| Indiana
Association of Public School Superintendents |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Letter to the Editor John Ellis, Executive Director Letter to the
Editor In the March 26 edition of the
LaPorte County Herald-Argus, I was interested in the following quote from
Governor Daniels’ visit to Michigan City: Last December I met with the Governor’s Chief-of-Staff, Neil Picket, and the Governor’s education advisor, Marcie Brown, in response to my prior concerns about the lack of information evident in other such comments made by the Governor. They presented me with the most recent data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) “Common Core of Data” report. I had reported on earlier NCES research that ranked Indiana’s central office administrators, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district-wide administrators 45th out of the 50 states among the national teacher to administrator ratios, and as a percent of employees. The Governor’s staff demonstrated, with more recent data, that my figures were out of date and Indiana had fallen to 49th of the 50 states, only Arizona had fewer central office administrators as compared to teachers. Indiana clearly does not have “a lot of administration” when looking at superintendents and the “array of assistants.” The Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents has a legislative goal that states: “Any discussion concerning the consolidation of school services should be research based.” We wish we had more company in the call for data supported decision-making. John Ellis, Executive Director ************************************************************************************************* Letter to the Editor When endorsing the concept of referendums for school construction, proponents generally use three arguments for their cause—spending, mending, and mimicking. The first represents a false assumption that Indiana spends more on school construction than other states. The second asserts that the current petition/remonstrance process doesn’t work and needs to be mended. The third states that almost all other states have a referendum process for school construction; therefore, so should we. Let’s examine these three theories. A new study of costs for school construction in Indiana just completed January 30, 2008, by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy and entitled “The Effect of Property Tax Changes on Indiana Public School Corporations,” addresses the first assumption above. It concludes: · Indiana public schools are particularly sensitive to alterations in the property tax system, and there is little evidence that Indiana schools are spending disproportionate sums on school construction. · While construction spending has increased over the last several years, these increases are no greater than that experienced by other states. · The cost of building new schools is roughly the same in Indiana as in other states, although there is some evidence that additions and expansions to existing schools cost more per square foot than elsewhere. · As of 2006, school construction spending makes up a modest share of property tax revenues. It is, therefore, unlikely that construction spending is primarily responsible for increases in property tax assessments through 2006. Since assumption one fails, let’s look at the question of whether we need to mend the current petition/remonstrance process. As of last summer, Indiana had seen 94 petition/remonstrance drives. School districts succeeded in 47 instances and failed in the other 47. In five of those failed cases, school districts and remonstrators compromised, bringing the successful school drives to 52. The current process appears to be even-handed, disposing of the theory that it needs to be mended. Since the spending and mending assumptions aren’t convincing, let’s examine whether Indiana should attempt to mimic the referendum process used in other states. California Legislators passed Proposition 1D in November 2006, authorizing $10.4 billion in construction funds to repair and replace buildings that had been neglected due to referendum issues. In Ohio, failed referendums created poorly maintained school facilities, leading to legal action by 560 school districts. As a result, the Ohio Legislature is charged with the responsibility to fund the state’s school building programs. The state spent only $600 million in school construction in the 40 years between 1957 and 1997. Now, to correct the deficit in building, they have spent $5 billion over the last 10 years to construct 500 new buildings. Each of Ohio’s 612 school districts is eligible to receive a portion of state funds for renovation and/or new schools. The people of Indiana don’t want to imitate the emergency spending of other states that ignored the needs of children too long. We understand it’s best to spend money to mend school construction concerns before they grow too large. School boards and tax-payers successfully make those decisions utilizing the current petition/remonstrance process of our state. ************************************************************************************************* Letter to the Editor As a superintendent of 20 years, I still remember a lesson taught to me by one of my first school board members, Bill Harmon, a successful businessman in southern Indiana. Whenever I had completed a presentation to the board and told the board what a great opportunity some new initiative offered, Bill would always ask the same question: “Compared to what?” He taught me quickly to make sure I knew how results and implications compared to alternatives and made me far more knowledgeable about my topic as a result. The Indianapolis Star recently collected salary and benefit information from Central Indiana superintendents. Other than the negativity in the heading, the article contained information that is and should be transparent. Anyone reading the article should have noted the one glaring piece of information absent that would have made it an interesting story. Here are the salaries and benefits, but compared to what? Indiana’s 2005/06 average salary for superintendents of $102,097 is well below the 2005/06 national average for superintendents’ salaries, which was $134,436. Compared to our neighboring state of Illinois, now home to many former Indiana superintendents, the ten highest paid superintendents, all located in the Chicago metropolitan area, all earned over $300,000 last year. Among the 871 Illinois school districts, the average superintendent’s salary and retirement benefit was $141,000 last year. Inc.com, an internet company that serves small businesses provides “benchmark” salaries for small companies with revenues between $3 and $10 million per year. The average salary for a $3 million company CEO was $148,140, and for a $10 million company was $215,151. The average school corporation is over a $30 million business. Indiana’s superintendents and other central office administrators also face the fact that compared to their national colleagues there are fewer of them to do the work. The National Center for Education Statistics shows that Indiana has a higher ratio of teachers per central office administrator than do 48 of the 50 states in the nation. Only Arizona has a higher ratio of teachers to central office administrators than Indiana. Indiana’s school leaders are paid at the level the local school board believes they should be compensated under terms and conditions of employment open to public reporting. The Director of the Georgia School Superintendents’ Association stated it very well: “Virtually without exception, superintendents oversee one of the largest enterprises in any community. Viewed through this lens, the salaries and benefits hardly seem out of line.” John Ellis, Executive Director *************************************************************************************************************************************** Letter to the Editor While most citizens understand that taxes are
necessary, none of us wants to pay more than our fair share and we want the
government entities that use our tax dollars to spend them wisely. Under the
current taxing system by design, many funds for the operation of schools
come through property taxes. So, education costs are scrutinized carefully. In discussing our current property tax issues,
the Governor has been quoted in the July 18, 2007, Howey
Political Report as saying “The unneeded overhead of this antique
system (administrative expenses of schools and libraries) drains dollars
from our school classrooms…and from the pockets of property taxpayers.”
He, as well as some other legislators, is calling on further consolidation
of school systems to save on the costs of school administration. This is a
bit ironic considering the fact that the Governor has recently signed into
law a bill which created 184 new elected officials, adding further expense
to taxpayers. These new elected officials will serve on the County Boards of
Tax and Capital Projects Review. The perception that excessive numbers of school
administrators are driving up the cost of education is simply not true. The
National Center for Educational Statistics, a division of the U S Department
of Education has provided statistics on this issue that show a very
different reality. The analysis of these statistics by the
Educational Research Services shows that Indiana central office
administrators (superintendents, assistant superintendents, business
managers, etc.) ranked 39th among the 50 states nationally in the
percent of personnel employed that fall into that administrative category,
less than one percent of all personnel employed. Principals and assistant
principals ranked 45th among the 50 states in the same category.
Since only eleven states have a lower percentage of employees who work as
central office administrators, and only five have a lower rate of building
level administrators, where is the “unneeded overhead?” Beginning in 2005, Lafayette, Tippecanoe, and
West Lafayette School Corporations studied the advantages and disadvantages
of consolidation. According to Lafayette Superintendent and State Board
Member Ed Eiler, one area examined was the feasibility of consolidating
central office administrative staffing. They found “such savings would
result in less than a fraction of one percent of the total operating expense
of the combined districts.” A 2003 study “Small Districts and Economies of
Scale,” from the Education Commission of the States concluded that
“elimination of school districts is not a clear indication of improved
education, cost effectiveness, or better quality. District reorganization
should be sought as a last resort.” It
is a sad fact that many Hoosiers are hurting from dramatic increases in
local property taxes. This is reason enough to examine any and all potential
impacts for relief. It is no reason to, as Morton Marcus recently stated in
his column for the Political Report, create a “frenzy to cut,
slash, and burn without cautious study or reflection.” Does a cry to
combine school corporation services, especially given the nearly
imperceptible impact found in the 2003 study and more recently in the
Lafayette study, outweigh the local citizens right to have a say in their
local educational programs? In the
efficiency feeding frenzy, let’s not shortchange students by failing to
staff their schools at the level needed to operate most effectively. The
Evansville Courier on July 21, 2005 reported, “Governor Mitch Daniels said
Wednesday that he favors allowing local communities to decide whether to
consolidate government functions, and said that as a guiding principle, he
favors local control.” Is local control a priority of Hoosiers, or are we
willing to simply surrender our authority when a significant challenge
impacts our communities? John Ellis, Executive Director
***********************************************************************************
Letter
to the Editor How We View Dropout and Graduation Rates John Galsworthy, a Nobel Laureate in literature, said "Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." From a distance, correcting reporting procedures for school dropout and graduation rates seems like an easy fix. Take the number of freshman who started from the number who graduate in four years as seniors, and you are done, right? Let’s look closer at the problem. First, some school districts count freshmen as any student who has not yet successfully completed credits to become a sophomore. Other districts count freshmen as those students entering grade nine for the first time. The first district will have a vastly different calculation to make in four years than will the second district. Now any student in Indiana who has not earned a diploma within four years is considered a dropout, even if the student completes credits for graduation in their fifth year. Students who miss significant time in school due to medical illness or pregnancy and take five years to graduate are counted against the school’s graduation rate. Students with special needs who are on certificates of completion will count against a school district’s graduation rate, but are not dropouts. They are considered to have completed their educational program. More severely disadvantaged students who work towards an extended program that is in place until age twenty-one negatively impact the graduation rate calculation, although they may well complete their educational program as scheduled. A preliminary example from a high performing school district shows a graduation rate of 86% and a dropout rate of around 3-4%. Most of the students who are not considered graduates, and who are not dropouts, are the special needs students discussed above who will likely finish on the schedule established for them. Students who have ceased to report to school due to relocating, but who refuse to notify the school district in writing are counted as dropouts. Students who complete a GED are not counted in the graduation rate, yet for some students, this is an outstanding accomplishment. Not every student fits into the four years and out format. If it takes five years, and they stay with it and complete their high school career successfully, why count this as a negative factor against the school’s rate? Indiana needed to improve how both of the dropout and graduation rates are calculated. The Department of Education has worked hard to do so and to communicate why the statistics will differ from past calculations. Let’s evaluate the new data when it is published not from a distance but closely, knowing full well that some issues still need to be addressed, and it is easy to hold an idealistic attitude if you’re not the one who has to resolve the issues. John Ellis, Executive Director
***** Letter
to the Editor (Sent
September 21 – unpublished as of October 10) The Star
editorial entitled “These exams don’t pass toughness tests (9/19/06)”
should have been titled “The dog ate my research.”
Assumptions within the editorial are false, as the writers invented
their own statistical analysis that summarized test scores.
The idea that the percent needed to pass a test has any correlation
to the difficulty of the examination is ludicrous.
I assume The Star editors do not understand that the cut
scores are determined after the test results are secured. The Star
editorial states, “A fifth-grader, for example, needs to correctly answer
only 59 percent of questions in math and 62 percent in English to pass.”
Looking at the ISTEP+ cut scores and the maximum scores, it appears they
arrived at these percentages by dividing the “Pass” score by the maximum
score. This is not how scaled scores work, and their calculation
does not give the correct percentage score needed to pass the test as
they assumed. Scale scores are
also tied to the writing component which impacts cut scores. ISTEP+ is scored using “Item Response Theory” scoring. Scaled scores do not represent the number of correct answers. Every test item is weighted based on the difficulty of the question and correlated as to how well it predicts success or failure. For example, an item has a correlation of 0 if all students get it right or all get it wrong. Another item may be worth several points. Since test items are not equal, test scores are also not equal. One cannot accurately derive the number or percent correct based on a scale score. A raw score of 40, for example, may pass if within the 40 correct responses the student was able to correctly answer harder, more discriminating questions. It is inexcusable for the editors not even to have reviewed thoroughly the basic statistics upon which they based their incorrect views. John G. Ellis, Executive Director ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ August 6, 2006 My view: Peggy
Hinckley Writer deserves detention for spinning school report John
Tierney, you are receiving a discipline referral to the superintendent's
office for inaccuracy in reporting! Tierney's
July 19 column in The Star debunking the federal report comparing private
and public schools is a better example of spin than are his allegations
against teachers' unions. How did he take a report that compares performance
in National Assessment of Educational Progress fourth- and eighth-grade
reading and math results and turn it into a bashing of the teachers' union
and promotion of vouchers? Did he even read the report? I
read the report. The conclusions were as follows: When you statistically
adjust for demographic differences between public schools and private
schools, the private school advantage in fourth grade in NAEP reading and
math and eighth-grade math disappears. The private school advantage in
eighth-grade NAEP math becomes about one-third of what is was but is still
statistically significant. Since
1971, NAEP has been an ongoing, nationally representative indictor of what
students know and can do in a variety of academic subjects. Further, NAEP
has reported on the performance of private schools students since 1977. NAEP
is the nation's report card under the National Center for Educational
Statistics, a division of the U.S. Department of Education. This is not an
agency of the teachers' union. NAEP is a more objective source than the spin
provided by Tierney. Readers
of the study are cautioned about interpretation of the results because there
is no way to determine how "patterns of self-selection in private
schools," which are schools of choice, may have affected the estimates
presented. In conclusion, the study simply identifies that public schools
are equally competitive with private school when we account for demographic
variables in fourth-grade math and reading and eighth-grade math. So, how does Tierney take a report that credits public schools with equally strong results as private schools and turn it in to a bashing of the teachers' union and the amount of money spent in public education, and support for school vouchers? He commits the same sin of which he is accusing others, the sin of spin. Why can't a journalist of his reputation with The New York Times simply acknowledge that public school educators are doing an excellent job given the challenges they face that are commonly not faced by their private school counterparts? We should be applauding those heroes of public education and thanking them for their service. By applauding public school teachers, we are not diminishing the work of private schools or the option for parents to use choice to exercise other educational options. Teachers,
whether private or public, have the most challenging work ever in the
history of education under No Child Left Behind. When we bash union
leadership, we bash teachers. As a school superintendent, I would like to
stand up for my teachers and tell you about their marvelous work. No
Child Left Behind has helped public schools to focus on the needs of the
underserved. While this has been challenging, it was the right thing to do.
Public schools had to improve. Our schools have improved since the enactment
of this legislation, particularly for those traditionally underserved groups
of students. Our work is not done. But when I visit classrooms every week in
my school district, I see dedicated teachers who are maximizing every minute
in the classroom to teach the Indiana Academic Standards and to assist
students in being successful in school. Furthermore, they are caring
compassionate human beings who not only attend to the academic needs of
their students but also to their social needs such as love, attention,
clothing, school supplies, lunch money, and the list goes on. The dedication
of today's teacher in the classroom is a marvel to watch and I am proud to
be an educator with so many dedicated teachers. As
a result of his inaccurate reporting, Tierney is assigned to detention in
the classroom of a public school teacher for the next week to learn about
the challenges of educating all children to a high degree of achievement
every single day. And as he watches these terrific public school teachers,
he will see why public schools remain the cornerstone of our democracy. Hinckley
is superintendent of Warren Township Schools. John Tierney's column,
"Spinning a bad report card," was published in The Star on July
19. ******************************************* Printed
July 4, 2006 I
found the Star article “Classroom spending lags in Indiana” (June
10, 2006) to be confusing and misleading.
First, when you use the Star’s link to the information
referenced, you discover that Indiana is slightly above the national average
in state funding for public schools, average for the amount of funding
provided by local sources, but below the national average for federal funds
received. Equally
confusing is the editorial declaration headlining the inside continuation of
the article that “65% has become a benchmark for classroom spending.”
Governor Daniels, during his December 28, 2006, press conference to
announce legislative priorities, rightfully dismissed this concept as being
too vague, recognizing that due to individual district circumstances some
districts would not meet this arbitrary mark and others may be able to
exceed this percentage. A
review of the study quoted in the article provides no information as to what
was used to define instructional spending, a task Indiana has taken on as a
result of the passage of HEA 1006. Indiana
school finance provides two funds to support spending on classrooms; two
funds to support school district transportation needs; a fund to support
long-term debt obligations, such as lease obligations for facility
construction; and a fund to provide for capital improvements and equipment
purchases, including technology. Since
revenue from only two funds, the General Fund and the Special Education
Pre-School Fund, may be used to pay for instruction, the effort to compare
expenditures from all funds creates great inequities among school districts
due to the unique circumstances each district faces. For
example, I served as superintendent of both Jennings County Schools and
Noblesville Schools. The 65% approach treats both districts as if they have the
same latitude in spending for non-instructional needs. Consider the transportation of students in these two
districts. In Jennings County,
we transported fewer students than were transported in Noblesville, yet
transportation costs were substantially higher in Jennings. Why?
Jennings County Schools transported students within a 377 square mile
area while Noblesville transported students over 49 square miles.
Jennings isn’t spending more financial resources on transportation
because they want to move money from instruction; they are spending more
because the district is serving an area almost eight times the size of
Noblesville. To
understand Indiana school finance is to understand the many unique
circumstances, recognized in HEA 1006, faced by individual districts.
Rapidly growing districts spend more dollars per student in facility
expansion than do declining enrollment districts.
Districts with older staff members spend more in salaries than do
districts with less experienced staff.
Districts with older facilities spend more on upkeep and maintenance
of facilities. To even
insinuate that school districts choose to spend dollars away from
instruction is a disservice to our schools.
After
decades of federal shortfalls to fund federal education mandates, it would
be of value to examine how many dollars are missing from classrooms that
can’t be recovered by state or local educational units.
Local school districts have done an outstanding job implementing
these mandates, but have been forced to do so with state and local funds. John
Ellis, Executive Director
|