Monday, November 30, 2009

School Finance Landscape:

Many of the questions at the New Superintendents’ session at the Triple I centered on school finance because of some of the dire predictions being made by lobbyists and others who pay close attention to what is happening in Springfield. There are two specific suggestions I would have for you; first, during times like these we need to learn how to make financial predictions based on good data and secondly, don’t jump off the cliff just yet.


To address the first point, you should receive specific training on making financial predictions or have faith that the person in your school district who is in charge of school finance can make financial predictions. Larger school districts have business managers who handle this function. Some school districts use outside providers, such as PMA, to help with this process. IASA, in conjunction with ISBE, provide an all day administrators’ academy on how to use the ISBE software program to make these predictions.


The key is to make accurate assumptions on the variables used when making financial projections. You need to spend considerable time, study, and collaboration with others when making the numerous decisions for the prediction software to work correctly. Take salaries, for example, we know that 70% to 85% of total expenditures are salaries and fringe benefits. You need to keep separate records of this information and double and triple check the accuracy on a regular basis.


General State Aid is very important for those districts reliant on state resources. Normally school administrators could use the figure of a $100 increase in GSA and feel fairly comfortable that their estimate will be realized. This year, however, there is talk of actual decreases in the GSA. ISBE has stated that ARRA replacement funds are the equivalent of $550 GSA new money. So if you assume no increase in new state dollars, the GSA will decrease by $550 for FY2011.


What I mean by “don’t jump off the cliff yet” relates to your estimates and how this affects your district. When you finish making your decisions on all the variables that go into making the prediction software work, you will need to examine the results. If this results in deficit spending, you need to examine your fund balances and how long you can deficit spend. You need to have open conversations with your school board, employees and community to discover what they think of this new information. But, in the end, you will be the person making the recommendation to the school board concerning any budget cuts and more importantly, possible reduction in teaching and support staff positions for your school district.


When you make this decision, I am sure you will consider the impact on the education your students will receive and the impact on the actual persons who are in these positions that you may eliminate. Don’t make the decision to reduce just because everybody else is. Examine your own financial predictions and make your own decisions based on the predictions and the input you receive from others, especially the school board.

What is your moral purpose for education?

IASA is in the process of training coaches for the Illinois School of Advanced Leadership. We were given an assignment to read Michael Fullan’s book Leading In A Culture of Change. We were asked to write down what was our own moral purpose for education. You may want to think about this concept as you lead your school district. My moral purpose was to insure that all students received an equal opportunity for a quality education. This moral purpose then should guide you as you make decisions in your role as the district superintendent. When making difficult decisions you should reflect on your moral purpose. Several years ago I developed a philosophy of “Thinking of Students First.” This meant that when dealing with difficult decisions whether they were political, moral, fiscal or otherwise I would think about the saying “Thinking of Students First” before rendering my recommendation.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Problem With Teacher Unions

There is an article in the November 19, 2009 Wall Street Journal by Neil King Jr. and John Hechinger titled D.C. School Chief Targets Tenure. Michell Rhee, Chancellor of D.C. public schools said she was initiating the layoffs based on "quality, not be seniority." The Washington Teachers' Union filed a grievance and a lawsuit. Ms. Rhee is quoted as saying " ...that it makes no sense for a struggling district to ignore teacher quality when initiating layoffs, an issue she called 'one of the age-old sacred cows of unionism."

I couldn't agree more. If we are ever going to straighten out the teacher quality issue in education we need to get away from the teacher union stances on tenure and reduction in force based on seniority. I will admit that administrators make mistakes in giving poor and average teachers tenure. However, it is often a different administrator who inherits these teachers and needs to make these difficult decisions about teacher placement and also continued tenure. Until K-12 public education takes extraordinary steps to change state tenure laws and reduction in force laws then we will continue to have poor teachers.