NCSA Today Magazine, Fall 2010

NCSA TODAY A PUBLICATION OF THE NEBRASKA COUNCIL OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Progress Toward the Future: What will our schools look like tomorrow?

Nebraska Council of School Administrators

September 2010

www.NCSA.org

I:68=>C< >C I=: '&HI 8:CIJGN

INNOVATION INN NOVATION IN ED EDUCATION DUCA ATION =dj\]idc =dj\]i dc B^[ B^[[a^c [a^c =Vg =VgXdjgi Xdjgi eg egdk^YZh dk^YZh bVg` bVg`Zi"aZVY^c\ Zi"aZV VY^c\ egZ"@ egZ"@ iid d &' hdaji^dch i]Vi i] ]Vi XdbW^cZ XdbW^cZ fjVa^in fjVa^in ^chigjXi^dc! ^chigjXi^dc c! VhhZhhbZci! VhhZhhbZci! Xjgg^Xjajb bVcV\ZbZci! bVcV V\ZbZci! VcY egd[Zhh^dcVa egd[Zhh^dcVa YZkZadebZci# YZkZadebZci# ?d^c i]Z gVc`h gVc`h d[ d[ ZYjXVidgh ZYjX Z Vidgh VcY hijYZcih hijYZcih l]d VgZ V Z ldg`^c\ Vg ldg`^c\ l^i] jh id id ^ck^\dgViZ ^ck^\dggViZ aZVgc^c\ a VcY iZVX]^c\ iZVX]^c\ ^c i]Z '&hi ' XZcijgn# XZcijgn# =dj\]idc = =dj\]i ]idc B^[[a^c B^[[a^c [a^ =VgXdjgi = Xdjgi egdk^YZh =Vg egdk^YZ ^Y h I>Eh I>Eh IZVX]Zg I IZVX Z X]Zg ] >ciZgVXi^kZ > iZgVXi^k >c i^ Z Edgi[da^dh Edgi[da^dh a^ l^i] l^i ^ii] ]^\] ]^ ] fjVa^in fjVa^i a^in cdiZWdd`h cdiZWdd` W `h VcY Y [a^eX]Vgih [a^ ] ih i]Vi [a^eX]Vg i] i i]V ^ciZ\gViZ ^ciZ\gViZ i]Z edlZg edlZg d[ d[ HbVgi HbVgi VcY EgdbZi]ZVc EgdbZi]ZVc c iZX]cdad\^Zh# iZX]cdad\^Zh#

EDMARK 速

rreach each

8dciVXi ndjg 6XXdjci :mZXji^kZ

9dccV 9gd\Z

BdW^aZ/ ,-*"**)".*&% YdccV#Ygd\Z5]b]ejW#Xdb

lll#]b]^ccdkVi^dc#Xdb l ll#]b

FEATURES

2 Big Changes are Afoot: Can You Say the Same About Your Schools?

BY DR. SCOTT M C LEOD

4 Education is the Top Priority

BY GOV. DAVE HEINEMAN

5 New Year, New Challenges: Now What?

BY DR. ROGER BREED

7

Reinventing the Place Called School

9

The Nebraska Educational Virtual Academy: Where Will Past, Current, and Future Trends Lead Us?

BY DR. LARRY DLUGOSH and DR. JOHN LAMMEL

NCSA EXECUTIVE BOARD 2010-2011 Chair . . . . . . . . . . . .Sarah Williams Vice Chair . . . . . . . . . .Bill Mowinkel Past Chair . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Fisher NASA Representatives President . . . . . . . . . . . .Jack Moles President-elect . . . . . . .Greg Barnes Past President . . . . . . .Bill Mowinkel NASBO Representatives President . . . . . . . . .Robin Hoffman President-elect . . . . .Melanie Kreider Past President . . . . . . . . Rick Feauto

BY DR. KENT M C LELLAN

10

Effects of Health Care Reform on Nebraska School Districts

BY KEN BABCOCK

13

CIR Update

15

Fire Prevention: Equipping Teachers with the Skills Necessary to Work with Paraeducators

BY KELLEY BAKER

NAESP Representatives President . . . . . . . . . .Midge Mougey President-elect . . . . . . .David Kraus Past President . . . . . .Sarah Williams NASES Representatives President . . . . . . . . .Peggy Romshek President-elect . . . . . . . .Stuart Clark Past President . . . . . . . . .Jane Byers

BY PEGGY ROMSHEK

16

Nebraska Superintendents in Fall 2010

19

College Test Prep Course

20

NCSA Honors 2010 Distinguished Service Award Winners

20

NASES Honors 2010 Distinguished Special Education Administrator

21 23

NASA Honors 2010 Nebraska Superintendent of the Year

BY DR. JAMES OSSIAN

BY JASON SEARLE

NSASSP Representatives President . . . . . . . .Randy Schleuter President-elect . . Mitch Bartholomew Past President . . . . .Kenton McLellan NARSA Representative President . . . . . . . . . . . .Ron Joekel NCSA STAFF

NCSA Report

BY DR. MIKE DULANEY and DR. DAN ERNST

24 CALENDAR OF EVENTS NCSA Mission The mission of the Nebraska Council of School Administrators (NCSA) is to be an effective leader for quality education and to enhance the professionalism of its members.

NCSA Today is a benefit of membership in the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, 455 South 11th Street, Suite A, Lincoln, NE 68508. Telephone 402.476.8055 or 800.793.6272. Fax 402.476.7740. Annual membership dues are $325 (active members), $100 (associate members), or $30 (student members).

NCSA Today is published quarterly. Send address changes to NCSA, Membership, 455 South 11th Street, Suite A, Lincoln, NE 68508. Copyright Š2010 by NCSA. All rights reserved.

Dr. Michael S. Dulaney Executive Director/Lobbyist Dr. Dan E. Ernst Associate Executive Director/Lobbyist Kelly Coash-Johnson Training and Development Director Amy Poggenklass Finance and Membership Coordinator Angie Carman Executive Administrative Assistant Carol Young Administrative Assistant The opinions expressed in NCSA Today or by its authors do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Nebraska Council of School Administrators.

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

1

TECHNO LOGY

Big Changes are Afoot: Can You Say the Same About Your Schools?

BY DR. SCOTT MCLEOD, Iowa State University and Director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE)

I

t is difficult to overstate the changes that digital technologies have wrought on our society. As we navigate an ‘Information Revolution’ that is as impactful but also swifter than the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, the collective transformative effects can be seen in every aspect of our lives.

And we’re just getting started. For example...

The rise of user-generated content. On the personal front, individuals now possess unprecedented publishing capabilities. We live in an era in which a 15-year-old can reach audiences that previously were reserved for major media companies, large corporations, and governments.

McLeod A dizzying array of technological tools and online communities of interest are fostering an incredible growth in informal but powerful individualized learning. We now can learn almost anything we want, from anyone, anywhere, at any time. This learning often is disconnected from formal elementary, secondary, or higher education institutions.

A new information landscape. Formerly-dominant news and entertainment institutions are being forced to rethink all previously-held assumptions. All of the top newspaper chains in the country are on the verge of bankruptcy. The music industry is struggling to survive in a market where the granular model of individual song sales replaces that of wholesale album purchases. The emergence of digital, multimedia hyperlinked texts—and accompanying e-readers and A large number of tablet computing devices— is challenging our very defiAmerican workers are nition of what constitutes a discovering that their ‘book,’ destroying traditional work, their skills, and publishers’ revenue streams, and altering both our attentheir jobs are not as tion span and our eye moveindispensable as they ment while reading. thought in a Television, radio, magazine, technological, and movie/video companies see their market share erode ‘hyperconnected, year after year as information hypercompetitive consumers increasingly turn global economy. to online information chan-

2

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

nels—many of which are user-generated rather than institution-generated—to learn and be entertained.

A vastly different global economy. In business, the rapid growth of the Internet and other information and communication technologies has accelerated the offshoring of American jobs. Complex corporate global supply chains locate manufacturing work wherever costs are lowest, expertise is highest, or necessary talent resides.

Geographic or product niche monopolies disappear in the face of Internet search engines. Micro-, small-batch, and on-demand manufacturing techniques facilitate customized, personalized production. Whatever manufacturing work remains in the United States is high skill, high-tech, and, more often than not, requires greater education than a high school diploma. The low-skill industrial system that was the backbone of the American economy in the previous century is increasingly a bygone memory.

Knowledge work now can often be done cheaper elsewhere. Ongoing workflow and final products are exchanged at the speed of light via e-mail, instant messaging, and other corporate networking tools. Work that previously required humans now is regularly done by software. Customer service representatives and data entry specialists are replaced by online web forms connected to databases. Technical support and corporate training personnel are replaced by interactive help and online learning systems. Tax preparation, legal, architectural, graphic design, and other software programs give ordinary citizens capabilities that formerly were reserved for highly-skilled, highly-paid professionals.

Travel agents, bank tellers, hotel and airline counter employees, movie rental chains, and many others fall victim to a ‘self-service economy’ in which we choose to do the work ourselves—facilitated by ATMs, kiosks, software, and online services—rather than someone doing it for us. A large number of American workers are discovering that their work, their skills, and their jobs are not as indispensable as they thought in a technological, hyperconnected, hypercompetitive global economy.

Radical transformations are everywhere. Robotic surgery, telemedicine, automated drug dispensaries, holo(continued on next page)

TECHNO LOGY graphic surgical practice using haptic feedback, and research on aggregated databases of digitized personal health data are transforming the world of medicine. Charities, non-governmental organizations, and community groups are tapping into the power of the Web to spread their messages, solicit donations, and enhance their impact. Politicians, community organizers, and protest groups are discovering the utility of mobile devices and social networking tools for mobilization of interested individuals in service of their cause. Real estate agents are struggling to justify their fees when we have the same market information and publicity tools that they do. The postal service is hemorrhaging money. And so on…

In short, every societal and economic sector that revolves around information is being radically transformed by digital technologies, online services, and social media. Few areas of American life remain relatively untouched by these paradigmatic shifts.

Unfortunately, one of those areas is our elementary and secondary schools.

The disconnect between schools and society If it is difficult to overstate the technological disruptions that are occurring around us, it is equally difficult to understate the lack of progress that most P-12 schools have made in response to these overarching societal changes. The reluctance of school personnel to adopt modern technologies and significantly alter existing pedagogical and organizational practices has long been catalogued. Stanford University historian Larry Cuban, for example, noted in 2001 that “the quantities of money and time [spent on technology] have yet to yield even modest returns or to approach what has been promised in academic achievement, creative classroom integration of technologies, and transformations in teaching and learning” (p. 189). Other reports from the turn of the century found that, two decades after development of the personal computer, only one third of public school teachers felt ‘well prepared’ or ‘very well prepared’ to integrate the use of computers and the Internet into their teaching (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000) and that few school administrators used technology meaningfully to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their own work (Riedl, Smith, Ware, Wark, & Yount, 1998).

Unfortunately, these trends continue today. While students are extremely active technology users outside of school, their technology usage inside school, particularly for higher-level cognitive activities, is extremely limited (Cisco, 2008; Moe & Chubb, 2009).

While students “power up [at home, … they] power down every time they go to class” (Prensky, 2005, p. 64). The Consortium for School Networking noted recently that, “at this point in time, educational mindsets and school cultures do not yet align learning to the realities of the 21st century” (2009, p. 5).

While classroom educators certainly play a part in this widespread lack of technology adoption, ultimately it is the leaders who are at fault. After all, it is the school administrators, not the teachers, who control all of the critical resources: time, money, personnel, professional development, vision, etc. When the leaders don’t ‘get it,’ it doesn’t happen. And right now most school principals and superintendents don’t ‘get it.’

As a result, schools have kept new digital technologies on the periphery of their core academic practices. Schools … do not try to rethink basic practices of teaching and learning. Computers have not penetrated the core of schools, even though they have come to dominate the way people in the outside world read, write, calculate, and think.

(Collins & Halverson, 2009, p. 6) Since reading, writing, calculating, and thinking “are the bread and butter of traditional education, schools ignore computers at their peril” (Collins & Halverson, 2009, p. 6). Moe & Chubb (2009) reiterate that digital technologies can replace “the sameness of the traditional classroom model with a vast range of innovative learning alternatives [and can replace] the ‘one size fits all’ approach to students with powerful new ways of customizing schooling to the needs and interests of each individual” (p. 179). But in order for our schools and students to take advantage of these new affordances, our leaders—school administrators and policymakers—must be brave enough to create the new paradigm instead of simply tweaking the status quo. Will you be one of those leaders? I Cisco. (2008). Equipping every learner for the 21st century. Available at http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/ekits/Equipping_Every_Learner_for _21st_Century_White_Paper.pdf Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Consortium for School Networking. (2009). Leadership for Web 2.0 in education: Promise & reality. Washington, DC: Author.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moe, T. M., & Chubb, J. E. (2009). Liberating learning: Technology, politics, and the future of American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools [NCES 2000-090]. Washington, DC: Author.

Prensky, M. (2005, September/October). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. Educause Review, 40(5), 60-65.

Riedl, R., Smith, T., Ware, A., Wark, A., & Yount, P. (1998). Leadership for a technology-rich educational environment. Charlottesville, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421128) Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at Iowa State University and Director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE). He can be reached at www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org.

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

3

STATEWIDE

Education is the Top Priority

BY GOVERNOR DAVE HEINEMAN, State of Nebraska September 10, 2010 Dear School Administrators: In Nebraska, we value education. We want every child to have a quality education.

Gov. Heineman

I’ve seen firsthand the valuable work done by educators.

My wife, Sally Ganem, was an elementary school principal for more than 25 years. The impact you have on our children is important and extraordinary. With a good education, our children can achieve anything they want in life and reach their fullest potential. That’s why Sally and I are strong supporters of education. We know the value of a good education.

As Governor, I know a quality education requires an investment of state and local resources. At the state level, that’s the funding we provide for state aid to education.

Funding education is about more than a constitutional responsibility. The funding for the education of our children should be the number one funding priority for the state.

As we prepare for the next two-year budget cycle, the state has limited resources and we must decide on our most important priorities. The choices are difficult, but I believe education is the most important priority.

The most important factor is that the Kaiser study did not look at the Medicaid expansion comprehensively, but rather focused on only one area of the expansion and for a shorter period of time. The Kaiser study focused on the cost of the Medicaid expansion for the Childless Adults and Parents only and omitted additional expenditures for the following components: Children that switch from insured to Medicaid or currently eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid; increased Administration costs that only receive a 50% match rate; Loss of Pharmacy Rebates; Expansion to Age 26 for Foster Children; CHIP population changes; and Physician Rate Increase. The Milliman actuarial report included these areas.

The Kaiser study was also limited in the actual expansion of eligibility. The federal health care law increases eligibility coverage to 138% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) due to a 5% income disregard, which was included in the Milliman actuarial report. The Kaiser study only estimated to 133% FPL.

The three largest items in the state budget are state aid to education, the University of Nebraska and higher education, and Medicaid. The University of Nebraska recently completed a financial analysis of the state budget for the past 25 years. The percentage increase for these three items was as follows:

Currently, one in nine Nebraskans are enrolled in Medicaid, and under this expansion, nearly one in five Nebraskans will be on the Medicaid program. This unfunded and unparalleled expansion of Medicaid is an unfair and unsustainable mandate on Nebraska and other states. No matter which study you use, it’s a lot of money, and you and I both know that the federal government has a strong track record of underestimating the costs of the programs they mandate on the states.

• Medicaid - 776% • K-12 School Aid - 450% • University of Nebraska - 186%

The bottom line is that this federal unfunded Medicaid mandate is going to cost the State of Nebraska hundreds of millions of dollars and states can’t afford it.

It’s clear that Medicaid is already impacting education funding. Additionally, the new federal health care law contains an unfunded Medicaid mandate that will cost the State of Nebraska between $526 and $766 million over the next 10 years, according to an independent actuarial analysis by Milliman, Inc., one of the world’s largest and most respected actuarial firms. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a private foundation that favors the health care reform law, estimated costs of some areas of Medicaid expansion to be $150 million for Nebraska over a shorter period of time.

Because there has been much discussion about the differences of the Milliman actuarial report and the Kaiser

4

study, I would like to share with you the major differences when examining the Medicaid expansion costs included in the federal health care law.

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

As I stated earlier, the three largest items in the state budget are state aid to education, the University of Nebraska and higher education, and Medicaid. If Medicaid funding increases significantly, education funding is likely to be reduced. I don’t want that to happen. The funding for the education of our children should be the number-one priority for our state. I

STATEWIDE

New Year, New Challenges: Now What?

BY DR. ROGER BREED, Commissioner, Nebraska Department of Education

W

Breed

elcome to the 2010-2011 school year!

Like many of the school years in the recent past, the new school year presents school administrators with many issues and opportunities. As Commissioner, I have heard from many of you about the challenges and about the suggestions you have for solutions. I have also met with public education leaders throughout the United States. Let me assure you, I believe I am fortunate to be in Nebraska where overall we have dedicated leaders who have created quality schools throughout the state. What follows is an attempt on my part to highlight some of the issues and possible solutions for this new school year.

The statewide reading test “results” are out and the schools have been ranked and compared. Schools have received and analyzed building, district and state averages. Student scores were sent to parents. Newspaper editors have offered their interpretations. Politicians and others have offered theirs. Now what?

In the next month, the Nebraska Department of Education will apply the results to the federally required annual yearly progress (AYP) process and issue the 2010-2011 list of persistently lowest achieving schools (PLAS). On October 1, NDE will present the 2010 State of the Schools Report including historical data as well as the disaggregated data on the statewide testing results.

Next year the process will be repeated with statewide math results joining reading results in the AYP process and the question remains: Now what?

The Legislature meets in January and the Governor will offer a proposed budget for the next biennium (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013). Resources for public education will likely decline from levels of the past two years when federal stimulus dollars were used. The state faces a predicted shortfall between expected revenue and expected expenditures. Even including the $58.9 million Education Jobs funds, a funding “cliff” will be a reality in the 2011-2012 school year. Now what?

Student enrollment in the public schools will likely show a slight increase this year with growth occurring primarily in schools in or near Nebraska’s cities. Characteristics of this year’s public school students—41% qualify for free and/or reduced price lunch, 16% have special education needs, and 6.5% have English language learning needs. Public schools welcome all students including

the nurtured and supported as well as the abused and neglected, the gifted as well as the challenged. Nebraska students are coming to Nebraska public schools today with greater needs and less supports than ever before. At the same time, the federal agenda calls for all students to graduate from high school “college and career ready.”

Now what?

The economy is still sluggish and revenues are below projections; unemployment remains high for Nebraska and even worse nationwide; the need for education/ training beyond high school for entry into the workforce has never been greater while at the same time the funding for additional teachers, added instructional time, updated facilities, and technology initiatives are under stress; learning gaps and drop-out levels persist regardless of significant efforts in school districts; and there is an unprecedented call at the state and federal levels for improved quality and accountability. Test issues, accountability issues, funding issues, student needs issues —all have one thing in common. They all end up on the desks of school administrators. Now what?

What do we, the educational leaders of Nebraska, do?

First, we have to understand our limits and our focus.

There are those who think there are too many administrators and that we act counter to student learning. I do not support these assertions as these are often made by the same folks who continue to add to the duties of schools in areas away from the primary purpose of schools—student learning. Further, the role of school administrators and teachers is limited by the perspectives of school boards, communities and businesses. School boards often reflect community values. If those values do not include solid support for the goal of every student to be a high school graduate who is college and career ready, then the work of school administrators and teachers will be limited and likely diminished. The clear message must be that the home and community (city leaders, business leaders, social agency leaders) expect, value and support learning in schools and that this message is clearly conveyed in homes, in the work place, at school board meetings, in city council meetings, and in the Legislature.

Still, if school administrators are not each day and every way supporting the commitment to student learn(continued on next page)

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

5

STATEWIDE New Year, New Challenges: Now What? (continued from page 5) ing, we may be part of the problem instead of part of the solution. When asked what it took to conquer Mt. Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary responded, “It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves.” Do we have the collective will to make the tough decisions, to keep the focus on student learning and to hold students, teachers and ourselves accountable for improving student learning?

Second, we must build on the knowledge and capacity of Nebraska educators. One thing we have learned over the past ten plus years of standards-based education is that the involvement of, trust of, and productivity of Nebraska teachers is essential to student success. Moving all students forward requires good teachers and administrators, properly trained, motivated and supported over time. We must work with and within our teacher and principal preparation programs to ensure that graduates of these programs are knowledgeable of state standards and effective in creating successful learning environments for students. Do we have the will in Nebraska to continue to value teacher and administrator input into the assessment/accountability process and to see our educators as a great asset that needs to be nurtured and supported over time with solid preparation, effective professional development and reasonable collaboration time?

Third, we must live out each day in schools knowing that what occurs there is much more than what can be reflected by any assessment/accountability system and at the same time knowing that those outside of school walls will often fail to give our schools any credit for daily efforts to engage students in building their future. The world has changed drastically in the last decade and education has never been more important for positioning individuals for personal success and our society for sustained productivity and expansion.

It is pretty clear that in addition to academic performance (leading to college and career ready goals), we must work to see that schools address the development of the whole person (physically, socially, intellectually); include and emphasize 21st century skills (technology literacy, global awareness, financial literacy, employability skills); provide all students the learning tools to achieve to the best of their ability and to know themselves, their strengths and their passions (including full exposure to opportunities in the arts); and create opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world situations. Do we have the collective will to look at the tough problems before us and see a better school system in the future?

Our desks are full of problems, test issues, accountability issues, funding issues, student needs issues. Over the past year, I have traveled from border to border visiting schools and discussing these issues with superintendents, principals and teach6

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

ers. Nebraska schools are facing significant changes due to the many issues outlined above. The status quo in many districts will not be acceptable. It will require the concentrated effort of administrators to align school district and school building efforts in supporting the work of teachers, insuring educator and system accountability and providing high quality instruction and leadership.

Going forward will also require changes at the state and department level. We will not be able to meet our goal of every student a high school graduate who is college and career ready without changes and a redirection of resources at the state level.

The leadership and involvement of administrators is necessary to continue the work to create a new state system of support for school districts including resources and assistance for school districts in building an informative longitudinal data system, continuing to insure effective teachers and leaders for all schools, supporting the turning around of struggling schools and expanding virtual opportunities so that all students have access to high quality curriculum.

Do we have the will individually and collectively to address these problems? My response is a resounding, “Yes!” The task has never been so large or the opportunity so great, but I am confident Nebraska school administrators will find solutions and move our education system forward. Thanks to all of you for daily taking on the problems and possibilities of student learning. I am proud to serve with you and I look forward to a great 2010-2011 school year. I

In the Next Issue of NCSA Today…

U.S. Senator Ben Nelson addresses education and the impact of federal actions on publics schools University President J.B. Milliken discusses collaboration between postsecondary and K-12 education Important issues that lay ahead for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011

IMPLEMENTING CHA NGE

Reinventing the Place Called School

BY DR. LARRY DLUGOSH and DR. JOHN LAMMEL, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

O

Dlugosh

Lammel

ne of the sessions at the 2010 Administrators’ Days featured a dialogue among university professors and school practitioners about the reinvention of the place called school. The primary reason for the selection of the topic and the invitation to administrators to talk about it was to create a dialogue about the persistent criticism of public education in America during the past several decades.

The education of children and young adults is crucial to the success of nations. Economies, political systems, social systems, and individual well-being all depend on successful educational programs for youth and young adults. The ‘fixing’ of America’s public school system has become the pastime of politicians, talk show hosts, corporate executives, and billionaires who propose to influence the thinking of American citizens. We ask the questions, sincerely and not naively, what is it about public schools that needs to be fixed, who should be involved in the reinvention of the place called school, and how might schools be reinvented?

In The Death and Life of the Great American School System, (2010), Diane Ravitch explores educational reforms of the past 40 years and provides a hard-hitting analysis of their impact on the current condition of American public schools. Some quotes from the author follow: “At the present time public education is in peril. Efforts to reform public education are, ironically, diminishing its quality and endangering its very survival. We must turn our attention to improving the school, infusing them with the substance of genuine learning and reviving the conditions that make learning possible.” (p. 242)

In some ways the responses were the ones that were expected, however, there was an undertone to the dialogue that suggested we all needed to do more than talk about change; we needed to be courageous enough to embrace change and move schools forward.

“The most durable way to improve schools is to improve curriculum and instruction and to improve the conditions in which teachers work and children learn, rather than endlessly squabbling over how school systems should be organized, managed, and controlled. It is not the organization of schools that is at fault for the ignorance we deplore, but the lack of sound educational values.”

(225-226)

Ravitch examined some of the activities that she perceives will not allow schools to improve.

She states, “Our schools will not improve if - - • We continue to focus only on reading and math; • We value only what tests measure (not everything that matters can be quantified - - - such as a student’s ability to seek alternative explanations, to raise questions, to pursue knowledge on his/her own, and to think differently - - .

• We rely exclusively on tests as means of deciding the fate of students, principals, teachers, and schools; • We close neighborhood schools in the name of reform; • We entrust schools to the magical powers of the market; (the market has winners and losers – choice may lead to better outcomes or worse outcomes; letting a thousand flowers bloom does not guarantee a garden full of flowers if the garden is untended, unsupervised, and unregulated.

• Charter schools siphon away the most motivated students and their families in the poorest communities: • We expect them to act like private, profit-seeking enterprises - - - schools are not businesses, they are a public good.

• We continue to drive away experienced principals; • We blindly worship data; • We believe those who say money does not matter; • We ignore the disadvantages associated with poverty that affect children’s ability to learn; • We use them as society’s all purpose punching bag, blaming them for the ills of the economy, the burdens imposed on children by poverty, the dysfunction of families, and the erosion of civility - - -“ (p. 225229) Feedback At the 2010 Administrators’ Days Conference in Kearney, a group of 24 Nebraska school leaders responded to the following inquiries: • What three changes could be made to improve your local school(s).

• What stands in your way of making the changes you want to make? a. Who do you have to convince in order to make the changes? (continued on next page) SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

7

IMPLEMENTING CHA NGE Reinventing the Place Called School…(continued from page 7) b. Are there specific resources you need in order to make the changes?

• What additional professional knowledge or skills do you need to implement positive changes in your school(s)?

The responses were honest and straightforward. Respondents identified their top three changes as follows: 1. Curriculum. The most common recommendation was to make the curriculum more relevant to the needs of 21st Century learners and differentiate the curriculum in ways that provide access for all students. Part of the problem with delivering a 21st Century curriculum was perceived to be that schools have not prioritized what is important to teach. Questions were raised about whether school had identifiable P-12 curriculum plans or whether the curriculum was disjointed and dependent solely on what any given classroom teacher taught. In other words, is there an articulated curriculum plan in schools that has been developed by teachers and administrators and is that curriculum used to guide the learning program? Other concerns related to curriculum addressed the consistency between what was taught and what was tested and the perceived drift toward teaching only to what was going to be tested.

2. Early Childhood. Respondents recommended the implementation of Early Childhood and pre-K education for all communities. Early learning was perceived as essential if students were expected to succeed in today’s world.

3. Time. The third most common change was to think differently about time and how time is managed in a learning environment. The school year and school day are out of synch with the way people operate their lives; schools need to be 24/7 operations with distance educational opportunities as part of the delivery method. The ‘seat time’ model is outdated.

The responses to question #2; ‘what stands in the way of making the changes you want to make?’ follow: 1. A top down model driven by federal and state mandates and funding mechanisms was mentioned as the most frustrating impediment to change. Many of the respondents perceived that politics had overpowered education while what was best for students and learning had lost priority.

2. There was a perception that schools need to aggressively recruit and retain the best teachers for their students. Schools that have students with high needs, students in poverty, and many at-risk students must aggressively recruit the best teachers to their schools. While some of the respondents perceived many teachers, especially the more recent graduates, to be highly motivated to work with at-risk students, their school districts did not seem to attract that type of teacher as much as they wished.

8

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

Part of the problem was the low turnover of teachers or lack of need to hire additional teachers due to shrinking student numbers in some rural districts.

3. Community attitudes about school were cited as a frustration. Again, the perception was that the school and community had disconnected in ways that left the school vulnerable to continued emotional and financial support from local citizens. Athletics and activities were supported by the local communities, but academics were not on the radar of citizens unless there was a negative report about school performance in reading or math.

Several respondents commented that, while not a new phenomenon, athletics was the tail that wagged the dog!

4. Several respondents perceived a division between core curriculum teachers and teachers who taught elective courses. There was a perception that those who taught elective courses were not connected with the reality of NCLB and AYP. 5. Money and time were noted as impediments to change along with the attitude of some teachers, administrators, and community members who were reluctant to change anything about the traditional model of school. Even though society had changed dramatically, schools remained fairly static in their approach to teaching and learning. The common response to change expressed by respondents was, “we have never done it that way before.”

Question #3 focused on what additional knowledge or skills school leaders needed in order to implement changes.

1. Respondents perceived they needed to understand the change process better and to figure out ways to be more flexible with schedules and how students were being taught—especially at the secondary level.

2. Many respondents indicated they needed skills and time to build stronger relationships with all stakeholders. Others said they were, at times, overwhelmed, with all of the routine functions they had to perform just to keep school running.

In some ways the responses were the ones that were expected, however, there was an undertone to the dialogue that suggested we all needed to do more than talk about change; we needed to be courageous enough to embrace change and move schools forward. We intend to proceed with a statewide survey to gather the opinions of other school leaders about reinventing the pace called school. I

PRO GRAM SP OTL IGHT

The Nebraska Educational Virtual Academy: Where Will Past, Current, and FutureTrends Lead Us?

BY DR. KENT M C LELLAN, Director of Alternative Education, ESU #13

F

or the past 16 years, I was the principal at Morrill Jr.-Sr. High School. While I enjoyed the principalship, I made the decision to embark on a new journey in my career, by accepting the position of Director of Alternative Education for Educational Service Unit 13 (ESU 13) in Scottsbluff, NE. So far, I’ve experienced a steep learning curve, but it has been a very enjoyable transition.

One of the programs that I am responsible for is the Nebraska Educational Virtual Academy (NEVA). The NEVA program began as a result of collaboration between ESU 13 and the schools it serves in order to provide alternative education opportunities for struggling students. ESU 13 staff created seven online courses to allow at-risk students the opportunity to recover credit while remaining at their high school. The program experienced success as a credit recovery option for at-risk students, but over time, NEVA has grown to be much more.

In addition to credit recovery, schools across the state can now use NEVA courses to overcome scheduling conflicts, to provide additional opportunities, such as dual credit, for their gifted and talented students, and to provide students with the opportunity to experience an online course. ESU 13 consortium member schools have the additional benefit of having direct access to the curriculum developed by the NEVA staff. As a result, teachers in these districts that may not be comfortable or strong in a specific area can access and use NEVA materials in their courses in order to enhance their materials.

This characteristic of the program provides an opportunity for member school teachers to develop a blended learning environment for their courses.

If you’ve taken a college course lately, it’s a pretty good bet that you were required to complete at least part of your course online. While this has been a common event in most colleges, many public schools in Nebraska have not kept up with this trend. I don’t think too many educators today would argue with the statement that if schools are not providing their students the opportunity to participate in online courses, they are doing them a disservice. Some states have actually made McLellan this a graduation requirement for their students.

While gaining experience with online curriculum is a valuable asset for today’s students, perhaps more importantly, there have been studies that indicate that student achievement is enhanced when using a blend of face-to-face and online instruction (blended instruction). The U.S. Department of Education released a review of literature of 51 online learning studies in 2009.

The overall results indicated that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. When comparing on-line and blended learning environments, students in a blended environment performed better than on-line alone.

Over the past year, there have been multiple meetings to discuss the development of a statewide virtual school. The meetings have included representatives from Nebraska K12 schools, ESUs, NET, Community Colleges, State Colleges, UNL, the Nebraska Independent Study High School, NDE and the Department of Labor. One of the biggest advantages of a collaborative approach such as this is that everybody has a place at the table. The work that has been done by various organizations prior to these meetings will be explored and utilized if appropriate. It is our belief that we have a very high quality product at NEVA and we are very excited that it could very well serve as a model for the production of future online courses that benefit students across the State.

If you have any questions regarding the NEVA program, please feel free to contact me by email at kmclellan@esu13.org or by phone at (308) 635-0206.

I Mary Dobrovolny, NEVA teacher, working with students providing a blended learning environment for students.

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

9

HEA LTH CARE

Effects of Health Care Reform on Nebraska School Districts

BY KEN BABCOCK, Lincoln Public Schools

O

n March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and a week later the reconciliation bill was signed by the President. The PPACA is 2,400 pages long and the reconciliation bill is 153 pages in length. The legislation dramatically changes the American health care system as well as adding voluntary government-run long-term care insurance; altering the student loan program; and requiring employers to provide a private area and break times for non-exempt employees to express breast milk.

Health and Human Services (HHS) will play a major Babcock role in writing and implementing the rules and regulations for the legislation. Due to the scope of the legislation and the relative quick implementation timelines for some aspects of the bill, it is expected that HHS will be challenged in providing timely guidance. From past experience, we can expect the final rules and regulations to be extremely lengthy.

This analysis is certainly not comprehensive. I have attended a number of presentations and read many articles but due to the complexity of the legislation, there are ample unanswered questions. I have noticed that many times the “experts” disagree about the content of the legislation.

Small employers (generally defined in PPACA as those with 50 or fewer employees) are exempt from some of the legislation and are often treated preferentially. It is unclear if the size of entire Educators Health Alliance (EHA) program dictates that all districts within EHA will be considered The legislation large. If your district employs 50 or fewer employees, pay careful attendramatically tion to future clarifications conchanges the cerning the definition of group size American health and if the participation in EHA affects your size categorization. care system as well Entire books will be written as adding voluntary about each of the bullet points below. I will try to address the government-run broad issues.

long-term care insurance…

10

NCSA TODAY

Overview Generally, the health care por-

SEPTEMBER 2010

tion of the legislation contains these major concepts: • An estimated 32 million more Americans will be insured through the expansion of Medicaid, mandating coverage by individuals, and fining large employers who fail to provide adequate health insurance for their employees.

• Insurance exchanges will be formed in order to offer insurance to individuals and small employers. Subsidies will be available to individuals who purchase insurance through the exchange and whose income is up to four times the federal poverty level.

• There will be mandated benefit and insurance structure changes. The legislation excludes some of these mandates for grandfathered plans.

Prior to the release of the Interim Final Regulations concerning grandfather status, it was thought that a grandfathered plan was simply one that was in existence on March 23, 2010. The regulations released on June 17 impose very tight restrictions on grandfathered groups. For example, any increase in the coinsurance percentage will cause a group to lose its grandfathered status. As evidence of the limiting nature of the new rules, within the regulation it is estimated that between 39% and 69% of groups will lose their grandfathered status by 2013.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska has indicated that it believes that the utilization of a new master contract dictates that all districts within EHA will lose their grandfather status on September 1, 2011.

• There will be many more reporting mandates for employers and insurance companies.

• There will be new taxes on pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical devices manufacturers, and health insurance companies.

• New tax money will also be generated through added taxes on individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and couples with annual incomes over $250,000 per year.

• Medical flex accounts will be limited to $2,500 per year creating additional taxes for many employees and employers.

• Employers will be asked to administer a governmen(continued on next page)

HEA LTH CARE Health Care Reform…(continued from page 10) tal voluntary long-term care program for their employees. At this time, it appears that employers will be allowed to opt out of the program.

• There will be a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing health insurance for retirees.

• Federal money will available to form nonprofit health care cooperatives and to research wellness, new payment models, and comparative clinical outcomes.

Calendar In 2010, a temporary reinsurance plan is initiated for employers providing coverage to retirees age 55 to 65. The program reimburses 80% of claims between $15,000 and $90,000 and the reimbursement is to lower the costs to the enrollees. EHA has made application for these funds on behalf of its members.

The effective date of the PPACA is September 23, 2010. Group insurance renewals after that date (9-1-2011 for EHA districts) must include the following changes: • Pre-existing condition exclusions for dependents under age 19 will no longer be allowed.

• Lifetime maximums will no longer be allowed.

• Children who are not eligible for other group coverage can stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26. This eligibility is not dependent upon the child being in college or the child’s marital status.

• Additional requirements for non-grandfathered plan renewals after that date include preventive care at no cost to the employee and new nondiscrimination rules concerning health insurance.

In 2011, the following changes will take place: • Employers will be required to disclose the value of the health insurance benefits on the W-2 forms. The information must be included on the W-2 forms issued in January 2012 for the 2011 year.

• Effective January 1, 2011, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program is effective. This is a government-operated, voluntary long-term care program. If provided by the employer, all working adults must be automatically enrolled unless they opt out. Premium payment is through payroll deduction. After a five-year waiting period, a covered employee is eligible for benefits of not less than $50 per day.

Although effective January 1, 2011, the final regulations for the CLASS program are not due until October 2012. It appears that an employer will have the option to not offer the CLASS program.

In 2013, medical flex accounts will be limited to $2,500 per year. Currently, the employer establishes the maximum contribu-

tion which in many cases is well over $2,500. The net effect will be many employees and employers will pay additional taxes.

Many of the changes in the health care system are scheduled to take place in 2014, including: • Most Americans will be required to have health insurance. If an individual does not have insurance, he/she will pay an annual fine. The fine transitions upward from the greater of $95 ($285 for a family) or 1% of taxable income in 2014 to $695 ($2,085 for a family) or 2.5% of taxable income in 2016.

• State based health exchanges will be formed as clearinghouses for health insurance. Consumers will be able to compare the offerings and premiums from various carriers. It is envisioned that the consumer will be able to quickly search coverage and rates from various companies via a web site.

• Individuals who purchase insurance through the exchange will be eligible for substantial premium subsidies if their incomes are up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four). Approximately 60% of Americans are within 400% of the federal poverty level.

• Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges will be formed through which small employers can purchase health insurance. The exchanges will become available to larger employers over time. Prior to 2016, states can limit SHOP exchanges to employers with 50 or fewer employees. In 2016, employers with up to 100 employees can purchase insurance through the exchange. In 2017, states can allow employers with greater than 100 employees to purchase coverage through the SHOP exchange. Definitions of which employers will be eligible for SHOP coverage will be addressed in the regulatory process.

• Large employers (50+ employees) will be required to offer health insurance to full-time employees (30+ hours per week) or pay a fine of $2000 per year per full-time employee (less the first 30 employees).

• If a large employer offers coverage, an employee can still purchase coverage through the exchange if the employer plan does not have an actuarial value of at least 60% (the plan pays for at least 60% of the plan participants’ total costs) or if the employee’s contribution to the premium is over 9.5% of the participant’s household income. If employees purchase insurance through an exchange and receive subsidies, the employer is fined the lesser of $3,000 per employee receiving a subsidy or $2,000 per full-time employee (less the first 30 employees).

If an employee’s contribution to the group plan premium is between 8% and 9.8% of the participant’s household income and the employee’s household income is within 400% of the (continued on next page) SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY 11

HEA LTH CARE Health Care Reform… (continued from page 11) Federal Poverty Level, the employee may ask the employer for a voucher equivalent to the employer’s health insurance contribution. The employee can utilize the voucher to pay for his/her insurance through the exchange. In order to request a voucher, the employee will have to produce tax information concerning the income information for his household.

Small school districts with EHA health insurance need to monitor upcoming interpretations of PPACA concerning the applicability of the penalties to small districts within a large association health insurance program.

• Employers with more than 200 employees will be required to auto-enroll new employees in the health care plan. The employee may then opt out of the plan.

In 2018, an excise tax will be levied on all employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The aggregate includes the employer and employee contributions to health premiums, health flex accounts, health savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts. This was a very controversial tax as indicated by the effective date of 2018.

Points to Consider Most experts do not look for the legislation to lower medical costs. In fact, the mandated liberalization of the insurance rules (ex. elimination of lifetime maximums, coverage of children to age 26, etc.) will increase insurance costs. Additional taxes levied upon health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and durable medical equipment will also elevate costs. The truly crucial factors affecting the cost of health care, and thus insurance costs, are: (1) the number and nature of claims; and (2) the payment per claim. PPACA does very little to decrease either of these two critical factors.

Due to the implementation of the exchanges and employer fines, the year 2014 is a critical one for large school districts.

There will be discussions in some districts about discontinuing the group health plan altogether and paying the $2,000/employee fine (less the first 30 employees). Employers now offering health insurance (at a cost of much greater than $2,000 per employee) could increase employee salaries and advise the employees to purchase their health insurance through the premium-subsidized exchange. Those discussions will of course include discussions with the employee unions. A caveat to such a plan is that the federal government can increase the $2,000 fine, possibly making the solution impractical.

Assuming that most large school districts will maintain their group health insurance plans, many school officials are attempting to estimate the fiscal impact of the 2014 insurance mandate.

In this analysis, if the district’s contribution is over $3,000 per 12

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

employee per year (in most cases the district’s contribution is well over $3,000 per year) those employees already on your plan in 2014 cannot cost you additional dollars. If an employee already on your plan leaves your plan to purchases a plan through the exchange and receives a subsidy, the district is fined $3,000.

Since the district is already paying at least that amount in premiums, the district will not spend more money and may spend less.

Similarly, if an employee is already on the coverage but is eligible for a voucher from the district, the district’s contribution to the voucher is the same amount that would have been spent on the group premiums. The district is in effect held harmless.

In this scenario, any actions of employees currently on the plan should not cost the district additional funds. Thus, the critical factor is the number of full-time employees who are not on your health plan prior to 2014. The actions of the previously noncovered employees may increase your costs. Some of the possible scenarios include: • The employee does not have the district’s health plan because he has group coverage through his spouse. If that is still the case, he can waive the district’s health plan with no fiscal effect on the district.

• The employee has no health insurance at all and decides to continue to go without insurance. The employee would pay the minimal fine to the government and there will be no fiscal effect on the district.

• The employee can opt to join the district’s health plan, costing the district additional money.

• If the employee meets the eligibility criteria, the employee can request a voucher to purchase her insurance through the exchange. The district’s expenditure for the voucher is exactly the amount the district would have paid for the employee’s coverage through the district plan. Since the employee had no district insurance previously, the district’s expenditure will increase.

• If eligible, the employee can purchase his insurance through the state exchange. If he receives a subsidy (which is likely), the district will be fined $3,000 per year; an additional cost.

In summary, for those districts contributing over $3,000 per employee per year for health insurance, the employees on the plan prior to 2014 will not cost the district more and may cost the district less. Those employees not on your coverage prior to 2014 may each cost the district nothing, the cost of the district’s premium (either the actual premium or a voucher), or a $3,000 fine.

It appears that districts which pay at least $3,000 per employee per year for health insurance and have very high participation rates are the districts which will have the least to fear in 2014. (continued on page 14)

LEGAL PERSP ECTIVE

CIR Update

BY KELLEY BAKER, Harding & Shultz

T

he Nebraska Supreme Court issued a decision in June that will have a profound effect on school districts and public employers throughout Nebraska. In Central City Educ. Ass’n v. Merrick Co. School Dist. No. 61-0004, 280 Neb. 27, 783 N.W.2d 600, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission of Industrial Relations’ decision ordering the Central City Board of Education to add contract continuation wording to its negotiated agreement. It remanded the case to the Commission to make a determination about payment for unused sick and personal leave days consistent with the evidence.

Baker The Issues. The case began as a wage and fringe benefit dispute in the Commission between the Central City Education Association (CCEA) and the Central City Board of Education (District) regarding the 2008-09 negotiated agreement. The CCEA asked the Commission to rule on base salary, the deletion of leave provisions regarding notice of pregnancy and administratively-approved emergency leave, the District’s payment of health insurance premiums, and the imposition of a provision on contract continuation. In its answer, the District asked the Commission to 1) establish the number of sick leave days based on prevalent practice, 2) establish a salary schedule with steps and lanes based on prevalent practice, and to delete the provisions regarding: 1. making the negotiated agreement a part of each teacher’s employment contract; 2. permitting the board to terminate pay after a teacher’s absence for 60 school days and “until such time as the teacher is able to Local education return to work”; associations will 3. providing extended paid increase their efforts to leave to teachers until longterm disability payments put contract took effect; continuation clauses in 4. requiring notice of pregnegotiated agreements nancy; as a way of limiting 5. authorizing administraBoards’ lawful authority tively-approved emergency leave; to change terms and 6. limiting making up snow conditions of days; 7. specifying the number of employment. days in the contract year; and

8. paying teachers for unused sick and personal leave days when they left employment after ten or more years of service.

The Commission’s Order. The District and CCEA had agreed on the schools in the array and their comparability analyses were within $2 on base salary, so the Commission’s order regarding base salary and health insurance contributions was entirely expected. It ordered the deletion of the provisions specified in sections 1-7 above as the District had requested. After a post-trial conference on the issue, the Commission ordered the District to continue to pay teachers for one-third of their unused sick and personal leave days when they left employment after ten or more years of service and to implement a contract continuation clause that read: This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until a successor agreement is adopted which is then retroactive to the beginning of that school year.

Appeal to Supreme Court. The District appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, contending the Commission had 1) exceeded its authority by ordering the implementation of a contract continuation clause, 2) improperly issued a decision regarding a permissive subject of bargaining, 3) erred by finding payment for unused sick and personal time prevalent in the District’s array, 4) violated public policy, and 5) failed to consider the varying practices of the compared-to school districts when it ordered the District to continue to pay teachers for one-third of their unused sick and personal leave days.

Divided Supreme Court. In a 5-2 split decision, the Supreme Court held that the controlling issue regarding the contract continuation clause ordered by the Commission was whether it dealt with hours, wages, or terms and conditions of employment and was therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Court concluded that the subject was a mandatory subject because 1) it related to hours, wages and terms and conditions of employment, and 2) the clause keeps previously agreedupon (or ordered) contract terms in effect, including those which are mandatorily bargainable, until a new agreement is reached. The Court held that a continua(continued on page 14) SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

13

LEGAL PERSP ECTIVE CIR Update…(continued from page 13) tion clause does not order the District to enter into a contract and thus does not create a contract for an indefinite term. The Court rejected the District’s argument that the inclusion of the continuation clause violated public policy.

Pay for Unused Sick/Personal Leave – Remanded to the Commission. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that a provision providing for pay for unused leave was prevalent within the array of compared-to school districts. However, it noted that the rate of reimbursement differed among the schools (four even paid nothing) and remanded the case to the Commission with directions to consider the varying terms of the pay for unused leave. The Board of Education and CCEA negotiated a resolution of this issue before it was scheduled for trial in the Commission.

Dissenting Judges. Chief Justice Michael Heavican and Justice William Connolly dissented from the Court’s opinion. They felt, as the School District had contended, that the Commission had exceeded its statutory authority, had violated section 48810.01 of the Nebraska statutes, and had essentially ordered the School District to enter into a contract affecting future years.

Chief Justice Heavican wrote:

I would conclude that the inclusion of a contract continuation clause by the CIR is akin to an order to enter into a contract, is contrary to the parties’ right to bargain, and was a violation of § 48-810.01. And because I believe the CIR violated § 48-810.01, I would also conclude that the CIR exceeded its authority when it ordered a contract continuation clause to be included in the parties’ agreement.

Ramifications. The Supreme Court’s decision will have a significant effect on government entities throughout Nebraska and particularly on school districts. Local education associations will increase their efforts to put contract continuation clauses in negotiated agreements as a way of limiting Boards’ lawful authority to change terms and conditions of employment. Boards should take great care about agreeing to any such clauses. Those in districts with such clauses should be aware that the clauses also limit their authority and require them to continue benefit levels and premium contributions from the previous year until a new agreement is reached. I

These types of [contract continuation] clauses almost seem designed to resolve, without the input of either party to an agreement, future industrial disputes. As such, I would find it to be in excess of the CIR’s authority to determine industrial disputes. ...

Health Care Reform…(continued from page 12) Since the mandates and fines starting in 2014 are based upon full-time employees (30+ hours per week), I would foresee that a consequence of the legislation is that employers who have eligibility requirements of less than 30 hours per week (and who retain group health coverage) will attempt to increase their eligibility requirements for health insurance to 30 hours per week. Through such action, there will be more funds available to pay the costs associated in the 2014 transition.

Employers with the flexibility to do so may also alter positions so employees will work less than 30 hours per week.

All of this information and analysis is based upon various interpretations of PPACA as currently written. As evidenced by the interim rules concerning grandfathered plans, the rules and regulations can be radically different from what was communi-

14

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

cated prior to the passage of PPACA. It is of paramount importance that we all carefully watch the evolution of the legislation which will fundamentally and dramatically change our health insurance system.

A helpful web site concerning PPACA is: http://insight.aon.com/?elqPURLPage=4401. I

S:\Human Resources\Employee Relations\Benefits\09-10 benefits\HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM\NCSA Reform Paper.doc9/8/2010 4:03 PM

AF FIL IATE LEA DERSHIP

Fire Prevention: Equipping Teachers with the Skills Necessary to Work with Paraeducators

BY PEGGY ROMSHEK, Special Education Director, Mitchell Public Schools; President, Nebraska Association of Special Education Supervisors

I

Romshek

t may have been the fall of 1995, but I clearly remember what it was like to be a first-year special education teacher thinking I had all the skills necessary to excel at my new position. I was the only special education teacher in a K-12 school, and the superintendent assured me that even though I had several students with diverse needs that I had wonderful paraeducators who had been with the school system for years and would make my job so much easier. I met the needs of challenging students and parents head-on as well as the immense paperwork requirements. However, one of the lessons learned that sticks out in my mind from that first year is how ill-equipped I felt to supervise the paraeducators assigned to work with me. These ladies did an exceptional job in many ways, but they had been in their positions for several years and were very set in their ways and didn’t always agree with my philosophy or how I wanted things done. Here I was a first year teacher telling them what to do, and they had to listen to someone who was just a few years older than their own children. I wanted to be their friend, but that wasn’t easy since I knew that at some point I was probably going to have to step in and “be the boss.” I kept thinking to myself that they did not prepare me for this in any of my college classes and what did I get myself into.

Fast-forward fifteen years, and this problem still exists for many educators today as Special Education, Title I, preschool, and even regular classroom teachers are often thrust into this role. Technically, they may not be hired as a supervisor because an administrator serves in this capacity, but they are truly the ones serving as instructional supervisors since they are the ones interacting with the paraeducators on a daily basis and providing them feedback and direction. As an administrator, I supervise exceptional first-year teachers and veteran teachers alike who struggle with this concept. I often times hear, “I didn’t sign up for this,” or “I wish I could just work with the students and not have to deal with all this drama.” There are days I feel like I should have worn flame resistant clothing to work because I am constantly “putting out fires” with issues that develop between

paras and their supervising teachers. Paraeducators are an invaluable resource to a school system because we wouldn’t be able to provide the services to students that we do without them, yet issues do arise with them that teachers are ill-prepared to handle. Rather than handling issues with paras right away, teachers often let them smolder until the situation erupts into a five alarm fire because the teacher does not want to offend or upset the para. I can’t help but wonder, “Is this one of the reasons that teachers in some of these positions burn out so easily?” As administrators, it is our duty to work with these teachers to help them develop the skills necessary to supervise other adults. Preventative measures need to be put in place so that the teacher’s time as well as our own is spent in a more productive manner than battling the blazes that erupt.

For starters, we need to guide teachers in developing the skills necessary to lead other adults in an effective manner. To begin with, we need to tell them that we know that these skills may not come naturally to them, but that we will work with them to develop effective skills in working with paras. Acknowledging that we know that this may be difficult for them is a great place to start in showing them that we understand their anxiety. We then need to give them effective resources to help assist them in this undertaking. Project Para (Steckelberg, Vasa) has been a wonderful free resource to Nebraska Educators to use to give paras information on various topics pertaining to their job. There is also an additional training piece that people may be unaware of called the The Supervisors of Para Educators Self Study that can be utilized as a resource to train teachers on skills they will need when supervising paras. Teachers are able to read through the five units and learn about the various skills supervising paras entails plus do activities to reinforce what they are reading about. Another possible resource that guides you in conducting an interactive in-service for supervising teachers is A Training Program: to Prepare Teachers to Supervise and Work Effectively with Paraeducator Personnel (Pickett, 2007). (continued on page 18) SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

15

TRENDS IN EDUCATION

Nebraska Superintendents in September 2010

BY DR. JAMES E. OSSIAN, Wayne State College

A Ossian

16

s one who still enjoys the privilege of designing and delivering academic programs for the preparation of school administrators, I spend a good deal of time conversing with practitioners of the art, including attendance at ESU #1 and ESU #8 superintendent meetings in Northeast Nebraska. If nothing else, those sessions are an excellent reminder that I made a good choice in deciding to leave the superintendent ranks 14 years ago.

Nebraska ESUs are staffed by talented educators, and they have for many years provided a variety of valuable services to their constituent school districts. More recently, however, it seems that an inordinate amount of their effort is focused on assisting administrators with interpreting test results and the protocol for a host of data-collecting documents, the reporting deadlines for which now fill up another school calendar.

One can feel the frustration mounting at area superintendent meetings. School leaders, particularly in smaller communities, are wondering who on their staffs have the time and expertise to take on another chore or will it be added to their own bloated agenda. As an occasional visitor at the ESU meetings, I even find it difficult to learn and digest all the new acronyms.

When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) became law in 2001, Nebraska administrators, and those across the nation, regarded it with mixed reactions. Optimists agreed that the purposes of closing the achievement gap and holding all students to acceptable performance on rigorous academic standards were laudable. Skeptics considered the act to be a colossal waste of pulp and the overarching goal of having all students achieving at a high level within a few years time as ridiculously unrealistic.

Educators of a more liberal ilk breathed a sigh of relief when the Obama administration moved into the Whitehouse. That sigh became a gasp when the president’s majordomo at the Federal DOE, Arnie Duncan, ratcheted up the testing stakes, promoted competitive grants and charter schools, and endorsed punitive measures for administrators and teachers in “persistently low achieving schools” (PLAS). And another acronym is born.

Diane Ravitch, a former Assistant Secretary of Education in the Bush Administration and one of the architects of NCLB, has emerged as an articulate critic of the

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

law and its implementation.* Her main rationale is that the Federal DOE has become infused with the corporate values of competition and choice. In her article “Why Does Everyone Think CEOs Have the Answers?” published in AASA’s June 2010 issue of the School Administrator, she takes business and political leaders to task: “…they insist that schools compete with one another based on reading and math scores; that they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on test preparation and drill students until their scores rise; that schools with lagging scores be closed…that teachers and principals get bonuses if they raise test scores and negative evaluations if they don’t, possibly even terminated.” p. 8 [*Note: Ron Joekel reviewed Ravitch’s “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education” in the June 2010 issue of NCSA Today.]

Nebraska school leaders understand that they are government employees and that they are, therefore, subject to the statutes and policies fostered by elected officials at the federal and state level. Whether purposely or unwittingly, those elected officials have effectively usurped most elements of local control, wherein school administrators and school boards used to make the major decisions affecting school children in their local communities. This circumstance will not change until and unless a critical mass of policy makers are elected who are sympathetic to reversing the testing craze and aggressive enough to wrest control from the current lords of sort-and-count. Educators are many and they have many friends, all of whom vote.

The New Year At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, there will be 42 school districts that have a new executive leader, four more than last fall. The number of school districts has shrunk from 253 to 251 because of Clay Center becoming a part of the South Central Unified system and Prague merging with East Butler. In all, there will 238 individuals in the superintendent role for the 251 districts. Ten head executives will be serving more than one district for a cumulative total of 23. The slight increase in turnover for the new year has had little impact on the 32-year average, which stands at 41.2 years. For (continued on page 17)

TRENDS IN EDUCATIO N Nebraska Superintendents… (continued from page 16)

Nebraska Public School Districts Superintendent Data, Fall 1979, 1995, 2010

this fall, a turnover percentage of 16.6% was recorded. In comparison, the figure a year ago Item 1979 1995 2010 was 15.1%. Both numbers are considerably School Districts 317 288 251 less than the 18.9% figure from two years ago Number of Superintendents 317 283 238 in the fall of 2008, which was the highest obMedian Tenure in Position 3.97 3.96 3.24 served in the past 32 years.

6.16 6.88 5.60 The median and average tenure-in- Average Tenure in Position 56 51 42 position figures decreased from 3.55 to 3.24 Supt. with 1-Year Tenure years and from 5.75 to 5.60 years respectively. Percent Turnover 17.7 17.7 16.6 According to the literature on superintendent Supt. with 20+ Years Tenure 10 22 9 turnover in the U.S., those numbers are Women Superintendents 2 5 25 roughly comparable to current national averages. help in maintaining this list in future years. Please inform me if Of the 39 individuals who left a Nebraska superintendency last you know of any individuals who are approaching the 25-year mark year, 24 retired, 10 moved to another in-state superintendent poin total tenure as a school superintendent. sition, three accepted administrative jobs out of state, and two Tom McMahon: Waterloo, Hayes Center, Howells, and Clarkston, moved to another administrative post in Nebraska. Sixteen of the 38 years; Calvin “Mick” Loughran: Ewing, Valentine, and ESU 9, superintendents in year one are assuming the top executive post 34 years; Keith Fagot: Wheeler Central and Loomis, 33 years; Ranfor the first time, and 120 of 251 (48%) superintendent positions dall Anderson: Crofton, 32 years; Wayne Bell: Grant, Gothenburg, will involve three years or less tenure in the same district, inand ESU 10, 32 years; Fred Boelter: Chambers and Creighton, 32 cluding the 2010-2011 school year. years; Tom Rother: Sidney St. Pat’s, Tecumseh, Alaska School, Raymond Central, and Meridian, 32 years; Norm Yoder: Iowa Private The Veterans School and Heartland, 32 years; Mike Cunning: Sutherland and Over the past 32 years the number of Nebraska superintendents Hershey, 30 years; Larry Raemakers: Sandy Creek and Aurora, 30 with 20 or more year’s tenure in the same school district has avyears; Doug Ackles: Ewing and St. Paul, 29 years; Larry Harnisch: eraged 16, with the high-water mark being 28 in the fall of 1991.

Pawnee City, Wood River, and Sterling, 29 years; Roger Lenhard: Last year there were eight, and there are nine to begin the 2010Stuart, St. Edward, and Keya Paha, 29 years; Dale Rawson: Benkel2011 school year. man, Kansas Schools, and Mead, 29 years; Steve Sexton: Chadron This veteran crew includes: Randall Anderson, 32 years at and Fremont, 28 years; Dwaine Uttecht, Elgin and Ravenna, 28 Crofton; Keith Fagot, 31 years at Loomis; Norm Yoder, 26 years at years; Ted Hillman: Wynot, Pleasanton, Osmond, South Dakota Henderson; Doug Ackles, 24 years at St. Paul; Craig Pease, 23 School, and Lynch, 27 years; Alan Schneider, Benedict, ESU 15, years at Ashland-Greenwood; Ed Kasl, Louisville and Dallas and ESU 5, 27 years. Here is hoping that this veteran cadre still Watkins, Dundy County, 21 years; and Fred Boelter, Creighton and enjoys the work and that they will continue to contribute their exTom Sandberg, Axtell, both with 20 years. pertise for many more years to come.

Those who have been on the job between 15 and 19 years in the same district are: John Cerny, Bancroft-Rosalie (18); Keith Women Superintendents Lutz, Millard (16); Kevin Johnson, Yutan, Bruce McCoy, Lewiston, The number of Nebraska women superintendents increased by Jack Moles, Johnson CO Central, Gene Neddenriep, Malcolm, and one over last year’s count. The 25 individuals restore the number Dan Novak, Elmwood-Murdock (15). The numbers for other sufrom fall 2008 and represents 10.5% of the state’s executive leadperintendents with double-digit tenure are six with 14 years, three ers; it is also the high-water mark in Nebraska for at least the last with 13 years, six with 12 years, three with 11 years, and 12 with 60 years. Nationally, according to the most recent information 10 years. from the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), 17% of the nation’s 13,000 school superintendents are women.

The Super Supes Five of the female superintendents are in year one, but only For a second year, I am presenting a list of the state’s most exone of the group is in the top job for the first time. The Septemperienced superintendents and service-unit directors. It includes ber 2010 group is as follows: Joan Reznicek, Red Cloud (8 yrs.); 18 individuals who are still active and who have accumulated a total of 27 years or more of executive service. I could use some (continued on page 18) SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

17

TRENDS IN EDUCATION Nebraska Superintendents…(continued from page 17) Jamie Isom, Valentine, and Lana Sides, Banner County (7 yrs.); Cindy Wendell, Holdrege (6 yrs.); Holly Herzberg, Hampton, Margaret Sandoz, Niobrara, Amy Shane, O’Neill, and Paula Sissel, Garden County (5 yrs.); Cindy Huff, Wood River, and Marlene Uhing, Norfolk (4 yrs.); Trudy Clark, Bruning-Davenport, Candace Conradt, Central City, Jacque Estee, Omaha Westside, Beth Johnsen, Friend, Katherine Meink, Ewing, Melissa Wheelock, Minden, and Dana Wiseman, Sutton (3 yrs.); Jane Hornung, Arthur CO., Lynn Johnson, Arlington, and Jane Stavem, Blair (2 yrs); Joan Carraher, Cedar Rapids, Amy Malander, Greeley-Wolbach, Cherrie Malcolm, Homer, Virginia Moon, Broken Bow, and Caroline Winchester, Chadron (1 yr).

Looking Ahead In reviewing my predictions from past years, it becomes apparent that 32 years of data are of little help in detecting counter trends. For example, the percentage of female superintendents is increasing, but at a painfully gradual pace. And, at least for the time being, the number of district reorganizations and shared superintendencies is relatively static.

Though many conversations have occurred between school boards in the state’s smaller districts, community leaders in many of those districts are strongly resisting merger plans, because they see the school as an anchor for the local economy. Moreover, instead of sharing district leaders, many small-school boards of education are finding superintendents who are content to work on a half-time basis.

Regardless the size of the school district, Nebraska superintendents continue to be challenged by dwindling financial resources, increased student and community diversity, recruiting and retaining quality teachers, maintaining modern technology for staff and students, and keeping up with the data demands from federal and state agencies.

The Nebraska economy will eventually recover. In the interim, educators need to keep pressure on the state’s policy makers for adequate funding. School children cannot afford to take a year off.

“Civilizations in decline are consistently characterized by a tendency toward standardization and uniformity.” - - Arnold Toynbee I

Fire Prevention…(continued from page 15) This guide is full of relevant information concerning this issue and activities for you to facilitate in conducting this training with your staff. Yet, another helpful tool is a checklist that outlines different activities that each party should be doing in making sure that paras are well trained. This is called Let’s Team Up! A checklist for Paraeducators, Teachers, and Principals (Gerlach, 2009). Teachers may need assistance in knowing what skills are expected of them and all of these resources will serve as great tools to get you started in your quest to prevent issues.

Secondly, we need to work with the paraeducators and their supervising teachers on team-building exercises. Staff development activities provided for the para should be attended by both the teacher and the para. By attending these trainings together, they can work on communicating effectively with each other. Communication is key to establishing cohesiveness between the para and the teacher. The teachers should know what is told paras in trainings and paras should know what the role of the teacher is and all of this can be done through joint trainings.

Lastly, we need to encourage teacher preparation institutions to work this into their coursework for educators. It would be great if all teacher-prep candidates had coursework on how to work effectively with other adults. If that doesn’t happen, it would be great if teachers of those areas where they will most likely supervise paras, such as Special Education, have a 18

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

class on this skill. When a Special Education teacher takes their first job, it should not be a surprise that they are going to be supervising staff. They should have the confidence to meet this challenge head-on and be equipped to handle it. Some institutions throughout the nation are requiring this for those going into Special Education but not all of them. I know I would have appreciated not being blind-sided by this when I started in the profession.

By preparing teachers, building a strong team, and encouraging teacher prep institutions to address this issue, we will move forward and keep negative issues between paras and supervising teachers from igniting. Paraeducators are a wonderful resource for school systems, and we need to be able to utilize them to the fullest potential. It all boils down to the fact that if we put preventative measures in place for teachers and paras to work together more effectively, we will be improving our services to students, which is our number one objective. I Gerlach, K. (2009). Let’s Team Up! A Checklist for Paraeducators, Teachers, and Principals. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

Pickett, A.L. (2007). A Training Program: To Prepare Teachers to Supervise and Work Effectively with Paraeducator Personnel. Christopher Phillips.

Steckelberg, A., & Vasa, S. Project Para: University of Nebraska - Lincoln: The Supervisors of Para Educators Self Study.

Retrieved from http://para.unl.edu/index.lasso

IN THE SPOTL IG HT

College Test Prep Course

BY JASON SEARLE, Secondary Principal, Sandy Creek Schools, South Central USD #5

A

s the Secondary Principal at Sandy Creek Jr. Sr. High School we have always encouraged all students to take the ACT. With the majority of students taking the ACT, we did not have the average score that we wanted. Superintendent Kent Miller and I discussed looking at programs that would help increase our overall score. I had looked at John Baylor Test Prep and knew that many area schools were having positive results. We even had a few of our Southern Nebraska Conference Schools showing increased scores. It was the fall of 2009 that we decided to implement this course into our normal school day.

I called many schools to see how they delivered this online course to the upper classes, and I found that Sandy Creek was unique and had to have this implemented into the normal school day. We also wanted every student to take this course for many other reasons than just raising their ACT score. Students have gained more confidence in test taking strategies, and John points out many benefits in moving into post education and increasing your earning power. It is so obvious that a higher ACT score increases your access to many more scholarships. Seniors will begin this course during the three weeks prior to the October ACT test date, leaving a few days for review if students struggled with an area or two. Juniors will take the course prior to the February test date, also leaving additional days for review.

Looking at the results of students from last yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ACT, we saw a significant jump overall as a class. Students increased their score from one to six points. Students that were on the lower end raised

McPherson & Jacobson, L.L.C. 7905 L St., Suite 310 Omaha, Nebraska 68127 (888) 375-4814 Email: mail@macnjake.com Web site: www.macnjake.com

Since 1991, McPherson & Jacobson, L.L.C. has conducted over 120 superintendent and principal searches in Nebraska

scores that made them eligible for athletic scholarships. Other students raised scores high enough to become eligible for academic scholarships. The class of 2010 showed a 93% increase in their composite score. Only 7% had no change but the more intriguing fact was that no one showed a decrease in score after taking the ACT for a second time.

As we begin the second year with JBTP, students have passed the news to others and have shared their positive experience. Two instructors will administer this program and they will monitor the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homework making sure they give their best effort in completing all assignments. Along with this online course we will print out three practice ACT Tests that provide more experience in taking the actual test. I will be talking with the students a few weeks prior to taking the course and stating expectations along with sharing the previous years data. After the positive results from last year I do not plan on looking back! The John Baylor Test Prep Course is taking our district in the right direction. I

The NCSA wishes to thank Dr. Luann Purcell, Executive Director for the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) for making a special trip to Nebraska from her headquarters in Warner Robins, Georgia on September 16th. Luann was the keynote speaker for the Nebraska Association of Special Education Supervisors (NASES) Fall Conference in Lincoln.

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

19

RECOG NITIO N

Nebraska Council of School Administrators Honors 2010 Distinguished Service Award Winners

T

Baker

Kenagy

he NCSA Distinguished Service Award is the organization's oldest and most prestigious award.

This award is given annually to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional, distinguished leadership, has rendered outstanding and unselfish service and who has contributed significantly to quality education at the state and local level.

Dr. Roy Baker was introduced as the first 2010 recipient of the NCSA Distinguished Service award. Dr. Baker compiled an illustrious career of significant accomplishments serving as a superintendent in Benedict, Arlington, Harlan, Iowa, and recently retired from the Norris district after serving from 1997 through June of 2010.

Dr. Baker helped pass multiple bond issues in addition to truly demonstrating leadership by rebuilding his school/community in the aftermath of an F-4 tornado that decimated the Norris campus in May of 2004. His

leadership reflected an unwavering commitment to student learning. Congratulations Dr. Baker.

Dr. Bill Kenagy was awarded the 2010 Distinguished Service Award. He had been an administrator since 1977.

After his retirement he accepted the position of NCSA Networking Liaison, a principal mentoring program. After the presentation, he stated that he was astounded to look at the list of seventy-five prior honorees, and to know he is joining them. He mentioned the awesome impact of this list of educators on the lives of Nebraska youngsters. Bill considers NCSA to be a valuable networking asset; it is a cadre of people sharing and helping others. Bill is an active substitute teacher; he also works with TeamMates and with the Kearney Public School Foundation. I

Nebraska Association of Special Education Supervisors Honors Distinguished Special Education Administrator

M

Dredla

20

arg Dredla, Special Education Director at Educational Service Unit #13 was named the NASES Distinguished Special Education Administrator at the 2010 Administrators’ Days and will be formally recognized by her NASES peers at their Fall Conference in September at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln.

Marg is the Director of Special Education for ESU #13, serving in that role since 2001. She graduated from the University of Nebraska Lincoln with a Masters Degree in Educational Psychology. Prior to joining ESU #13, Marg was the coordinator of Student Services for Scottsbluff Public Schools from 1976 to 2001. During the past year, Marg has taken on the leadership role for the ESU Special Education Directors as Chair.

In the nomination of Marg, Wendy Kemling-Horner, Director of Student Services at Scottsbluff wrote “Mrs. Dredla has played a major role in helping me continue to

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

grow in a career in special education administration.

Under her tutelage I have been motivated to strive for and achieve exceptionally high standards in programming for students with special needs. In our work together on several projects she provided me with outstanding mentorship…In many areas, both personally and professionally, Mrs. Dredla has taught and encouraged me to meet challenges that I had never before thought possible.” In a letter of support, Director of Special Services for ESU #16 Kris Elmshaeuser wrote “Marg has been instrumental in providing the needed leadership to her staff to get new programs going for students in transition. She continues to put the needs of students with disabilities in the forefront of everything she does.”

I

RECOG NITIO N

Nebraska Association of School Administrators Honors 2010 Nebraska Superintendent of the Year

H

Cunning

ershey Public Schools Superintendent Mike Cunning, has been named the 2010 Nebraska Superintendent of the Year. Cunning was named July 30th at the Nebraska Council of School Administrators’ Days Conference. Dr. Cunning will be formally recognized and honored at the November Nebraska Association of School Administrators/Nebraska Association of School Boards State Education Conference. Cunning will also represent Nebraska in the National Superintendent of the Year Program, which is sponsored by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) in February 2011.

Mike Cunning began as a Nebraska superintendent with Sutherland Public Schools and served from 19832007. Five of those years he served both Sutherland and Hershey school districts as a dual superintendent. In 2007 he returned to a single district, Hershey, where he remains the superintendent to date. In addition to serving as superintendent, he also has completed administrative assignments as K-12 Principal/AD in Overton, and Elementary Principal in Sutherland. Mike’s administrative tenure has spanned thirty-plus years, all in rural Nebraska Schools.

Matt Fisher, Superintendent of Chase County Schools, said “Dr. Cunning has chosen to spend his career serving in rural communities in western Nebraska. I believe he

p nel Worksho Office Person Educational 10 October 8, 20 earney K – n In ay id Hol Educational Administrators Technology Conference October 12-13, 2010 Holiday Inn – Kearney te Convention NAESP/NSASSP Sta December 2-3, 2010 Holiday Inn – Kearney

has done this because he recognizes the value of our rural schools…and also understands that smaller schools need and deserve high quality administrators.”

Hershey School Board President, Steve Koch said, “One of Dr. Cunning’s most outstanding accomplishments has been the development, implementation, and evaluation of technology. He is acknowledged as a statewide leader to infuse technology into teaching and learning and was appointed to serve on state technology committees by Governor Orr and Governor Nelson.” His continued efforts include the implementation of a one to one laptop initiative for grades 7-12 in his district.

Marge Beatty, Former Sutherland Board of Education Member, and present ESU 16 Administrator said, “Through Dr. Cunning’s leadership, Sutherland Public Schools developed a strategic plan including beliefs, mission statements, goals, strategies and action plans. In every administrative position he has held, the school improvement goals have focused on student learning. As a result he was successful in leading the cause to increase student achievement.”

Located in West-Central Nebraska in Lincoln County, Hershey Public Schools is a K-12 school district serving 517 students. I

Bu lletin Board NASB/NASA State Convent ion November 17 -19, 2010 Embassy Suit es – LaVista

Legislative Preview December 15, 2010 Cornhusker Hotel – Lincoln

Neb rask a

Par a Oct educa to obe Hol iday r 25, rs’ Co nfer 2 Inn enc – Ke 010 e arn ey

p orksho ents W d n e t erin 010 ing Sup ber 1, 2 m Emerg e c e ln D – Linco NCSA

For more information or to register for any of these events visit http://ncsa.org or contact kelly@ncsa.org

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

21

Benefits

CREATING HIGH PERFORMANCE-SCHOOLS for HIGH PERFORMANCE TEACHING AND LEARNING

Benefits ! Enhanced Academic Performance ! Improved Health & Attendance ! Teacher Attraction & Retention ! Reduced Energy & Operating Costs "#$%&'&%()*+,&-'.#/&01,&1,'+#1(,2&#1,&learning environment is, the better the student achievement and attendance it produces.

More and more schools are learning that Trane builds, delivers and supports fiscally responsible systems with superior reliability and efficiency.

To explore giving your school facilities, Teachers and Students the high-performance learning environment they deserve, contact: Dave Raymond and Denny Van Horn TRANE K-12 Performance Contracting Phone: 402-331-7111 E-Mail: dave.raymond@trane or dvhorn@windstream.net

NCSA REPORT

NCSA Report

BY DR. MIKE DULANEY, Executive Director; and DR. DAN ERNST, Associate Executive Director Administrators’ Days Yogi Berra said, “You can observe a lot by just watching.” We certainly observed some happy, refreshed faces among our members at Administrators’ Days 2010 in August. We hope those who attended also enjoyed the fellowship and learning opportunities that our annual state conference has to offer. And next year’s event will be one to mark on your calendar (August 2-4, 2011) as we take advantage of the new convention center near the Kearney Holiday Inn. We wish you a successful 2010-11 school year and look forward to serving your professional needs in the months to come.

NCSA Chair, Vice Chair, 2010-11 On September 1, 2010 Mrs. Sarah Williams and Mr. Bill Mowinkel officially began their respective roles as Chair and Vice Chair of the NCSA. Sarah is the elementary principal at Ainsworth Community Schools and only the third female school administrator to be elected to the organization’s highest office. Bill is a Williams long time member of NCSA, serving in his 35th year as an educator and in his 30th as a school administrator. Bill is the current superintendent at Northwest Public Schools in Grand Island.

Outgoing Chair, Mr. Matt Fisher, and Vice Chair, Mr. Ryan Ruhl, did an outstanding job as our elected leaders in 2009-10. We appreciate their dedication to the profession, to their Mowinkel schools, and to their professional association.

Collaboration Important for Future Funding As it has happened so many times over the years, the teachers’, administrators’, and school boards’ organizations have rallied together to answer critical issues facing public education.

The NSEA, NCSA, and NASB are far more accustomed than some think to working side by side to address matters of mutual interest. In truth, our organizations are more likely than not to be on the same page, lock step, on any given day on any issue.

This collaboration will be absolutely essential as we approach the next legislative session, which convenes on January 5, 2011.

The future of funding for K-12 education is the vital issue we face together, along with a fair distribution formula. We have every confidence in the work of Senator Greg Adams and his colleagues on the Legislature’s Education Committee that a fair and equitable state aid formula will arise from the 2011 Session. We also

appreciate Governor Heineman placing education funding as his top budget priority in the coming year.

The NCSA will look forward to working with NSEA, NASB, NRCSA, GNSA, GNS, ESUCC, and other education groups along with Commissioner Breed and his staff at the Nebraska Department of Education.

School Improvement Work Sessions NCSA continues to partner with NDE and ESU personnel to provide Leadership for Continuous School Improvement workshops.

The four training locations and dates are September 23-24, 2010 – Thompson Alumni Center, Omaha; October 18-19, 2010 – Lifelong Learning Center, Norfolk; October 21-22, 2010 – Sandhills Convention Center, North Platte; and October 28-29, 2010 – ESU 10, Kearney. This training allows school districts to meet compliance requirements for NDE and maintain a focus on leadership and continuous school improvement. We encourage you to have your school represented at one of the four scheduled sites.

Educational Administrators Technology Conference The Nebraska Council of School Administrators, ESUs and the Nebraska Department of Education have partnered and prepared an outstanding program for the second annual Educational Administrators Technology Conference on October 12-13, 2010 at the Holiday Inn in Kearney, NE. We encourage you to bring your “Technology Team” and enjoy the conference and your time together in planning how to best use technology in your district.

NCSA is committed to providing school administrators the opportunity to learn of current and new technology and how it can positively impact the school environment. Administrators must take an active and informed leadership role in the discussions, purchasing, and the integration of technology. Hope to see you in Kearney.

Bullying Awareness Week The Nebraska Department of Education has designated October 3 through October 10, 2010 as Nebraska School Bullying Awareness Week. Please take this opportunity to review your required policies concerning bullying prevention and education and remain focused on providing a physically safe and emotionally secure environment for all students and staff. I

SEPTEMBER 2010

NCSA TODAY

23

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

SEPTEMBER 28 28 28

NAESP Region V NASES Region I NSASSP Region V

9:00 a.m.

9:30 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

WNCC Crete Central Office WNCC

Sidney Crete Sidney

5:30 p.m.

9:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

12:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

9:00 a.m.

4:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.

5:30 p.m.

8:15 a.m.

Seward Country Club NCSA PLV Admin Bld TJ’s Doane College ESU #10 ESU #10 UNO Evening w/Friends Community Center Bel Aire Banquet Hall Community Center

Seward Lincoln Papillion Norfolk Crete Kearney Kearney Omaha Milligan Bridgeport Omaha Bridgeport

2:30 p.m.

8:30 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

2:00 p.m.

1:30 p.m.

9:00 a.m.

8:00 a.m.

ESU #10 ESU #3 Embassy Suites LLLC Blair High School Embassy Suites UNK

Kearney Omaha LaVista Norfolk Blair LaVista Kearney

5:00 p.m.

1:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

Indian Creek Country Club Holiday Inn Holiday Inn Holiday Inn Elkhorn Admin Bld TJ’s

Elkhorn Kearney Kearney Kearney Elkhorn Norfolk

5:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

9:30 a.m.

5:30 p.m.

5:30 p.m.

9:00 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

Ameritas ESU #10 Alliance Country Club Ralston Central Office TJ’s TBD Elks Lodge Kearney Country Club Valentino’s Valentino’s NCSA Community Center

Lincoln Kearney Alliance Ralston Norfolk Malcolm Omaha Kearney Ogallala Ogallala Lincoln Bridgeport

OCTOBER 6 7 8 8 12 13 14 18 20 20 20 30

NAESP Region I NCSA Executive Board NASES Region II NASES Region III Youth Leadership NASA Region IV NASES Region IV UNO Student Leadership Conf NASA Region I NASA Region V NSASSP Region II NASES Region V

NOVEMBER 10 12 17 17 18 19 19

NSASSP Region IV NASES Region II NASA Executive Board NAESP Region III NSASSP Region II NASA General Business Mtg Mid NE Youth Leadership

DECEMBER 1 2-3 2 2 3 3

NAESP Region II NAESP/NSASSP Conference NAESP Executive Board NSASSP Executive Board NASES Region II NASES Region III

JANUARY 12 12 12 14 14 18 19 19 25 25 27 31

NASA Region I NASA Region IV NASA Region V NASES Region II NASES Region III NASES Region I NSASSP Region II NSASSP Region IV NAESP Region V NSASSP Region V NCSA Executive Board NASES Region V

NATIONAL CONVENTION DATES CASE - July 9-11, 2010 - San Francisco, CA ASBO - September 24-27, 2010 - Orlando, FL CASE - November 5-7, 2010 - San Diego, CA AASA - February 17-19, 2011 - Denver, CO NASSP - February 25-28, 2011 - San Francisco, CA NAESP - April 7-10, 2011 - Tampa, FL

24

NCSA TODAY

SEPTEMBER 2010

Gold Sponsorships Ameritas

Energy Education

Horace Mann

SchoolFusion

Al Eveland 5900 O St., 1st Floor Lincoln, NE 68510 402-467-6968 aeveland@ameritas.com www.ameritas.com

Karen Mullins 5950 Sherry Lane, Ste 900 Dallas, TX 940-235-7598 kmullins@energyed.com

Cindy Dornbush 10612 Monroe Street, #4 Omaha, NE 68127 402-680-9382 cindy.dornbush@horacemann.com www.horacemann.com

Carson Apps 999 18th St., Ste 2150 South Tower Denver, CO 80202 800-906-0911 carson@schoolfusion.com www.schoolfusion.com

John Baylor Test Prep John Baylor P.O. Box 30792 Lincoln, NE 68503 402-475-7737 john@johnbaylortestprep.com www.johnbaylortestprep.com

CDI Paul Copeland 130 South Town Centre Blvd.

Markham, Ontario L6G 1B8 pcopeland@cdicomputers.com www.cdicomputers.com

DLR Group Pat Phelan, Whitney Wombacher 400 Essex Ct., Omaha, NE 68114 402-393-4100 pphelan@dlrgroup.com www.dlrgroup.com

Innovation in Education â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Donna Droge 6140 SE 53rd Tecumseh, KS 66542 785-554-9510 donna.droge@hmhpub.com www.hmlt.hmco.com

Learning Together Julie Smith 5509 B W. Friendly Ave. Ste 201 Greensboro, NC 27409 866-921-0000 julie@learningtogether.com www.learningtogether.com

National Insurance Mike Boden 9202 W. Dodge Rd., Ste 302 Omaha, NE 68114 800-597-2341 mboden@nis-sif.com www.nis-sif.com

Linda Rice 1732 Roth Hill Drive Maryland Heights, MO 63043 314-753-8787 lindarice@smarttech.com

NLAF

TRANE

Barry Ballou 455 S. 11th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 402-705-0350 balloub@pfm.com nlafpool.org www.nlafpool.org

Smart Technologies

Danny Szegda 5720 S. 77th St. Ralston, NE 68127 402-935-9040 dave.raymond@trane.com www.trane.com/omaha

Virco, Inc. Dan Atha 1230 Footprint Ct. Castle Rock, CO 80109 danatha@virco.com www.virco.com

Silver Sponsorships Awards Unlimited Larry King 1935 O St., Lincoln, NE 68510 402-474-0815 larryking@awardsunlimited.com www.awardsunlimited.com D.A. Davidson & Co. Dan Smith 1111 N. 102nd Ct., Ste 300 Omaha, NE 68114 402-392-7986 dsmith@dadco.com www.davidsoncompanies.com/ficm Jostens Don Bartholomew 309 S. 8th St. Broken Bow, NE 68822 308-872-5055 don.bartholomew@jostens.com

Bronze Sponsorships ARCHI + ETC. LLC Stacy LaVigne 6500 Holdrege St., Ste 007 Lincoln, NE 68505 402-429-7150; fax: 402-464-6810 cjoy@archi-etc.com www.archi-etc.com Nebraska Public Agency Investment Trust Becky Ferguson PO Box 82529, Lincoln, NE 68501 402-323-1334; fax: 402-323-1286 becky.ferguson@ubt.com www.npait.com

Nebraska Council of School Administrators 455 So. 11th Street, Suite A • Lincoln, NE 68508-2105 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

PRSRT STD. U. S. POSTAGE PAID LINCOLN, NE PERMIT NO. 951