Urbana High School is facing restructuring after five years of groups within the school failing to meet testing benchmarks set by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. As a result, the district needs to come up with a plan that is approved not only by the Urbana school board, but also by the Illinois State Board of Education.
Though the Urbana board approved a plan earlier in the spring, passing the state board is proving a hurdle. The Urbana-board-approved restructuring plan called for extra time for freshmen and sophomores to work one-on-one with teachers in subject areas in which the students need help, as well as more frequent classroom evaluations.
But the Urbana board did not approve a new $70,000 administrator position for evaluation and accountability, one recommendation from the original restructuring plan.
And on June 4, Carol Diedrichsen of the state board told the district that the restructuring plan "does not sufficiently describe a change of governance as required by law. ... The plan needs revision to include the structure for accountability, monitoring and support necessary to effect significant change in instruction."
Discuss.
All of the existing research suggests that standardized test based accountability such as that through NCLB does not do anything positive in terms of constructive accountability and hinders instruction. As I have proposed concretely here before, I would love to implement a system that ensures greater accountability. But hiring MORE administrators to not teach the kids and penalizing schools arbitrarily based on demographic make-up rather than instructional prowess is certainly not the answer.
The testing numbers are pure noise. There is nothing scientific about them. We are one of the most rigorously tested nation in the world, and we are certainly not the most productive in terms of learning. We need to look at other changes.
So is the State saying they need the position that wasn't approved? I can't, quite frankly, translate bureaucrat into English. Did the STate give them any suggestions on what would meet approval? It really isn't very fair or efficient to make the URbana guess at what the State wants out of this.
So let me make sure I understand this. The administrators in charge of the system have produced a system that is not educating all the sub-groups to NCLB-mandated performance levels. And the solution is to hire more administrators. When adminstrators start teaching this might work. But since administrators, by definition, administrate they will simply be standing safely on the sidelines urging the same number of teachers to do better with the same resources. So the number of teachers stays the same and the number of administrators goes up.
Here's a new plan. Fire the administrators responsible for this lack of performance and hire some more teachers. I would like to know how many non-teaching (as in administrative) positions exist in both Urbana and Champaign. I'm not talking cooks and maintenance folks. I'm talking about the special assistants, the assistants to the assistants, the coordinators, etc. A graph of the number of such positions plotted over the course of the last 20 years might be interesting. My sense is that both communities are plagued with burgeoning "overhead" that consumes many of the scarce dollars that go the districts' way.
How about the six student service coordinators who got promoted to assistant principals at the last Champaign school board meeting? I have a friend who wants to know how she can get on that type of gravy train. >:-<
Once again, proof of why we should not give Unit 4 any more money, even through the sales tax referendum. They can't be trusted to spend it on things that will improve education, and they simply won't say no to Supt. Culver. Of all the things needed at Unit 4, more administrators and bureaucrats is the least thing needed. I thought this school board ran on changing things around, and instead, we just have more of the same old thing that brought us here in the first place.
Just the facts please...
no student service coordinators were promoted to anything. There has been an ongoing discussion of reclassifying the elementary school student service coordinators to assistant principals for a multitude of reasons.
1. they can evaluate teachers as AP's with the appropriate certification. Student Service Coordinators cannot evaluate. Right now principals do all evaluations. If I supervise 40 people in an elementary school, how can I properly evaluate teachers and do all the other things principals are responsible for? EVERY management/evaluation book any of us/we/you have ever read talks about effective supervision and span of control. 1 to 40 is not it!
2. The current student service coordinators that were approved several years ago do not teach. Nor will Assistant Principals. These are not mellon bldg positions, they are positions in the individual bldgs.
3. As administrator positions they can work provide more supervision than they legally/contractually can now.
4. These are 11 existing positions that are being changed from one classification to another.
5. This was the boards directive not Mr. Culvers
None of this was approved by the board yet and will probably not take place if it happens until the 2009-2010 school year.
Accuracy in posts is important!
Dave Tomlinson
Nice Spin!
thanks Mr. Tomlinson. So that we are very accurate, does Unit 4 now have more administrators than it had, say, 2 or 3 years ago? If you're considering elevating people from coordinators to principals, is it because you're filling vacancies, or you're promoting people? If the latter, what's the basis for this when Unit 4 enrollment is dropping or holding steady and not increasing? Why is more supervision needed? Did the Board try to bargain for more, or is this the result of a union contract provision (referring to your comment about them legally providing more supervision). What's the thinking about why more supervisors or administrators will actually improve things at Unit 4? And finally, how are we, the taxpayers, supposed to measure improvement at Unit 4? Have test scores improved dramatically? Has discipline improved? Are we any closer to getting out from under the consent decree? Is Unit 4 doing anything to get out from under the consent decree? Does Unit 4 have any back-up plans if the sales tax referendum fails in the fall? I don't mind being corrected on things, but I think the heart of the debate is this: what are we getting for our education dollars from Unit 4, and why should we give you more money?
If Mr. Tomlinson responds, I would like to add several questions. What is the increase cost to the district to create this administrative change? Why not eliminate an administrator in the district office to pay for this increase? Once in place is there a sunset clause so these positions will be re-evaluated and not become ongoing as a budget line? Even though the board has been discussing this issue for some time, someone from the administration had to have brought this to the attention of the board. Very rarely do any of these position adjustments originate at the board level. Who did this?
It has been a long time since I looked at the Unit 4 budget, which I just did. There is no break down as to the salaries of the administration staff nor the teaching staff. (If it is on the budget please tell me where to look.) Because the information is no easily available, it is hard for the tax-paying public to understand the total cost related to administration positions.
Pattsi Petrie
In my experience, the more APs you have, the less actual evaluation of teachers occurs. It's typical high-paid bureacracy. We had four principals, and 7 APs in the last 13 months and approximately 5% of the staff was meaningfully evaluated in that time period. Meanwhile, we spent over half a million in administrator salaries.
Here's an idea--why not have the actual people in the classrooms and acquainted in more than some minor way with actual teaching advise the principal on evalution? I don't know, like maybe the teachers and students? Sure, there will have to be controls and I'm sure those of you not in schools are imagining all sorts of worst-case scenarios--none of which are nearly as bad as what we have (expensive complete ineffectual evalution)--but if you were to actually sit down with kids and the peers of teachers, you'd see that they have the best idea of what is going on and what a good education should look like. I do my own evalutions with the kids, and get plenty of good advice "Mr. __________, you are a great teacher. You really love us. But you need to be a little more organized. Please remember this for next year."
And believe it or not, they will do it for FREE! Any business model should appreciate better evaluation for less money. If you throw in a few bus passes and Sox tickets, I'm sure they will appreciate it, and it's a lot cheaper than buying a Lexus or BMW for every man, woman and child in higher administration.
Mr. Tomlinson:
Is there a reason why Unit 4 has had 54 principals in the past 6 years? How many has Centennial or Central had in the past 4? Bottenfield? Franklin? The list goes on and on and on./..... is there a common thread to this? I dont see Unit 116 or the other outlying communites having such turnover in their administrative staff.
Unit 4 had to play the role of the Pied Piper on the sales tax, I think most of the people involved with Unit 4 understand that a stand alone tax referendum would not pass for them. Yes I know they had to have the other districts on board to get this on the ballot. But I could see Unit 4 getting this tax more or less thru the backdoor, they must be counting on the other votes outside Unit 4 itself to carry the day.
I try and answer questions honestly and without spin so here goes…
Champaign Dweller asks…
# of administrators? I believe the number of administrators in the Melon bldg from 2002 to now has dropped by 2.
Filling vacancies or promoting people? Neither…eventually (next year) eliminating 11 student service coordinator positions (Non-teaching) and replacing them with 11 assistant principal positions (Non-teaching) next year
Why more supervision? As I said in my original post… SSC cannot supervise or evaluate another teacher as they cannot in any other classification in our district. A type 75 administrative certificate and post is required for that. Currently SC’s do not (though many do) have to stay late or come in early for student coverage/supervision issues.
Measurement? Test scores are up in every category since 2002 particularly at the elementary and middle level. African American and low income scores are up dramatically. White, non-low income scores which were and are already high are up as well.
Discipline… Jury is still out, but if you measure it by the number of suspensions or expulsions, I would say it is about the same in some schools and much lower in others.
Consent Decree…Closer to finish? I sure hope so. We shall see next summer.
Get out from under? No. Please remember that this is a legal settlement that was entered into by the legally elected board of ed in 1998 and 2002 and the legally -appointed plaintiff class representatives in a federal court. How can a new board legally go back to court and say “We don’t want to do this anymore?” (I used all the “legal..” on purpose)
Backup plans for referendum?. We have to make a good faith effort to secure funding for two-strands north of University avenue and we will do that. If the sales tax referendum fails, I would suspect that unit 4 would go back to the voters again at a later time to secure that funding. I can’t speak for the other 13 districts in the county who want this tax as well.
Heart of the debate? I thought this thread was about Unit 116, but Unit 4 somehow always manages to get thrown in.
Pattsi P asks…
Increased cost? Around $65,000 total/yr spread over 11 people who will have to work longer hours and more days than the SSC’s
Eliminate an administrator to pay for it? Not a one to one, but we did eliminate and administrative request for the new academic alternative high school.
Sunset Clause? Haven’t given any thought, but contrary to popular belief we do reevaluate position needs. There are at least 7 requested positions in the mellon bldg that have not and will not been filled.
Who did this? Again this was the boards direction. Remember there are two long-time Unit 4 educators/administrators on this board and another who has been a private a public school administrator. We occasionally have an idea or two J.
Budget… The state required budget form is a joke to read and has no easily identifiable information. I do think that Gene Logas puts up budget presentations from time to time on the web
BHSS73 says…
54 principals in 6 years.
I am not sure if that number is correct or not, but to answer the last four…
Centennial. Dr Weigand was there for all the years my daughter was. My daughter graduated in 2007. Dr Weigand was promoted and is still very much with the district and doing a fantastic job. Mr. Bode last year and a new one soon
Central – Don Harden was there for many years (not sure how many as principal) and RETIRED, Bill Freyman was in U4 for over thirty years, three as central principal and RETIRED. Joe Williams takes over this year.
Bottenfield – Barb Daly was there for three and at southside for many before that. She took a promotion to the regional office of ed where she is the assistant regional sup. Jeanne Davis was there for one and left to be a superintendent.
Franklin – Carol stack was acting for 2-3 years and RETIRED and Joyce Smith was there and still is.
Common thread- I am very concerned about principal/teacher turnover as a whole. Please remember that some of the ones you asked about did retire after long-careers.
Reducing the principal and teacher turnover is a critical task in my mind and the rest of the boards’ mind.
Bruce says…
Pied Piper? I think not. The smaller districts stand to gain a higher reduction in property taxes and financial gain for facilities that there is no way they could see without a major raise in property taxes. Though Unit 4 will get a larger share of the money (We do have twice the number of students as anyone else), the reduction in property taxes will be a greater amount --$15M, but a lower reduction in an individuals property tax. That is because there are more taxpayers in Unit 4 and a larger tax base.
Dave Tomlinson
BTW If I dont answer in the next two weeks it is not a vast right wing conspiracy...my wife and I are going to be laying on a beach in the caribbean drinking fruity rum drinks. :)
Centennial. Dr Weigand was there for all the years my daughter was. My daughter graduated in 2007. Dr Weigand was promoted and is still very much with the district and doing a fantastic job. Mr. Bode last year and a new one soon
Central – Don Harden was there for many years (not sure how many as principal) and RETIRED, Bill Freyman was in U4 for over thirty years, three as central principal and RETIRED. Joe Williams takes over this year.
Bottenfield – Barb Daly was there for three and at southside for many before that. She took a promotion to the regional office of ed where she is the assistant regional sup. Jeanne Davis was there for one and left to be a superintendent.
Franklin – Carol stack was acting for 2-3 years and RETIRED and Joyce Smith was there and still is.
well the information that I got was from a district email a few weeks ago. Perhaps you could check on the accuracy of that email.... but it sure seems that every school has a new principal every few years.....This will be edisons 3rd in 4 years. Columbia? they are on their 3rd in 4 years./ Not everyone is retiring or going back to where ever they came from.....some a just quitting the district all together. There must be a reason why this is happening and I think that its due to the administration....
This will be edisons 3rd in 4 years
Hold on there, you're distorting some facts and leaving out key information, deliberately or not, that makes a difference here. Edison will have completed 5 years with only two different principals: one who left to go back to teaching at the collegiate level after two years (Lucas) and the other who was promoted up to the high school after 3 years (Williams). Lucas may have left because of the administration, but there were other factors there. Williams was offered a huge career promotion because he's very good at his job and chose to take it, as I suspect most people who are very qualified for a promotion would do. Would you sit there and say, "No thanks, keep your major career lifting move and big bag of money, I'm happy here."? Why do we accept so much mobility that is EXACTLY LIKE THIS in the private workforce, but expect our public workforce to not want/exercise the same type of mobility when it comes around to them?
The administration is not the cause of all the problems in Unit 4. They certainly have their fair share of responsibility for problems in the district, but it's not the end-all be-all source of the problems plaguing Unit 4.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Greg Novak here
Dave has covered this issue rather well but I want to add my .02.
As a former teacher I totally "hate" the ever increasing number of what the late Nicole Storch called "sleath administrators" - teachers who are hired to do administrator work and NOT work with children - but who don't show up on the administrtive payroll.
So everyone needs to know that I am one of the Board members pushing for the replacement of the Student Service Coordinators with Assistant Principals at the elementary schools.
Why?
First of all the most critical position in our district is the building principal. We need to support those administrators - and one of their major issues is teacher evaluation. The general guidelines for that procedure are set by the state of Illinois, and are time consuming. I have seen more than one good principal having to take the time to jump through the hoops evaluating a good teacher - time that would be better spent working with struggling teachers.
At the secondry level the task is split among several people - at the elementary level it currently falls on the building principal alone - and again the state helps set the requirements (Can we say unfunded mandate here)
Our Student Service Coordinators are neither "fish nor fowl". They can not evaluate - they do not work when they are needed - such as the month of August when elementary principals have much to do - and end up trying to do all by themselves. They work a teacher day.
NO ONE will be promoted to Assistant Principal from the position of Student Service Coordinator. They may choose to apply for the new position - but they may not wish to - and they are not the automatic choice for the position.
The new position will start August 1st and end June 15th and require a Type 75 certificate. It will be an administrative job and thus require administrative hours. There will be some current Student Service Coordinators who will NOT appply as the position will be considered as an entry level positon - and they will take a serious pay CUT if they move from one position to the other.
We demand MORE of our principals then all of the other school districts in this area. If we want to get quality administrators - we need to give them quality support - which in my opinion is something we have not done. This is a first step in my opinion - but a needed one
As I said
my .02
Greg
Since Greg has explained that the initiative for the proposed administrative changes came from the board, I will direct this question to Greg and the Board--when is the board going to propose that an urban planner be added to the central administration staff. Right now if one had been on staff, this individual would have lead the community input for a long-range school plan. And as I have argued, had an urban planner been on the staff decades ago Unit 4 more than likely would not be in the present-day situation.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi,
Right now there are no immediate plans to add an Urban Planner to the staff. Though I can certainly see the need for long range planning help! We have been working on several options to that end including the vision committee and partnering with the City of Champaign's Planning department.
I can see the potential for some type of planning person being added to help manage/plan the construction and future development if/when the sales tax passes...
Thanks
Dave Tomlinson
Dave, it is good to learn that some board members are willing to consider adding an urban planner in the future. I will point out again that such a staff member could have been paid for by the amount paid the consultant to do a demographic study. Second, it is good to be talking with the Champaign planning department. There is a parallel, however, of approach between the community visioning process and BigSmallAll, due to those leading. BigSmallAll involved only 1% of the community and at this point in time there are no demonstrated results for all of the money, and time committed by county residents. It was a very small subset with highly vested interested making their voices known during that process. This resulted in a lack of vested interest.
Pattsi Petrie
Greg Novak here
Pattsi;
This is my opinion for what's it worth
Does Unit Four need long term planning - YES
Should Unit Four be out there planning without cooperation with the City of Champaign, Champaign Park District, Village of Savoy University of Illinois and other govermental bodies - NO
Can Unit Four support an Urban planner by itself - DOUBTFUL
Should Unit Four work with other entities to support an Planning Department - YES
In my mind that's way for us to look at in the future - once we hear back from the Great School Together process.
On the Demographic Report - sadly having an Urban Planner on board would not have been helpful in that matter - the district was required by the terms of the consent decree to go to an outside source who had no connection with the district
Its a question of going forward with small steps for the moment
My .02
Greg
Thank you for the clarification that the demographic study had to be out sourced.
Pattsi Petrie
I went to the original meeting and told them that this would happen. I told them how to fix it and reported it on this site. The school consultants-and the union watchdog-were trying to do as little as they could. My suggestion was that they do a "rope a dope" and after all their consultants had their say, to turn it over to to an impartial board under the direction of the Center for Excellence at Parkland. There is logic in that suggestion, because Parkland has to fix all their mistakes. There is some precedent for this approach. When the State of Kentucky was not making progress in its children's education and welfare plan, the federal court declared the whole damn thing unconsititutional and appointed a monitor to make decisions and report to the court for changes. I hate these federal consent degrees because they are usually about getting federal money. I told this directlly to Preston. Maybe he might reread my suggestion and save the $70,000 administrator.