission that would look at putting all public school employees into a state benefits program, something the PSEA supports.
When unions resist making health insurance contributions, as most taxpayers do, they often lose public support if negotiation details are released, says the Pennsylvania School Board Association.
"(Employee contributions) are happening in every other place of employment, so it just seems very equitable to the public," said PSBA director of school personnel services Tom Templeton. "That is the constant drum beat."
Teachers' strike history
Nationally, teachers' strikes are less than half a century old; the first one took place in New York City in 1960. Pennsylvania teachers earned the right to strike in 1970. New Jersey teachers aren't allowed to strike.
From 1970 to 1991, Pennsylvania saw 775 strikes, according to the PSBA, many of which happened with little notice and for long periods. Act 88 was passed in 1992 in an attempt to preserve the right to strike with limits. Under the act, teachers unions must give 48 hours notice of a strike, and it spells out deadlines if the two sides aren't voluntarily negotiating.
It also gives the state power to step in if the strike is jeopardizing the 180-day school year ending June 30.
Saucon Valley teachers may strike until Oct. 17, when they must enter nonbinding arbitration, according to the law. If either side rejects the arbitrator's recommendation, they can strike again until they hit the point they jeopardize the 180-day calendar.
In the years since Act 88, rumblings about revamping it or even banning strikes have been frequent in Harrisburg, politicians and education officials say. But few gain momentum, Cowell said.
Despite the passage of Act 88, Pennsylvania is still the leader among states that allow teachers to strike.
From 2000 to 2007, 137 strikes occurred, 82 of which were in Pennsylvania, according to a 2007 Allegheny Institute for Public Policy study of teacher strikes. The institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education research group.
Those numbers can be misleading, warned Keever, the PSEA spokesman. Hawaii has the right to strike but it is one statewide district. Pennsylvania has 600-plus local districts, with about 200 bargaining each year and an average of 10 strikes a year, he said.
The state school board association acknowledges since 1992 there's been a measurable decline in teachers' strikes.
But historically PSEA is a very active association that bargains hard with school boards, which are trying to balance the needs of employees, taxpayers and students.
"All of that mixed together can still cause work stoppages," Templeton said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)