INSIGHT—Winter 2000

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS QUARTERLY PUBLICATION WINTER 2000

INSIGHT Legislative Issues

INSIGHT F

13

E

A

T

U

R

WINTER 2000 VOLUME 14, NO. 4 E S

Advocates for Education

by Dawson R. Orr Reviews the role of TASA members in educational advocacy and how we can bring the key elements of our legislative goals into a winning formula

17

2001 TASA Legislative Program

23

Critical Issues of the 77th Legislature

27

Dana Center Summary of Findings: Study of Uncontrollable Variations on the Cost of Texas Public Education

Provides TASA’s statement of philosophy and position on legislative issues under the categories of programs and funding, tax policy, school safety, instruction, personnel, and governance

Offers a short discussion on redistricting followed by other critical issues of the 77th Legislature, including issues carried over from the last session, health insurance, retention and recruitment of teachers, Teacher Retirement System benefits, additional state funding for disciplinary alternative education programs, and longer TAAS exemption for LEP students

Texas Registered Architect Number 3723

Shares results of a study conducted by The University of Texas Charles A. Dana Center on the variations in known resource costs and costs of education beyond the control of a school district and recommendations to the 77th Legislature as to methods of adjusting funding to reflect variations

31

Select Committee on Teacher Health Insurance Interim Report to the 77th Texas Legislature Presents excerpts from an October 2000 Interim Report to the 77th Legislature, including committee background information and recommendations

35

TASA Annual Report 1999–2000 Highlights the association's activities and services during 1999–2000, provides a breakdown of revenue and expenditures, and lists TASA staff

WINTER 2000 3

Celebrate our history Envision ourfuture

D

E

P

A

6

Newswire

9

Executive Director’s View

R

Whitton to join TASA staff; Texas' nominee for 2001 NSOTY Award; School Board Recognition Month

Making a difference in 2001

T

M

E

N

11

President’s Message

44

The Leader

T

S

Within reach

Opportunities in adversity, review on Accessing the Superintendency, board briefs

INSIGHT

Officers

At-Large Members

James E. Wilcox, President, Hooks ISD Leonard E. Merrell, President-Elect, Katy ISD Don Gibson, Vice-President, Wall ISD Virginia L. Collier, Past President, Texas A&M

Marla Guerra, UT–Pan American Willis Mackey, Navasota ISD Edith J. Peacock, Vidor ISD Lu Anna Stephens, Fabens ISD

Executive Committee

Editorial Advisory Committee

Eliseo Ruiz, Jr., Los Fresnos CISD, 1 Henry D. Herrera, Alice ISD, 2 Tom R. Jones, Jr., Tidehaven ISD, 3 James F. Smith, Alief ISD, 4 M. R. "Bob" Tilley, Kirbyville CISD, 5 Mike Roberts, Snook ISD, 6 James E. Dunlap, Hallsville ISD, 7 Harvey Hohenberger, Chisum ISD, 8 Robert H. Henderson, Henrietta ISD, 9 Tony Daugherty, Pottsboro ISD, 10 Lloyd H. Treadwell, Springtown ISD, 11 Rex Daniels, Lampasas ISD, 12 Ron Reaves, New Braunfels ISD, 13 Gayle Lomax, Snyder ISD, 14 Billy Jack Rankin, Bangs ISD, 15 Kyle Collier, Claude ISD, 16 Ken McCraw, Lamesa ISD, 17 Bobby D. McCall, Iraan-Sheffield ISD, 18 Pam Padilla, Anthony ISD, 19 Alton Fields, Pleasanton ISD, 20 Dawson R. Orr, Pampa ISD, Legislative Chair

James E. Wilcox, Hooks ISD, Chair Michael G. Killian, Lewisville ISD Leonard E. Merrell, Katy ISD Michael W. Moehler, Abilene ISD Shirley J. Neeley, Galena Park ISD Dawson R. Orr, Pampa ISD Kay E. Waggoner, Red Oak ISD Elaine L. Wilmore, UT–Arlington

TASA Headquarters Staff Johnny L. Veselka, Executive Director Ellen V. Bell, Associate Executive Director, Professional Development Louann H. Martinez, Associate Executive Director, Governmental Relations Ann M. Halstead, Director, Communications & Technology Pat Johnston, Director, Special Services Iliana Cavazos, Design/Production Karen Limb, Editorial Coordinator Neal W. Adams, TASA General Counsel, Adams, Lynch, & Loftin—Bedford

Advertising For information on advertising in INSIGHT, contact Ann Halstead, TASA, 512-477-6361.

INSIGHT is published quarterly by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617.

Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2000 by TASA. All rights reserved. TASA members may reprint articles in limited quantities for in-house educational use. Articles in INSIGHT are expressions of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of TASA. Advertisements do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the Texas Association of School Administrators.

INSIGHT is printed by Thomas Graphics, Austin, Texas.

WINTER 2000 5

NEWS WIRE

Texas' Nominee for 2001 AASA National Superintendent of the Year Rod Paige, superintendent, Houston ISD, has been selected as Texas’ nominee for the 2001 National Superintendent of the Year Award, cosponsored by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and The ServiceMaster Company. In announcing the nomination, TASA Executive Director Johnny Veselka said, “Dr. Paige is a visionary leader who has focused the energy of Houston’s public schools on improving student performance in an era of increasing accountability and high-stakes testing.

His stable leadership in Houston ISD and his enduring commitment to excellence provide a model for school leaders everywhere.”

Whitton to Join TASA Staff Paul L. Whitton, Jr., superintendent, Frenship ISD, has been named TASA associate executive director for administrative services, replacing Pat Pringle, who resigned July 31 to accept the position of executive director, ESC 13.

Whitton has served as superintendent, Frenship ISD, since 1983.

Prior to that time, he was superintendent, Houston ISD (1979–83), and assistant superintendent, Everman ISD (1973–79). He began his education career as a science and mathematics teacher at Clyde ISD in 1965. He earned a M.Ed. degree from Abilene Christian

University and a B.S. degree from McMurry University. He received his Ed.D. degree from the University of North Texas in 1974.

As associate executive director, Whitton will be assisting in the management of the association, providing professional assistance and support on matters related to school leadership and management to TASA members, promoting TASA membership and member services, coordinating the planning of major conferences and the TASA/TASB Annual Convention, and representing the interests of the association. Whitton is expected to join TASA staff in January.

January Is School Board Recognition Month!

January is School Board Recognition Month, with a goal of building awareness of the crucial role an elected board of trustees plays in our communities and schools. Plan now to show your school board members you appreciate their dedication and hard work. They are extraordinary people who voluntarily tackle the enormous job of governing school districts. Their actions and decisions affect the present and future lives of our children.

Recognizing board members for this commitment and sacrifice takes a combined effort on the part of all those they serve: administrators, school staff, students, and the community. Even though showing appreciation should be a year-round process, taking advantage of the designated School Board Recognition Month in January assures that these important people receive some of the thanks they deserve. Such deserved recognition can encourage veteran trustees to continue to make the commitment board service requires; other citizens might be encouraged to get actively involved in the schools and make positive 6

INSIGHT

change. A full month of activities allows local districts, PTAs, booster clubs, community leaders, and individual campuses to organize activities convenient and appropriate for them.

TASB sent School Board Recognition Month kits to all superintendents and TSPRA members in November, including original certificates for district presentation to trustees; tip sheet on recognition activities for district staff, students, and community; sample news release and editorial; sample article for district newsletter or local newspaper; ready-to-print public service ads for local newspaper or district newsletter; several sizes of art work for use in your district newsletter or local newspapers; and an "Understanding Your School Board" camera-ready pamphlet in English and Spanish that can be duplicated and distributed to all parent/booster groups, staff, and business education partners. Take this opportunity to help acknowledge thousands of public servants who make the time to share their vision and voice about the future of Texas children.

Paige has served as superintendent in Houston, the largest public school system in Texas and the seventh largest in the nation, since 1994. The nomination is the latest in a series of honors recognizing his leadership. In November, Paige was named America's Superintendent of the Year by the National Alliance of Black School Educators; and in September, he won the McGraw Prize in Education, one of the nation’s top awards for leadership. In addition, last year he received the Richard R. Green Award as Urban Educator of the Year from the Council of the Great City Schools.

In his nomination letter, Board President Lawrence Marshall said that Paige “has dedicated his life to demonstrating the potential that can be harnessed on behalf of the children of Houston. The achievement levels of our students have improved over time in every category for every group of students. In fact, the district has seen the gap between student groups shrink even as all groups have improved.”

Thirteen Texas superintendents were nominated to represent the state in the competition for the National Superintendent of the Year Award. Each Texas superintendent nominated for this award completed and forwarded an application packet to AASA. The Texas applications were then forwarded to TASA and reviewed by a statewide committee that selected Paige to represent Texas at the national level. The selection committee included superintendents, school board members, teacher and parent organization representatives, and other education professionals.

The application included a letter from the superintendent’s nominator; a summary of the applicant’s education, administrative experience, and professional growth; and school system information. Each applicant responded to questions about the critical shortage of leaders to head the nation's schools, technological advances in education, increased accountability, public education as prerequisite for a strong democracy, and data-driven decision making.

In early December, AASA’s national blue ribbon panel will select four national finalists from among the state nominees to be interviewed in Washington, D.C. in January. The 2001 National Superintendent of the Year, national finalists, and state finalists will be honored at AASA’s National Conference on Education in Orlando on February 16, 2001.

When choosing an engineering firm, it’s best to go by the numbers.

• • • •

548 Texas school districts served 335 years of combined engineering/design experience 27 years of service to the education community 47 colleges, universities, and other public schools throughout the country served

When you need quality air-conditioning, mechanical, electrical, or technology design/engineering services, just do the math. You’ll find our experience adds up. Whether you’re building a new facility or updating an existing one, replacing old air-conditioning, initiating an energy management program or wiring your school to connect classrooms to the Internet, our expertise can benefit you. For further information, contact James McClure, P.E., in our Tyler office. When you go by the numbers, it all adds up to Estes, McClure & Associates, Inc.

Celebrating 27 Years CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Estes, McClure & Assoc., Inc.

3608 West Way, Tyler, TX 75703 phone 903-581-2677 • fax 581-2721 visit our web site at estesmcclure.com

WINTER 2000 7

Executive Director’s VIEW

Making a Difference in 2001!

With Election 2000 finally over, we now turn our political attention to the 77th Texas Legislature, which convenes on January 9. At TASA, we are busily preparing for the legislative session, reviewing pre-filed bills, and moving forward with our own legislative initiatives. Key to our success during the coming session will be the involvement of TASA members in the legislative process. Our recent launch of the TASA EduPortal™ offers a unique communication tool for staying in touch on critical legislative issues. Stay tuned for new and expanding resources on the EduPortal.

Knowledge Adventure (FPO) pg. 8

With President-elect George W. Bush being inaugurated as our 43rd president on January 20, national attention will continue to be focused on Texas schools. As I have stated many times before, Texas educators should stand proudly in defense of our ongoing work to improve educational opportunities for the four million students in our public schools. We applaud President-elect Bush for his leadership over the past six years and look forward to working with him on national issues.

Back in Texas, Lt. Governor Rick Perry assumes the responsibilities of governor, and the members of the Texas Senate will elect a replacement to preside over the Senate. These changes in the upper echelon of state leadership, coupled with the legislative focus on redistricting and limited state resources, offer a challenging session for us all.

Much has been said recently about the important role of the superintendent in achieving educational progress at the local level. In December, I had the opportunity to join the “Future Texas Superintendent Advisory Team,” a panel of experts working with John Hoyle of Texas A&M University, and funded by the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, to create new pathways to the selection, preparation, and professional development of school superintendents for the state of Texas.

The panel’s goal is to explore ways to make the superintendency more attractive to the “best and brightest” young educators. This is most critical at a time when the numbers of candidates for superintendent positions are dwindling, and increasing numbers of superintendents are reaching retirement age. Expect a policy statement from this group in the near future.

Finally, I am pleased that Rod Paige, superintendent, Houston ISD, will be interviewed by a National Blue Ribbon Panel on January 8–9 as one of four national finalists for the 2001 National Superintendent of the Year Award, cosponsored by AASA and the ServiceMaster Company.

Paige’s leadership exemplifies the work of superintendents throughout Texas, and should serve as an inspiration to education leaders across the country. In this era of increasing accountability and high-stakes testing, he has proven that vision, energy, and strong leadership can make a remarkable difference in the lives of schoolchildren. TASA members are making a difference all across Texas. Keep up the good work!

WINTER 2000 9

Breathe Easier.

The future of indoor air quality in Texas schools is assured.

QIC Systems, long the state’s gold standard for indoor air quality, has partnered with an investment group to assure that Texas school administrators will continue to have the best IAQ service on the planet.

Same leading-edge technology. Same team of experienced experts. Same exclusive relationship with Texas Tech University’s Health Sciences Center. Same TASA endorsement.

President’s

MESSAGE

Within Reach If you have been around Hooks ISD or its superintendent, you have heard a lot about not only what you can do for the young people of Texas, but about trust and the “Ds” we deal with in education. Those “Ds” deal with everything from Demographics and Diversity, to Devaluing of children in our Divided society, to Dilemmas and Dumb ideas, to just plain Disrespect for each other. None of these “Ds” should ever keep us, as education leaders, from performing our Duty.

How do we perform our Duty in today’s society? Where should we focus our strengths and efforts? How do we make the most out of our district, improve student performance, and bring out the best in each child? The key, of course, lies in our teachers and building administrators.

A huge portion of our Duty must center around motivating these important people and aligning their efforts with ours.

Abraham Maslow noted—correctly—that most people respond positively to a challenge. In 1907, Ernest Shackleton was looking for a crew that would sail with him to the North Pole. He put an advertisement in The London Times that read: “Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages. Bitter cold. Long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in the event of success.” The next morning 5,000 men lined up outside The London Times office hoping to be one of those selected for the trip.

The same is true today for our teachers and principals. The best and the brightest of them harbor a strong desire to achieve even when the odds are stacked against them. The fact that it will be a “hazardous journey” is probably apparent to them. What may not be quite so clear is what you, as their leader, mean by “in the event of success.”

As the leader of your schools, you must be able to articulate your dream—your goal for the district. In order to capitalize on your staff ’s talent and desire to achieve, you must present them with that dream and let them know that its success is dependent upon their personal energy and commitment. The dream must become so powerful to them, so clear in its intent, that in itself it becomes a motivator for individual effort and commitment. The successful leader—the one who sees his or her dream become reality—fosters this type of commitment through strong relationships—relationships built on trust and respect. Once trust exists, improved performance always follows. Improved performance leads to improved morale.

Improved morale enables a spirit of optimism to pervade the district. And an optimistic climate enables a clearly articulated dream to become a guiding force in your district.

New financial resource to assure continued low pricing.

New research funding to assure breakthrough technology.

New name: Assured Indoor Air Quality.

Call Eli Douglas. Let him clear the air for you.

Licensed by QIC Systems. Phone 214-855-0222.

The North Pole or improved performance for all students—both are dreams within reach of those strong enough to answer the challenge. Every biennium we face just such a challenge when the Texas Legislature meets. Public education—and with it our dreams and goals—is thrown on the auction block. Its survival depends on superintendents and other public school leaders remaining true to their dream.

“Honor and recognition in the event of success.” Honor for the men and women who spend their careers on behalf of the young people of this state; recognition that public education truly is one of America’s greatest institutions. It is a dream worth pursuing at all costs.

WINTER 2000 11

Texas Masonry ad (new–film provided) p. 12

Advocates for Education

by Dawson R. Orr

In June 1999, I accepted the opportunity and challenge to serve as Legislative Committee chair for the Texas Association of School Administrators.

During the last 18 months in that role, my admiration and appreciation of the leadership, knowledge, and commitment of superintendents across this vast, diverse state has deepened. Throughout the dialogue leading to this legislative session, I have observed superintendents advocating for the greater good of our state’s public education system, whether in determining a responsible approach to the critical question of health insurance, balancing the need for instructional accountability with the learning needs of limited English proficient children, or dealing with a state funding mechanism that is structured to produce winners and losers.

Through long hours of dialogue, discussion, and data gathering, the most crucial needs of our districts, and the communities we serve, have been synthesized into a legislative program of great importance and substance. The TASA 2001 Legislative Program is grassroots in its nature, grown from study groups in every region of the state, infused with members’ priorities as captured in the 2000–2001 Legislative Survey, and, finally, refined and approved by the Executive Committee upon recommendation of the Legislative Committee.

So the preparation is over and a new legislative session soon begins. Now more than ever, each member of TASA becomes important to realizing the legislative goals that we have established for ourselves. The key elements are in place; the leadership challenge is to bring those elements into a winning formula. And as stated, each of us has a role to play in the success of our Legislative Program.

Your Role in Educational Advocacy Be a team player (and know your team).

VERY IMPORTANT! This means knowing your association’s Legislative Program, informing TASA Governmental Relations staff (Louann Martinez and David Backus) of contacts you have with legislators, sharing correspondence you send to them, forwarding copies of local editorials that may impact legislation, etc. Always let them know when you are making a visit to see your representative or senator. There may be an opportunity for you to share information on another matter of mutual benefit to you and TASA. It also allows TASA staff to reinforce your message. TASA staff is only as effective as we let them be. On the rare issue that arises when you are not able to speak for the TASA position, please give the Governmental Relations staff the courtesy of informing them of this. Nothing makes it easier for legislators to dismiss all our requests than the perception that “they don’t know what they want.” If we can acknowledge our rare differences in a proactive manner, we have a better opportunity to find the workable compromise.

Be knowledgeable about the key issues.

As superintendents or other district level leaders, it is critical that you know your association’s key positions. For example, during this legislative session, health insurance will be at the forefront. As the educational leaders and advocates of your communities, you will be asked by legislators, parents, staff, and other citizens about this and other key issues. TASA, working with TASB, has developed the only health insurance proposal that meets the dual standards of fiscal responsibility and universal coverage of all public school employees. A clear, WINTER 2000 13

complete, and concise briefing paper has been developed and provided to all TASA members that will enable you to speak with knowledge and certainty about this issue.

Again, use the knowledge and expertise of TASA staff to obtain the information you need. I cannot overemphasize the importance of subscribing to the TASA XPress News as the most effective way to stay abreast of legislative issues.

Be knowledgeable about the decision makers.

It is obvious, but essential, that you know your legislators, their committee assignments, and the staff persons who work for them. Did your representative sponsor or cosponsor specific school-related legislation in previous sessions? If you are not sure, contact TASA Governmental Relations. Also, recognize that once the legislative session begins, you are far more likely to have immediate access to a staff member than a legislator. These are the individuals who will return your calls, ensure that your messages are delivered, and brief you on upcoming events or changes in schedules.

“…each of us has a role to play in the success of our Legislative Program.”

Be an effective communicator.

The old adage about getting one chance to make a good first impression certainly applies here.

When communicating with your legislator or his or her staff, remember the “4 Cs”: be clear, be complete, be concise, and be courteous. Accurate information is prized in decision making. Your legislator needs and wants to know how a legislative proposal will affect the constituents back home. Who better than you can communicate that! If referring to specific legislation, know the bill number. There may be numerous competing bills dealing with school finance or health insurance. If you have a problem, be prepared to offer a solution. If you do not, rest assured that you will receive sympathy, and probably lots of it, but no resolution of the problem. If proposing a solution, be prepared to address the fiscal, program, and political impact of your request.

Never underestimate the power of courtesy. Courtesy includes, but is not limited to, a thank-you letter or follow-up call. It also means letting your representative or senator know when you are going to call on some other legislator or be in Austin to testify or observe.

Other than birthday parties, most decision makers don’t enjoy surprises.

Be there!

In closing, I urge you to be involved and engaged. Advocacy for the public policies and resources that we need to make a critical and positive difference in the lives of the girls and boys of Texas requires all of us working together. The leadership elements that you draw on daily in your job—commitment, communication, and clarity of purpose—are the same ones that will enable TASA to be your vehicle for effective legislative advocacy.

Working together from day one, our voices will be heard and the children of Texas will be the beneficiaries.

Dawson R. Orr is superintendent at Pampa ISD and Legislative Committee chair for TASA.

14

INSIGHT

laidlaw (new–cameraready) p. 15

Apple Computer FPO pg. 16 Texas Association of School Administrators 2001 Legislative Program

STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY The legislative goal of the Texas Association of School Administrators is to develop and support proposals aimed at improving the quality of public education in Texas. The members of TASA believe that providing a quality system of public education is the best way to ensure that each citizen is adequately prepared to participate in and contribute positively to our society.

TASA is committed to a legislative policy that embraces the concepts of local control, state responsibility, and federal concern. Local school administrators and school board members must deal constantly with natural growth factors, demands for expanded programs and services, inflation, and compliance with state and federal regulations and judicial mandates. The combined impact of these factors places a tremendous burden and responsibility on the public schools of this state to produce the expected and desired outcomes.

The primary focus of public schools in Texas should be to help students develop to their maximum capability. The educational program should incorporate academic, life, character, and vocational skills, while providing the necessary flexibility for school districts to meet the varying needs of individual students.

PROGRAMS AND FUNDING Priority Funding TASA supports an increase in state funding for Texas public schools through an equalized distribution of state funds. Public education should be the first priority of state government and should reflect the annual average accountable costs to school districts to provide quality education programs, adequate salaries for public school personnel, and facilities that meet the accreditation standards prescribed by law and rule, as well as escalating costs of general school district operations.

Adequate Funding TASA supports legislation to eliminate reductions in state aid to school districts resulting from insufficient sum-certain state appropriations by appropriating funds on an estimated basis that accounts for student needs, enrollment growth, and tax rate response, and provides for appropriate adjustments in

18

INSIGHT

state aid and allocation of such funds in a timely manner.

variation in costs necessary to support educational programs in these districts.

State Share TASA supports an increased state share of public education funding, accomplished by real increases in state funds rather than through any state-initiated property tax relief measures that would trade general state tax dollars for local property tax revenues.

TASA supports legislation that provides supplemental state funding for schools that are experiencing rapid enrollment growth or decline.

Unfunded Mandates TASA opposes any new legislative mandate for which costs are not fully paid through additional state aid.

Facilities TASA supports legislation that provides an adequate and continuous facilities funding program that distributes aid equitably by formula, and that recognizes the costs of both new construction and maintenance of facilities.

TASA supports the continuation and expansion of a facilities program that ensures state participation for the lifetime of bond issuances, and supports incorporating an optional competitive grant component into the current facilities program for use by districts where a bond issue has failed.

Program Enrichment TASA opposes legislation that would reduce the level of local enrichment below the Foundation School Program’s current recapture limit of $295,000. TASA supports legislation that would increase the current Foundation School Program's equalized wealth levels proportionately.

Consolidation TASA opposes any reorganization of Texas school districts by consolidation, unless such action is initiated by local school officials.

Adjustments to the Basic Allotment TASA supports the use of a cost index that reflects the geographic variation in resource costs that are beyond the control of school districts, and gives consideration to the ability of the districts to fund these variations.

TASA supports adjustments to the basic allotment for sparsity and for small and midsized districts which recognize the

Permanent School Fund (PSF) TASA supports current constitutional provisions and State Board of Education practices regarding the distribution and use of PSF revenues as an integral part of the state’s commitment and responsibility toward public education, but not for other state government needs or purposes.

Categorical Funding TASA opposes legislation that imposes restrictions on, or set-asides of, categorical funds.

Class Size TASA supports legislation that would provide greater local flexibility in the implementation of the 1:22 maximum class-size requirement in the early elementary grades, including the consideration of such alternatives as the use of campus- or district-level averages and the use of educational aides for classrooms that exceed the statutory maximum.

Tax Roll TASA opposes legislation that would "split" specific classes of property from the school tax roll, with some property taxed at the state level and some taxed at the local level.

Tax Rate Limit TASA supports legislation that would enable any school district to exceed the $1.50 (M&0) tax rate limit in the absence of sufficient state funding increases, and equalize old debt over the $1.50 tax rate.

Tax Abatements TASA supports legislation that would prohibit school district participation in tax abatements, unless the state reimburses the cost of an abatement to the local district.

SCHOOL SAFETY Drug- and Weapon-Free Environment TASA supports legislation, including funding, to eliminate violence on school campuses and provide a drug- and weapon-free environment so that students, teachers, and district employees are free from criminal activities, weapons, and acts of violence.

Education Service Centers TASA supports increases in funding for education service centers to enhance their capacity to provide essential services and technical assistance to Texas public school districts.

Funding for Alternative and Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs TASA supports legislation that would establish a separate funding formula for both disciplinary AEP programs and discretionary placement of students in JJAEPs.

TAX POLICY

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs TASA supports legislation that would adequately fund programs for expelled students.

Tax Restructuring TASA supports legislation that would restructure the state tax system to provide necessary revenues based on actual biennial needs from predictable and dependable sources, by reducing the dependence on ad valorem (property) taxes to support an adequate and equitable public education system.

Rollback Relief TASA supports legislation to eliminate or reduce the impact of tax rollback provisions.

Property Tax Exemptions TASA opposes additional exemptions that further erode the property tax base available to school districts.

Personnel TASA opposes legislation that would require any AEP teacher to be certified in all subject areas in which he or she teaches.

INSTRUCTION Accountability TASA supports a state accountability system that: 1. limits the measurement of student academic performance to the foundation curriculum 2. allows for the success of all schools 3. allows for local flexibility

4. is consistent over time 5. holds all levels of the public education system, including educators and policymakers, accountable 6. provides direct line-item appropriations to support each component of the system 7. requires the alignment of assessment instruments, textbooks, and other instructional materials with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills 8. allows for Limited English Proficient students to have a reasonable transition period before being reported in AEIS Staff Development TASA supports adequate state funding for appropriate staff development programs and the phasing in of additional staff development days, with local flexibility in the development of those programs, to meet the needs of individual school districts.

Textbooks TASA supports full funding for textbooks, and a state-level textbook review and adoption process.

Reading and Math Initiatives TASA supports funding for educational programs, assessment, and teacher training to improve the reading and math performance of students in the early grades.

Technology TASA supports increased state funding for technology, including, but not limited to, an increase in the technology allotment, in order to both expand the availability of new technology, including classroom instructional materials to students, and adequately train educators for the use of such technology in the classroom.

PERSONNEL Salaries TASA supports improvements in teacher compensation that would allow districts to design and implement compensation programs that provide a professionally competitive salary based on local needs and priorities.

Any state-mandated salary increases, including step increases, must be supported by increased state funding.

Retention/Recruitment TASA supports additional funding for specific initiatives targeted towards the retention and recruitment of both classroom teachers and administrators.

TASA supports eliminating prohibitions, restrictions, and benefits penalties on the employment of retired educators.

Health Insurance TASA supports state funding for public school employee health insurance, provided that local flexibility in the design of insurance benefits is maintained and such funding does not adversely affect the ability of school districts to establish benefit plans for all employees.

Labor Relations TASA opposes the enactment of mandatory consultation, collective bargaining, dues checkoff, or binding arbitration legislation for public school employees.

Teacher Retirement System (TRS) TASA supports legislation that would increase retirement annuities for active TRS members (comparable to state employees), funding for retiree health insurance, deferred retirement options, and cost-of-living increases for retired members, as well as legislative appropriations that ensure adequate funding for the system.

TASA opposes any legislation and/or constitutional amendment that would reduce the state's current constitutional obligation to the Teacher Retirement System. TASA opposes any legislation that would limit the salary amount on which retirement benefits are calculated for TRS members, and urges compliance with current constitutional requirements.

Certification TASA supports legislation that would allow the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) to be an autonomous body with independent rule-making authority.

TASA supports legislation that would require SBEC to determine certification requirements for those professional school district employees who would directly serve students.

TASA supports certification and renewal requirements that allow local flexibility in the recruitment, training, and

WINTER 2000 19

employment of noncertified but degreed individuals for classroom teaching assignments.

TASA supports eliminating state enforcement for violations of the Educator Code of Ethics and returning these personnel decisions to local school boards.

Hearing Officers TASA supports legislation that would allow local districts greater discretion in the assignment, use, and selection of hearing officers.

GOVERNANCE State Board of Education TASA supports legislation that establishes the SBOE as an advisory board in matters of statewide public education policy, and limits the authority of the SBOE to those duties specified in the state constitution.

Local Control TASA supports the preservation of local

governance by elected school boards, including decisions to determine the school calendar, recognizing that strong representative government ensures an appropriate balance between the interests of parents, students, professional educators, and taxpayers at the local level.

Site-Based Decision Making TASA supports existing statutory requirements that site-based decision-making committees (both campus and district) be used in an advisory capacity only.

Roles and Responsibilities TASA supports legislation that defines the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent and board of trustees, emphasizing the role of the superintendent as educational leader, chief executive officer, and administrative manager of the district.

Funding for Private Schools/Vouchers TASA opposes the use of state funds to provide financial resources to private

elementary and secondary schools through funding of programs or materials, tax credits, and/or vouchers and considers such an improper use of tax revenue.

School Choice TASA opposes state or federally mandated open-enrollment plans, vouchers, or parental "choice" of schools, but supports locally initiated intra-district and inter-district programs, open enrollment, or choice plans.

Charter Schools TASA supports maintaining the current number of existing open-enrollment charter schools provided that statutory clarifications are made regarding performance evaluations, nepotism restrictions, and bonding obligations.

Initiative and Referendum TASA supports the concept of representative government and opposes any proposal that would require annual voter approval of school district budgets or tax rates.

TASA 1999–2001 Legislative Committee Dawson R. Orr (Chair) Pampa ISD (16)

Virginia L. Collier Texas A & M University (06)

Vernon N. Newsom Mansfield ISD (11)

Larry D. Appel Dumas ISD (16)

Rolando M. Peña Rio Hondo ISD (01)

David L. Lusk Conroe ISD (06)

Lynne P. Rigg Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD (11)

Jack D. Clemmons Lubbock ISD (17)

Paul Clore George West ISD (02)

David A. Sharp Lufkin ISD (07)

Vernon Keith Sockwell Northwest ISD (11)

Ken McCraw Lamesa ISD (17)

Don M. Hillis Wharton ISD (03)

Judy Pollan Daingerfield-Lone Star ISD (08)

James B. Dickson Corsicana ISD (12)

Kyle R. Wargo ESC Region XVII (17)

Bill Carpenter Cypress-Fairbanks ISD (04)

James E. Wilcox Hooks ISD (08)

Michael Hinojosa Hays CISD (13)

Joseph P. Baressi, Jr. Midland ISD (18)

Leonard E. Merrell Katy ISD (04)

Michael L. Caplinger Iowa Park CISD (09)

Jack Patton Llano ISD (13)

Mike Quatrini San Elizario ISD (19)

Shirley J. Neeley Galena Park ISD (04)

H. John Fuller Wylie ISD (10)

Mary E. Ward Dripping Springs ISD (13)

Richard A. Middleton North East ISD (20)

John E. Wilson Clear Creek ISD (04)

Larry Groppel Highland Park ISD (10)

B. Roger Huber ESC Region XIV (14)

Pauline Hargrove Little Cypress-Mauriceville CISD (05)

Jenny Preston Allen ISD (10)

Don Gibson Wall ISD (15)

Carrol A. Thomas, Jr. Beaumont ISD (05)

Quentin S. Burnett Argyle ISD (11)

Alan Richey Bronte ISD (15)

For further information, please contact Louann Martinez, associate executive director, Governmental Relations.

TASA ● 406 East 11th Street ● Austin, TX ● 78701-2617 ● 800-725-TASA (8272) or 512-477-6361 ● fax 512-482-8658

PostScriptPicture (BuyBoardadbw.eps)

20

INSIGHT

spectrum (fpo) pg 21 WINTER 2000 21

Your spark is Brainchild’s online TAAS assessment, a simple, 20-minute diagnosis by TAAS objective. Knowing what students need to study is the essence of effective TAAS preparation. Use the online assessment once every 4 - 6 weeks to assure progress.

Introductory pricing is $2999 per school, including staff development.

Printed, Scored Assessments

On-Site Support

A scored assessment can be printed immediately, with specific feedback printed next to each incorrect and correct answer. Teachers can spend more time teaching and less time grading papers.

Brainchild provides local consultants to give on-site support.

This includes installation and frequent teacher training. If Internet access is a problem, the system can be installed on a school network or WAN. Call for a free workshop.

Reports by TAAS Objective

Targeted Instruction...

Anywhere, Anytime

District-wide, school-wide, class, student. Total score and objective. For grades 3 - 10.

After the assessment, target instruction by individual TAAS objective. Achiever! is network software for grade-specific TAAS preparation. The PLS-1000 portable learning device with Achiever! cartridges provides 6 extended learning strategies.

For a demonstration go to:

www.brainchild.com or call 800-811-2724

Extended Learning For Higher Achievement 1-800-811-2724 • FAX 941-263-3439 ©2001 Brainchild Corporation. All rights reserved. The Brainchild logo and the name Brainchild Portable Learning Device are registered trademarks of Brainchild Corporation

Critical Issues of the 77th Legislature Any analysis of the 77th Legislature must begin with a short discussion of a legislative activity that only occurs once every 10 years—redistricting.

Redistricting is the process of redrawing political districts for all non-statewide officeholders to reapportion population changes identified in the decennial federal census. Redistricting this session may well determine which of the two major political parties in Texas controls the majority of state House and Senate seats, as well as which party will have more representatives in Texas' congressional House delegation for at least the next 10 years. In other words, the process and outcome of redistricting is very high stakes. It will, undoubtedly, overshadow much of the other work the 77th Legislature attempts to accomplish as legislators jockey to protect their own boundary lines and to protect the boundaries of others in their same party. This jockeying may make for some unorthodox alliances between legislators as legislation moves through the House and Senate.

Issues Carried Over from Last Session

been burdened with the load of financing and building the ever-increasing number of buildings needed to educate them. This burden has been aggravated in recent years by the state's general increase in property value.

Recognizing that local taxpayers were building these new facilities at a time when buying property and erecting buildings are at a historic highpoint, the legislature in 1997, and then again in 1999, stepped in and provided two kinds of relief to district taxpayers. First, in 1997 the legislature passed the IFA. The IFA provided assistance to qualifying districts by making an allotment for payment of debt service on instructional facilities available through rules adopted by the commissioner of education. What has occurred in the years since its adoption is that the appropriated IFA funds are depleted too quickly and by too few districts. This session will see both TEA and TASA asking the legislature for an additional $375 million.

Several issues that were either inadequately addressed last session or not addressed at all will continue to be critical issues this session. Among these issues are (1) renewing and increasing the state's commitment to the Instructional Facility Allotment (IFA), (2) raising the 12-cent limit on the Existing Debt Allotment (EDA), and (3) addressing the problem of districts reaching their maximum maintenance and operations taxing authority of $1.50.

12-Cent Limit: Second, in 1999 the legislature passed the EDA. The EDA provided assistance to school districts to pay for already existing debt up to a limit of 12 cents per $100 of assessed property value. Though the commissioner was able to lift the 12-cent limit during the 2000–01 school year, there is no statutory authority to continue doing so. TASA will advocate a permanent solution by modifying the statute to require the state fund old debt over and above the current 12-cent limit.

IFA: Because of the state's burgeoning student population, local school district taxpayers have

$1.50 Maintenance and Operations Tax Limit: To no one’s surprise, a recent TASA WINTER 2000 23

be offered would depend upon administrative and financial considerations. The TASA/TASB proposal assumes that the base plan and three optional plans would be available.

The plan with the most generous benefits would provide coverage levels equivalent to those provided to state agency and higher education employees under the Uniform Group Insurance Program (UGIP). Each district would select one plan from among those available through the program for all of its employees.

The district would pay the full cost of employee coverage in excess of the state contribution for the base plan. Employees would not individually select among the optional plans.

survey of districts revealed that approximately 86 percent of responding districts would reach their maintenance and operations maximum tax rate of $1.50 by the 2001–02 school year. As more districts reach the maximum limit, the state's complex and fragile system of equitable school financing becomes strained, and constitutional issues related not only to equity but to the validity of a statewide property tax are ripe for challenge. TASA will attempt to make this issue a critical one to the legislature. At best the upcoming legislature should provide districts with a means of continuing to let their taxpayers choose their own tax limits by the trustees they select. At worst, the legislature should establish an interim committee to study the matter for action during the 2003 Legislative Session.

Health Insurance The bills already filed for the 77th Legislature indicate that public education will once again occupy a significant portion of the legislature's time and resources. Primary on the legislative agendas of both management associations and teacher groups is the issue of affordable health insurance for all school district employees. After last session, the legislature appointed an interim committee to examine the issue of healthcare for public school employees, and that committee has published its report for use this session. (Note: a summary of that report may be found at www.tasanet.org.)

Among the approaches reported by that interim committee to the legislature for consideration was a plan developed and submitted by TASA and TASB. The conceptual characteristics of our proposed program are as follows: •

•

•

24

INSIGHT

The statewide health insurance program for active public school employees would be established at the state level. The state would fund a basic plan and local districts could purchase improved levels of coverage under the group plan.

The state’s contribution to the program would be the establishment of a base plan for all active public school employees. The cost of the base plan is estimated to be approximately $1.3 billion for FY 2003 (assuming approximately 555,000 active public school employees). The state would pay 100 percent of the cost of employee-only coverage in the base plan. Retirees could be added to the group plan for an additional cost of 30–35 percent.

In addition to the base plan, the program would include optional plans offering more generous coverage. The number of plans to

•

Dependent coverage would be available with the employee paying the full cost of such coverage.

•

The program would become operational September 1, 2002; i.e., for FY 2003.

Retention and Recruitment of Teachers The State Board for Educator Certification anticipates that although state-approved educator preparation programs will graduate approximately 13,000 new classroom teachers next year, there will be more than 40,000 vacancies to fill. The reason the vacancies greatly exceed the new teachers is because teachers are leaving the profession at high rates. The reasons for this exodus are varied and complex. What is certain, however, is that Texas must use every asset available to attract quality educators from any and all sources. To that end, as the organization that represents the chief executive officers of school districts, TASA believes that it is incumbent upon us to make recommendations towards accomplishing this goal.

One powerful means of retaining educators is the effective use of TRS. TASA's philosophy towards TRS is that, where it can, the fund must be used in a manner that is both fiscally prudent and provides incentives to attract and retain individuals working with school-age children. TASA believes that legislation addressing the areas below will work to the long-term benefit of the teaching profession.

Return to Work: Though last session legislation was passed to make it easier for retirees to reenter the classroom without a penalty, it still contains barriers that make it difficult or act as a disincentive to returning to teaching. TRS is clearly in a financial position to easily absorb permitting retirees to return to the classroom after retire-

ment without first having to lay out for one year. Furthermore, TRS should support legislation to allow these retirees to reenter the classroom regardless of content area.

The return-to-work provisions also should be expanded to allow retirees to serve as full-time mentors of new teachers. Studies indicate that a strong support system for new teachers greatly increases the probability that they will remain in the profession indefinitely. TASA believes that the pool of retired teachers and administrators represents an unequaled resource for finding quality mentors. Under current law, however, a retiree would forfeit his or her retirement annuity check after six months of full-time mentoring.

This is unacceptable. Serving as a full-time teacher mentor should be added to the exceptions to retirement benefit forfeiture to encourage retirees to mentor new teachers.

Similarly, the full-time employment penalties for retirees make it financially irresponsible for retired teachers and administrators to accept employment with higher education. Since employees of higher education institutions may participate in TRS, a retiree under TRS may not work for such an institution without the benefits penalty kicking in after six months of full-time employment. The state, through TRS, should be encouraging our best and most accomplished educators to assume positions on higher education faculties, but the current rules do exactly the opposite. Consequently, students in education departments are being taught by individuals who have little or no practical experience in Texas public schools. Serving on the faculty of an institution of higher education should be added to the exceptions to retirement benefits forfeiture for full-time employment.

DROP: In 1997, TASA successfully passed the Deferred Retirement Option Program.

The DROP allowed participants to retire and continue working for up to five years. Upon retirement, the individual would receive 79 percent of his or her retirement annuity collected over the previous five years plus interest.

The program was designed to be most attractive to those educators eligible for retirement as an inducement for them to remain in the profession for up to five more years. In 1999, TRS successfully convinced the legislature that the fund could not absorb an increase in the retirement multiplier to 2.2 percent, provide a lump-sum option, and maintain the DROP at 79 percent. Therefore, the legislature reduced the DROP funding to 60 percent. At this level, the DROP is not an attractive incentive to remain employed in public education. The

program can be a valuable incentive to keep qualified educators in the school districts, and must be refunded at 79 percent or above.

Out-of-State Credit: Many districts are searching beyond Texas' borders to fill their ranks.

One area that has proven troublesome is TRS's 10-year limitation on the number of Texas years of credit on out-of-state service an educator may purchase upon becoming a member of TRS. Other states allow the purchase of up to 15 years of in-state credit for out-of-state service. Texas should likewise increase its limit from 10 years to 15 years to allow districts to compete in the national market for educators.

“Primary on the legislative agendas of both management associations and teacher groups is the issue of affordable health insurance for all school district employees.”

Credit for Nonpublic School Service: Current law limits the purchase of service credit to military service, out-of-state service, developmental leave, and credit for accumulated personal or sick leave. The legislature should extend to persons who have at least 10 years of TRS service credit this same opportunity to purchase service credit for prior employment in an accredited nonpublic school, university, or private sector setting. Such legislation could attract some private school educators to enter or return to work in the public schools at a time when school districts are experiencing critical shortages in some teaching fields.

Teacher Retirement System Benefits

Already, two pieces of legislation have been introduced affecting teacher retirement benefits.

The first bill raises the TRS multiplier from its current rate of 2.2 percent to 2.25 percent. The critical policy issue for the legislature to determine is whether or not the retirement fund can actuarially absorb the increase. Currently, active TRS members contribute a total of 6.4 percent of their income towards their retirement, and the state contributes an additional 6 percent.

Therefore, the total payroll contributions for teacher retirement essentially amounts to 12.4 percent of the income earned by TRS members.

Actuaries employed by TRS estimated this summer that the cost of providing future benefits for new members of the system is 12.16 percent of the income earned by members. It is the difference between the contributions made (12.4 percent) and the cost of providing future benefits to those contributors (12.16 percent) WINTER 2000 25

that provides the income for increasing long-term benefits to members, such as an increase to the multiplier.

Another bill TASA expects to be filed in the area of TRS is one that would make the exchange of 50 or more days of accumulated state sick or personal leave for one year of retirement credit more practical and affordable. Since 1991, the Texas Government Code has provided that individuals amassing 50 days of state sick or personal leave may purchase one additional year of service credit towards retirement. Unfortunately, in addition to 50 days of accumulated state leave, members also must pay the actuarial value of one year's service credit, which often costs tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore, the incentive for public school employees to not take their leave is proving to be unaffordable. Under such legislation, employees who have sacrificed for their vocations should be rewarded by the state in the form of additional service credit for unused sick and personal leave.

Additional State Funding for Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (AEPs) Although the state has mandated that school districts create disciplinary AEPs and place students

in them under certain circumstances, districts currently receive little or no additional state assistance for the increased costs associated with operating the disciplinary AEPs. This lack of state assistance is in spite of the state's ongoing efforts to also hold districts accountable for not only the academic performance of students placed in alternative programs, but also their behavioral performance. Needless to say, operation of an alternative learning center for students with discipline problems represents an extraordinary expense to school districts. In part, these extraordinary costs are due to state-mandated restrictions on their operation, such as prohibitions against mingling regular students with AEP students and mingling elementary AEP students with non-elementary AEP students. Taken together, the statutes and regulations governing the operation of state-mandated disciplinary AEPs force local taxpayers to essentially fund dual educational faculties and facilities—one for regular students and one for disciplinary AEP students. Historically, management associations and TEA have attempted to get relief from the legislature in the form of a direct appropriation in the statewide appropriations bill, but have been unsuccessful. We will continue to advocate for state aid for disciplinary AEPs this coming session.

Longer TAAS Exemption for LEP Students

Prior to last session, districts could exempt LEP students from TAAS for three years, beginning in the 3rd grade.

Due to the high number of exemptions, however, the legislature eliminated the exemption by requiring all LEP students to take TAAS or the Spanish test, which is only available for grades 3–6. Under the new statutory provisions, the State Board of Education adopted a rule that provided a one-year reprieve for immigrant children who have been in the United States for 12 months or less.

Nevertheless, educators generally believe that the time allowed for exemptions of LEP students from TAAS is not appropriate—regardless of whether or not they are born in the United States.

A more appropriate timeline for LEP students to be prepared for either language version of the TAAS is three years. TASA, along with several other education groups, will support changes in this area.

Dana Center Summary of Findings: Study of Uncontrollable Variations on the Cost of Texas Public Education

The 76th Legislature directed The University of Texas Charles A. Dana Center “to conduct a study of variations in known resource costs and costs of education beyond the control of a school district” and to “make recommendations to the 77th Legislature as to methods of adjusting funding under Chapter 42, Education Code, to reflect variations in resource costs and costs of education.” The Dana Center performed its work and submitted it to the legislature November 1, 2000. The report includes three major sections. The first section describes a brief history of educational spending adjustments, including a discussion of Texas school district officials' perspectives on the issue of “uncontrollable” costs (costs beyond the control of school district officials) and a review of cost-of-education strategies employed by other states. The second section explains the current Cost-of-Education Index (CEI), including an analysis of the consequences of updating the CEI with more current data. The final section analyzes three alternative models for a new Texas cost-of-education adjustment—a wage index, a salary index, and a cost-function index. Below is a condensed version of the second and third sections from the summary of the report.

Cost of Updating Current CEI The CEI is the mechanism that Texas uses to adjust Foundation School Program (FSP) calculations to compensate for variations in resource costs and uncontrollable costs of education.

Presently, the CEI affects approximately $1.23 billion in state aid to school districts annually. The existing CEI adjusts funding to schools based on the following five uncontrollable costs: • • • • •

Average competitive salary for beginning teachers Location in a county with a population of less than 40,000 Percentage of pupils that are low income District type—in particular, whether a district is classified as rural or as an independent town District size calculated in terms of students in average daily attendance

Based on these five factors, every Texas district is assigned a CEI value between 1.00 and 1.20.

This value is used to adjust foundation program calculations for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the FSP. CEI values were assigned in December 1990 and have not been updated since that date.

The Dana Center study determined that updating the five factors listed above with current economic and demographic information would result in the CEI values shifting from their current range to a range of 1.03 to 1.23. Although this shift appears minimal, TEA estimates that this updating would require a total increase in state aid of between $296 million and $368 million.

Alternative Approaches to a New Texas CEI Wage Index Due to the labor intensive nature of education, one way the Dana Center proposes addressing the problem of capturing uncontrollable regional variations in the cost of education is looking beyond school district labor costs alone and instead looking at variations in overall labor costs in various markets in Texas. To accomplish this, the Dana Center constructed a series of wage indices designed to capture variations in the general cost of doing business in Texas. After scrutinizing the 26

INSIGHT

WINTER 2000 27

different indices, the Center determined that a Financial and Service Industries Index most accurately predicted the salaries of teachers, administrators, and support personnel. Advantages of this alternative approach include the following: •

Avoids the problem of distinguishing controllable from uncontrollable costs.

•

Most similar to the education cost indexing used by other states.

Disadvantages of using a wage index in place of the current CEI include the following: •

The index draws on wage and salary information for nonteachers and may not fully reflect the actual market for teachers faced by districts. Specifically, district level variations would not be picked up by this index, resulting in every district in a metropolitan area receiving the same index value and every district in a particular county receiving the same index value as well.

•

This index would be the most expensive to implement. TEA estimates it would require an increase of $4.7 billion in state aid to change to this index.

Salary index Given that teacher salaries are the largest component of school district expenditures, another approach to capturing uncontrollable regional variations in the costs of education is to model differences in teacher salaries from district to district. Although the current CEI has a teacher salary factor within it, it is a factor that accounts for what a district is willing and able to pay for teacher salaries. The teacher salary indices constructed by the Dana Center examine the factor from the perspective of what salary a teacher in a given region is willing to accept.

The Center constructed two different salary index models—a baseline model and an essentials model. The baseline model incorporates all of the measurable factors that they identified as important determinants of what salaries teachers are willing to accept from districts. The essentials model incorporates only a subset of the student, district, and community characteristics from the baseline model. The essentials salary index would adjust funding to districts based on the following eleven uncontrollable factors: •

District size in terms of average daily attendance

•

Distance to the nearest teacher certifying institution

•

Distance to the center of the nearest metropolitan area

•

An indicator for whether the district participates in Social Security

•

Percentage of students who are immigrants

•

Percentage of students who are limited English proficient

•

Percentage of students who are mainstreamed special education

•

Average house price

•

Average cooling days

•

Unemployment rate

•

Population density

Based on an analysis of these eleven factors, every Texas school district is assigned an index value between 1.000 and 1.281 for the essentials salary index. If an estimate of school district contributions for health insurance benefits is added as part of teacher compensation, the index values range from 1.00 to 1.34.

The principal advantage of salary indices is that they offer the greatest potential for a new adjustment that is both fair and easy to

28

INSIGHT

implement in the context of current school finance formulas. There are, however, three significant disadvantages to the indices.

They are as follows: •

There is a risk that important factors have been omitted from the salary indices analysis. For example, although surveys suggest that teachers are not especially sensitive to the condition of the buildings in which they work, the Dana Center suspects that districts with more attractive facilities and equipment are better able to attract and retain teachers. Information comparing facilities across districts is unavailable.

• There is difficulty in distinguishing between controllable and uncontrollable costs in the salary indices. Although the actual salaries of teachers statewide are available to be used in the indices, researchers creating the models must also make subjective determinations between controllable and uncontrollable factors that can be used to explain variation in the cost of education. Such determinations lend themselves easily to criticism.

•

These indices only capture local variations on the price of labor and not the cost variations on the costs of nonlabor inputs.

Therefore, they only account for one part of the uncontrollable cost variations. For example, a very small school district has nonlabor uncontrollable costs that make its operation higher than a larger school. These nonlabor uncontrollable costs are not accounted for in a salary index.

Applying the essentials teacher salary index in the same way the current CEI is applied would result in a total annual decrease of state aid to districts of approximately $88 million. Major urban and suburban districts would see an annual increase of state funds, and all other school districts would suffer a reduction in state aid.

If school district expenditures for employee healthcare is added to the essentials salary index, the state would have to increase its state aid to districts by approximately $510 million. With healthcare costs added, almost every district would experience an increase in state aid on average under this index.

Cost-Function Index The previous two indexing strategies focused on uncontrollable variations in the prices that districts must pay for their most important resource—teachers. Prices, however, are only part of the cost equation. Some districts must cope with costs that are derived from variations in the needs of their students and with costs associated with being too small to take advantage of economies of scale. Arguably, these factors are beyond the school district's control. The cost-function index is designed to capture these factors. The perspective driving the cost-function index is that school districts combine purchase inputs (such as teachers and other personnel) with environmental factors (such as student characteristics and district size) to produce educational outcomes. The

cost-function index tries to capture variations in the costs to districts of producing a given level of educational outcomes, given the prices the districts must pay and the environmental factors that the districts face.

The principal advantage of the cost-function index is that it is the most comprehensive of the alternative indices. The index addresses not only uncontrollable variations in price of labor, but also uncontrollable costs that derive from variations in student needs, geographic isolation, and costs associated with being very small. The disadvantages include the following: • Because of significant overlap with the purpose of other adjustments, such as the Small District and Mid-Sized District Adjustments, it would not be proper to simply substitute a cost-function index for the current CEI. It would be more appropriate to either: (1) estimate cost-function index values that could be used in combination with some or all of the current school finance formulas, or (2) use the cost-function index values as the sole adjustment to the Basic Allotment in Tier 1 of the FSP and to much of the Tier 2 Guaranteed Yield Program.

• The analysis of this index has been limited by a lack of data on nonlabor inputs and on educational outcomes.

The Tax Man Cometh.

Put your tax dollars to work using professional money magangement.

AJ Capital has the experience and desire to increase your earnings and hold down future tax hikes.

AJ Capital Corporation 24915 Baywick Spring, TX 77389 281.351.5334

Anne Jenkins WINTER 2000 29

• The index itself is less intuitive and transparent than the other indices because it incorporates complex interactions between district characteristics. For example, small increases in the proportion of low-income students will tend to have a different impact on the costs of a small district than on the costs of a large district.

Final Issues to Consider In adopting a new Texas cost adjustment, The Dana Center suggests that the legislature consider the following issues:

weighted average daily attendance. The legislature may wish to explore the modification of these percentages in adopting a new CEI, particularly the 50 percent weighting.

• When updating the existing CEI or adopting a new adjustment, some school districts will experience reductions in state aid. The legislature may wish to explore transition mechanisms for implementing any new adjustments.

•

• The existing CEI is applied to 71 percent of the Basic Allotment, and the impact of 50 percent of the effects of the CEI is applied in determining a district's count of students in

Select Committee on Teacher Health Insurance

To avoid the issues leading up to the current need to reexamine the existing CEI, the legislature should consider periodic updates to any new adjustment with current data and should periodically reexamine the index methodology to ensure that the index continues to both capture the appropriate cost factors and to reflect district conditions appropriately.

Interim Report to the 77th Texas Legislature October 2000

TASA

is your source for legislative news and information throughout the 77th Session!

TASA EduPortal™:

Searchable (multiple-document, hit-highlighting) document-sharing network featuring complete text of critical education bills (including as filed, amendments, committee substitutes, and floor versions), committee reports, related research and reference documents, and TASA testimony; ongoing legislative forum to pose questions and discuss current legislation and legislative issues

TASAnet:

Online, searchable bill tracking with action history and bill summaries; house and senate committee hearing schedules; key legislative and governmental links

XPress News:

Weekly fax highlighting key legislative issues and events

Capitol Watch:

Biweekly fax featuring in-depth coverage of major legislative activities and initiatives

30

INSIGHT

The Select Committee on Teacher Health Insurance, chaired by Representative Sherri Greenberg, submitted its Interim Report to the 77th Texas Legislature on October 12, 2000. The following are excerpts from that report, including the background of the committee and its recommendations. The complete text of the committee’s report may be viewed on TASA’s Web site, TASAnet (www.tasanet.org) or in the TASA EduPortal™. Questions about the report and TASA’s position on health insurance for public school employees may be directed to TASA, 512-477-6361 or 800-725-TASA (8272).

BACKGROUND In 1999, following the 76th Legislature, Regular Session, the Select Committee on Teacher Health Insurance was created and charged with developing options for teacher health insurance plans. The Committee was instructed that options should be scalable to take account of available resources, and that any proposals should address the actuarial problems of TRS-Care.

In order to address the charge before them, the Committee members held four meetings. Two meetings were held in Austin, one in South Texas, and another in North Texas. Some hearings were scheduled during the summer months in order to allow teachers and other school personnel better access to the Committee. In all, over seventy-five individuals presented testimony to the Committee, and many more submitted written comments. These comments were instrumental to the Committee members as they developed the options for school employee health insurance detailed below.

In addition to presenting options, this report outlines some of the factors which affect the charge. These factors include: a history of state health insurance plans; the coverage currently provided to active and retired school personnel; and health care cost trends. Finally, in this report, the Committee makes recommendations on key components of plan design.

WINTER 2000 31

SUMMARY OF PLANS EXAMINED The State has numerous options with regard to health care coverage for active and retired school personnel. The Committee cautions that the numbers alone do not tell the whole story. For example, some of these options include contributions to dependent coverage and others do not. In addition, the levels of coverage in the scenarios vary greatly. It is apparent that regardless of which option is selected, the total cost of providing insurance to active and retired school personnel is substantial. What varies greatly between the plans is who bears the responsibility for those costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS Regardless of how the plan considered by the Legislature is structured, the Committee believes that any plan should meet some general criteria.

The Committee recommends that retirees and employees of Texas public school districts who are eligible for TRS membership options should be pooled into one statewide health insurance program. All public school employees should be eligible for coverage under the plan.

Rationale: A statewide health insurance plan should be developed to provide coverage to all school personnel and retirees. Teachers should not be singled out to receive health coverage under a state plan because doing so would make the situation worse for

support staff, such as bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and janitors. These positions are vital to the day-to-day operations of a school, but they are typically low-wage jobs. As a result, these are the individuals who may need health insurance the most. If the State created a plan that excluded them from coverage, many districts might be forced to stop offering insurance to these individuals.

A single insurance pool for active and retired public school districts would provide taxpayers with the greatest return on their dollar. The benefits of a large insurance pool include potentially lower health care costs. It is also feasible that large group plans can obtain more comprehensive benefits at relatively lower rates than smaller groups. A study conducted by the Lewin Group on behalf of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers concluded that savings could be realized in a large plan based on the following factors: • In recent years, large groups had lower premium growth compared to small and mid-size groups.

• Self-insured plans had lower premium increases relative to fully-funded plans between 1998 and 1999, regardless of plan design. (Most large groups self-insure their health plans).

total program management (fpo) p.32 32

INSIGHT

• Use of Pharmaceutical Benefits Management (PBM) can provide substantial savings on pharmaceutical costs. Typically, large groups can secure more favorable contracts with PBMs. Additional benefits to combining individual districts and retirees into one statewide plan include: • Combining districts and retirees into one statewide plan promotes uniformity of benefits and equity of coverage among public school employees.

• Administrative efficiencies would be achieved by allowing one agency to handle health benefits purchasing and administration for all districts.

This would relieve districts of the responsibility for health benefits administration.

• Sophisticated and cost effective techniques for managing health benefits could be more easily utilized with a statewide plan.

The Committee recommends that benefits should be comparable to those provided to state employees through the Uniform Group Insurance Program.

Rationale: The State currently requires that school districts offer employees access to a plan with benefit levels comparable to those offered to state employees in the UGIP. In order to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to all school district employees, that level of coverage should remain the standard.

This does not mean that the State must bear the entire cost of the program; nor does it mean that the funding levels have to be the same. The current UGIP program has evolved over time. A statewide plan for public school employees should have the goal of providing a contribution to dependent coverage, but it may not be realistic to expect this at the program’s inception. The first goal of the State should be to provide public school employees with quality, affordable health insurance coverage.

There has been some discussion of expanding the TRS-Care 3 program to active public school employees. While this plan may be somewhat less expensive for the State and/or school districts to implement, the benefit levels are not comparable. In addition, under the TRS-Care 3 program, an individual faces out-of-pocket expenses of up to $5,240 per year. For a family, that amount increases to $10,480. With the HealthSelect plan, out-of-pocket expenses are limited to office visit co-pays and prescription drug co-pays plus a deductible of $500 per person for in-network services or $1,500 per person for out-of-network services. The higher out-of-pocket expenses under the TRS-Care 3 plan could be a substantial financial burden.

The Committee recommends that the plan should be administered separately from the Uniform Group Insurance Program for state employees.

Rationale: The pool of active and retired school personnel is estimated to cost 10.5 percent more to insure than the pool of active and retired state employees. The higher cost of insurance for the public school employees (PSEs) is due to a variety of factors, including: a greater proportion of PSEs are female, with health care costs that average about 25 percent more than males; active PSEs are slightly more than one year older on average; and a greater proportion of PSEs are not eligible for Medicare.

As a result, adding public school employees into the current UGIP program would increase the costs of dependent coverage for state employees, but would not bring any efficiencies or cost savings into the current system. In other words, the total cost to the State is the same whether the systems are operated together or independently of each other.

Furthermore, a combination of the two pools should only be considered if all aspects of both programs are uniform, including: benefits, contribution strategy, state and employee cost sharing, and mandatory participation of districts. If all aspects of the program are not identical, different utilization patterns could emerge which would have additional implications on cost.

The Committee recommends that the plan be structured in such a way to avoid adverse selection by the school districts.

In this case, adverse selection is defined as the tendency of a school district to recognize their ability to negotiate rates on their own and then to select the most cost effective option. This tends to leave only the school districts with high utilization and bad experience in the pool, which drives up rates.

Rationale: The Committee received testimony from health insurance experts who noted that any voluntary plan which pools risk eventually is subject to the influence of adverse selection. One way to overcome that problem is to mandate participation of all school districts. Another way is to provide a significant financial incentive for school districts to participate in the plan.

The Committee recommends that the plan should have a designated trustee with the authority and responsibility to design, implement, supervise and manage the plan.

Because school districts currently submit payments to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS), the Committee believes they are the appropriate agency to administer the plan.

WINTER 2000 33

Rationale: TRS currently administers the retirement system for public school employees. In addition, it currently administers the health insurance plan for retirees. A relationship has been established. The Committee recognizes that a health plan of this size would be a new undertaking for the agency. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that in operating the UGIP program, ERS has developed expertise in this area.

As a result, it is important that the two agencies work together.

The Committee recommends that if a new statewide plan is created, the plan should have a one year start-up time prior to paying claims, including appropriated funds to cover first-year, start-up costs.

Rationale: Although many school districts are currently facing sharp reductions in benefits or are having difficulty in obtaining coverage at all, it would be unwise to rush to implement a program and then have it fail.

Therefore, it is important to allow the agency administering the program adequate time to design and implement the details of the plan.

The Committee recommends that because health insurance is a benefit, and part of the overall compensation package

Watch for your 2001-2002 Membership Directory coming to you in January!

for school personnel, any state plan should offer all school districts the same health insurance coverage.

Rationale: A school employee should not receive reduced benefits because of the wealth of the district in which he or she is employed. As with the salary increase that was given to teachers during the last session, health insurance is part of the overall compensation package, and therefore all school districts, regardless of their property wealth per student, should be offered the same health insurance benefits from the state.

• Employees Retirement System, “Projected Cost of StateFunded Health Benefits for Active and Retired Public School Employees,” May 9, 2000.

• Employees Retirement System, “Explanation of the Differential in FY02 Projected Cost For Employee Only Coverage for Public School Employees versus UGIP Employees,” June 14, 2000.

• Testimony received from ERS, May 2000.

• Employees Retirement System, “Projected Cost of StateFunded Health Benefits for Active and Retired Public School Employees,” May 9, 2000.

T Texa s Admi Associ nist a rato tion of 406 E r Scho Aust ast 11th s ol in, St

re T (512 ) 47 X 78701 et 7-63 61

TASA

Annual Report 1999–2000 The mission of the Texas Association of School Administrators is to promote, provide, and develop leadership that champions educational excellence.

34

INSIGHT

WINTER 2000

35

TASA provides a broad range of member services in the areas of Administrative Services, Governmental Relations, Professional Development, and Communications and Technology. To derive its operating funds, TASA relies on a variety of income sources, including membership support, the TASA/TASB Annual Convention, and seminars and training, to name just a few. The charts on pages 38 and 39 illustrate TASA’s expenditure categories and revenue sources for 1999–2000 (the last full year for which data is available), as well as total revenue for the preceding four fiscal years. The association’s services and activities—broken down into individual categories—follow.

MEMBERSHIP The association provided benefits and services to 2,033 members in 1999–2000.

Membership categories are as follows: Superintendent (992) Central Office (660) Education Service Center (58) University/College (54) Association/Agency (15) Miscellaneous (32) Paid Life Retired (14) Associate (161) Student (47)

49% 32% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 8% 2%

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Professional Development Offered professional development opportunities to school administrators across the state through workshops on a wide variety of topics, including: • Technology Leadership Academy (sponsored by Southwestern Bell, Cabletron Systems, Cisco Systems, Corbey Company, GTE, Curriculum Advantage, and Microsoft Corporation) • TASA/Texas A&M Administrative Leadership Institute (cosponsored with Texas A&M University)

2000–2001

TASA Staff Executive Office Johnny Veselka, executive director Barbara Hardin, executive secretary Administrative Services Paul Whitton, Jr., associate executive director Pat Johnston, director, special services Nanette Gardner, accountant II Steve Flores, executive assistant, special projects Ginny Endress, manager, data services Terra Raine, accountant I Lisa Gregory, registration coordinator Pam Cantrell, accounting clerk Marita Rogers, receptionist Jean Hilderbrand, secretary/receptionist Governmental Relations Louann Martinez, associate executive director David Backus, staff counsel and assistant executive director Professional Development Ellen Bell, associate executive director Dian Cooper, assistant executive director Dottie Petersen, secretary Communications & Technology Ann Halstead, director Iliana Cavazos, graphics/production coordinator Karen Limb, editorial coordinator Mark Pyeatt, communications specialist

• Texas Assessment Conference (cosponsored with TEA, TAAC, TACTP, and NATD) • Grant Writing: Finding Dollars for Instructional Technology (sponsored by Computer Curriculum Corporation) Implemented Learning for Leadership: A Mentoring Program for New Superintendents. Ninety experienced superintendents were provided mentor training and matched with new superintendents.

Served on the National Staff Development Council Planning Committee for the annual conference. The Planning Committee advises NSDC staff on keynote and preconference speakers and distinguished lecturers, and helps score program proposals.

Served on the Professional Development Imperative, a group of more than 20 professional associations working to implement a new vision for educator professional development. The PDI has published a brochure of six indicators of meaningful professional development, including being research-based, having follow-up, and committing educators to take responsibility for their own learning and organizations to provide resources that support learning. The indicators are matched with an effectiveness continuum and questions regarding evidence of results.

36

INSIGHT

WINTER 2000

37

Total Expenditures 1999-2000

Total Revenue 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 $3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0

Total Revenue 1999-2000

Governmental Relations Conducted a comprehensive grassroots survey identifying by region the top 10 legislative priorities, which served as the basis for TASA's 2001 Legislative program.

Reconstructed the TASA/TASB Joint Committee on Revenue and School Funding in preparation for the 77th Legislative Session. The committee’s nine board members and nine administrators: • Studied and developed a health insurance program for presentation to the legislature that creates a state-operated health insurance pool for all school district employees.

• Developed tax rate profiles for 18 districts that attempt to explain the variables resulting in increases or decreases in local property taxes following the last legislative session.

• Drafted and sent a letter to the commissioner of education encouraging him to exercise his discretion to lift the 12-cent cap on Tier 3 funding. (The commissioner did in fact lift the Tier 3 funding ceiling to 29 cents.)

• Considered a broad range of other topics, including the overall state tax and budget structure, very specific issues of school funding, the Foundation School Program, and problems with the minimum salary schedule.

Participated in several interim committees, including the Texas Education Reform Caucus, a bipartisan group of educators, parents, business leaders, and elected officials,

38

INSIGHT

WINTER 2000

39

seeking consensus on ways to build on the current successes of Texas public schools.

Monitored and participated in discussions with The University of Texas Charles A. Dana Center on its legislatively mandated study to update and make recommendations regarding possible changes to the existing Cost of Education Index.

Affected the Commissioner of Education's rules regarding special education due process hearings to encourage parent-school district cooperation and to discourage unnecessary litigation, while staying within the bounds of federal law.

Monitored and actively participated in matters at the state level that related to the State Board for Educator Certification, State Board of Education, and the Comptroller of Public Accounts, as well as House and Senate Interim Committees.

Facility Planning Provided facilities studies through the association’s Facility Planning Services, designed to assist school districts with demographic and enrollment studies, long-range facilities planning, and writing educational programs for facilities.

Sponsored the 11th Annual National School Facilities Workshop with AASA in cooperation with CEFPI, Southern Region, which offered a combination of national and state perspectives, as well as identified facility trends that support and respond to educational programs and new teaching.

Administrative Services Resource Center Communications and Technology Continued offering a wide variety of publications and communications services that complement all association services and help to inform and educate members.

Initiated the TASA EduPortal™, a Web-based, document-sharing network that allows school administrators to search, create, manage, and publish documents through a private portal on the Internet or their district’s Intranet. The EduPortal combines sophisticated technologies and powerful full-text search tools with hit-highlighting, enabling precise search strategies and quick document retrieval.

Expanded the association’s Web site, TASAnet, adding administrative resources and links to critical education sites. Initiated true online registration for the 40th Annual TASA/TASB Convention as a preliminary step toward offering online registration for all TASA-sponsored conferences and workshops.

Strategic Planning Offered two Strategic Planning programs through affiliation with The Cambridge Group: Strategic Action and the Strategic Planning Certification Institute, for school districts that want to train members of their own staff to lead the district’s Strategic Planning efforts.

Provided external facilitation to school districts with a complete turnkey approach to developing a long-range Strategic Plan. Directed by TASA external facilitators, school districts analyzed critical issues, set objectives, and developed a comprehensive three- to five-year plan. The Strategic Plans were characterized by: • A vision of the next five to ten years • Concentration of effort through a focused mission and measurable objectives • Full district and community involvement • District and community consensus • District and community support • Implementation through individualized administrative accountabilities • Annual evaluation, renewal, and update of the plan Supported the overall goal of the planning process in involving the community and enabling the district to practice true Strategic Planning across all programs and activities.

40

INSIGHT

Continued providing quality technical and professional support services through ASRC, serving 313 subscribers in 1999–2000.

Conducted the 8th Annual First-time Superintendents’ Academy, offering first- and second-year superintendents an in-depth examination of the roles, responsibilities, and challenges inherent in the superintendency.

Continued to offer pesticide training sessions; 193 additional school district personnel at 13 locations received the Structural Pest Control Board’s required Integrated Pest Management Coordinator training through the association. In addition, training was given to more than 264 participants in 10 CEU/Sports Turf workshops and 83 participants in 5 Maintenance and Operations workshops.

Continued the Professional Liability Insurance Program for TASA members, offering an occurrence policy providing for liability and employee-rights coverage; 942 TASA members subscribed to this service during 1999–2000, including 95 new subscribers.

Cosponsored the Superintendent Leadership Development Program in cooperation with ESC Regions 2, 13, and 20, which utilizes a variety of simulation exercises and an interview to assess administrative behavior in 11 skill dimensions.

Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center Conducted training seminars on a variety of curriculum management audit processes and theories, including: • Aligning Assessment and Curriculum • Curriculum Management Audit Training • Curriculum Management Audit Report Writing • Curriculum Alignment for Math and Science • Curriculum Alignment for Language Arts and Social Studies • Curriculum-Driven Budgeting Introduced a new seminar, Walkthroughs as an Effective Coaching Strategy for Increasing Student Achievement, which is one of the most popular offerings in the 2000–2001 Professional Development Calendar.

Identified potential lead auditors from Texas’ pool of trained auditors; included Texas auditors on audit teams across the country; provided WINTER 2000

41

networking luncheon for auditors and Texas superintendents who had audits.

Conducted curriculum management audits in nine Texas school districts.

Led the nation in the design of audit training and the number of districts requesting audit and curriculum alignment services.

TASA EduPortal

™

™

Texas Educators Document-Sharing Network

Texas Leadership Center Received a $6.3 million three-year state challenge grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to greatly expand the Technology Leadership Academy and provide a laptop computer with registration. Projected participation includes 700 superintendents and principals the first year, with expanded participation each year, allowing approximately 50 percent of the superintendents and principals in Texas to participate in the five-day academy and online activities over the next three years. Sought matching funding from Texas foundations and corporate sponsors.

Continued successful professional development training seminars, including D.E.C.I.D.E. (Six Steps in Conflict Resolution), Leadership Development Process, and Building Vertical Teams.

WorldCom (new–camera ready art provided)

Major legislation can become law in the blink of an eye.

Let the power of the EduPortal™ keep you in touch with the 77th Session.

✇ Complete bill text, committee reports, related research and reference documents, and TASA testimony—all at your fingertips.

✇ Online forum for discussions on legislation and legislative issues.

Call TASA and subscribe today, 800-725-8272 42

INSIGHT

WINTER 2000 43

theLeader

News from the Texas Leadership Center

Opportunities in Adversity: More Evidence of Powerful Lessons for Leading In 1999, Schroth, Pankake & Funk reported findings from their study of six successful female superintendents in Texas. These six superintendents had been nominated for the Texas Association of School Boards’ Outstanding Superintendent of the Year Award. The purpose of the research was to gather information regarding what these successful superintendents believed to be the qualities of leadership and experiences especially important in their own development as leaders. Particular emphasis was given to identifying how they perceived any mistakes or failure experiences as contributing to their ultimate success as leaders.

Efforts were made to identify any “lessons” they had learned about themselves and their organizations through these mistakes/ failure experiences.

In 1999–2000, a second phase of this research was initiated by interviewing six successful male superintendents. One individual was randomly selected from the male nominees for TASB’s Outstanding Superintendent Award in each of the years in which there also was a female nominee who had been interviewed in phase one of the study. The same purposes framed this second phase of the study.

The Qualities of Leadership Vision, integrity and credibility, honesty, and working hard (work ethic) were the qualities of leadership most often identified by the six male superintendents interviewed. Additionally, three of the male superintendents identified being a good listener as an important leadership quality and two noted that knowledge was an important leadership quality.

Vital Experiences to Development When asked what experiences had been especially important in their own development as leaders, two major themes continued on page 46

Book Review

Accessing the Superintendency

by Marilyn Tellerico Published jointly by Corwin Press, Inc. and The American Association of School Administrators, ISBN 0-8039-6895-7 Reviewed by Jody Mason Westbrook, consultant,Texas Leadership Center and TASA For those pursuing the superintendency, and for those who teach in educational leadership programs, this book is a must-read!

Marilyn Tellerico outlines the process of superintendent selection. Based on research that includes the experiences of 75 headhunters, school board members, and recent candidates, much of “behind-the-door” activity and decision making is explained.

NEED TO MOVE? We offer Administrators a Minimum of 55% discount on Professional Moving Services when Moving from City to City in Texas.

– Authorized Atlas Van Lines Agent – BILL ARNOLD MOVING AND STORAGE INC. 1-800-423-0656 “Moving Texas Since 1953” 44

INSIGHT

The author bases her writing on three premises: (1) there are regularities to the process of a superintendent search and selection, (2) gender biases and other unwritten rules exist, and (3) understanding the stated and unstated norms of selection can lead to successfully accessing the superintendency.

One of the “regularities” in the process of selection is the use of an outside consultant or search firm. Reasons for this are given but, more importantly, emphasis is placed on what information they gather. The data collected as the search firms involve stakeholder groups and build a profile of what is wanted and

expected of a new superintendent can be critical to the success of a new superintendent.

The author gives practical advice about everything from gathering information about what the district really wants (ask questions of your network of colleagues) to what will happen during the first, second, and third interviews.

She reminds us that the “walk-on-water” criterion for selection is in all advertisements and “asks for more than any mere mortal can deliver.” Tellerico also points out that there is great regularity in the length of time, delays, and lapses in communication during the process; there are really only minor details that differ in the process; and by knowing the regularities of the process, a candidate can more easily maneuver the application and interview process.

One of the best pieces of advice comes in Tellerico’s chapter on “Recruiting and Interviewing Candidates.” She maintains that because of the “fuzzy phenomena like interpersonal chemistry and gut feelings that are so influential to interviewers,” the candidate must be genuine. You may connect; you may not, but it is far better to be exactly “who you are” at this point. Letting the real personality and belief system emerge after being hired is a sure way to find oneself in a situation that is not a fit.

Highly valued career pathways are examined as are gender and racial biases. Based on information from school boards and search firms, there is a historical bias against women and minority candidates. Although the candidate cannot control biases, being aware of them will enable one to examine the likelihood of selection and fit. Strategies are given for dealing with potentially discriminatory circumstances. Chapter 5 not only gives data about how prevalent these practices are, but how to anticipate and preempt biased inquiries.

Finally, the third theme, “stated and unstated selection rules,” offers the candidate opportunity to examine those rules and decide if he/she wants to participate in a specific application. Knowing ahead of time whether or not one is a fit for the position can save unnecessary moves, wasted time, and unsuccessful applications.

While the book is written primarily for those wishing to access the superintendency, it will be very useful for professors of educational administration as well. School boards also may find it helpful as they examine their own process of selecting a search firm and ultimately a superintendent who successfully fulfills the needs of their constituents, students, and community.

Board Briefs The following are highlights of the Texas Leadership Center board of directors meeting held September 23, 2000.

Updates • Technology Leadership Academy The board received an update on the TASA/Texas Leadership Center Technology Leadership Academy. Six hundred twentyfive superintendents and principals have registered. The contract has been signed with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and proposals have been written to other organizations for matching funds. Registration fees and discounts on computers also will provide matching and in-kind funds. Corporate sponsors of the academy to date are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Dell Computer Corporation; Apple Computer, Inc.; WINTER 2000 45

Board Briefs continued from page 45 Southwestern Bell/SBC Foundation; and Gateway Business.

and/or principals before the registration cut-off date of October 2.

The board suggested that districts be allowed to register more than five enrollees per district since there was still room in the academy. Subsequently, a third registration fax was sent to all superintendents inviting them to register for themselves

•

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) Leadership Development Initiative The board discussed a possible project with the Texas Principals Leadership Initiative and two regional service centers to pilot the Leadership Development Program in 2001–2002.

In official business, the board of directors approved the minutes of the June 26, 2000, meeting and approved the financial statement of the center.

The next board of directors meeting for the Texas Leadership Center is January 31 at the Four Seasons Hotel in Austin.

Opportunities in Adversity: More Evidence of Powerful Lessons for Leading continued from page 44 emerged—“support from family” and “formal education.” All six of these individuals specifically mentioned their parents and the home environment in which they grew up as being vital parts of their development as leaders.

Stories about events during childhood and strong and continuing relationships with parents and grandparents were offered, especially as they related to expectations for performance.

Lessons Learned from Mistakes and Failure Experiences As noted earlier, of particular interest in this study were any mistakes or failure experiences that these superintendents perceived had contributed to their ultimate development as successful leaders. Responses to the question “What role has failure played in your life?” varied from no failures (at least not big ones) to not getting a job that the individuals desperately wanted. All failures described were either school related (if early years) or professional (if mature years) and involved personal interactions or responsibilities. Still, everyone responded to the question in some way.

Lessons about Self Each of the six male superintendents had something to offer regarding lessons learned.

One of the common themes among the responses dealt with introspection and behavior analysis. In this regard, much of what they had to say reflected what is found in the literature on this topic: mistakes contain potent lessons.

46

INSIGHT

Generally, the individuals’ judgments of the events reported were positive even though they were responding to a question regarding their mistakes and/or failures. These superintendents appeared to be employing the “reinterpreting of the story” phenomenon reported by Hyatt & Gottlieb (1987) in their book When Smart People Fail. Hyatt and Gottlieb actually advise this “reinterpreting” as a positive strategy for dealing with failure.

They state, “If failure is a judgment, and if you are the judge, then you also have the power to alter your judgment” (p. 132). This appears to be what these superintendents did in relation to their own experiences. Their reflection and analysis led them to a better understanding of themselves and ultimately to a refocusing of their efforts, attitudes, and actions.

Lessons about the Organization Relationships and trust were often at the heart of the professional incidents described. The relationship incidents ranged from simple disagreements with staff to sabotage attempts from board members or community groups. Stories about trust issues with employees, between themselves and their board members, with the general community, and family members were frequent. For example, learning to “read the organization” was a common theme. Issues of trust, volatility of seemingly simple issues that escalate into major controversies, commitment and loyalty of individuals during controversial episodes in the organization's development, and

knowing when to “lay down the gauntlet” versus when to “back off ” of a situation appeared in the various stories told during the interviews.

Closing Superintendents often must work in climates of criticism, uncertainty, and hostility. Such environments are riddled with opportunities to fail. Seeing mistakes and failures as opportunities to learn is a lesson all 12 of the successful superintendents interviewed had learned relatively early in their development. Perhaps because many of them engaged these experiences within the safety of nurturing family and school environments, they were able to see the lessons and use them to enrich their development rather than stifle it. Perhaps the formal knowledge they accrued along the way helped them in their reflections and analyses, which enabled them to go beyond the incidents and see the bigger picture for their long-term behaviors and attitudes. Or perhaps it is their willingness to accept mistakes and failures as a part of life that must be dealt with since they can’t be avoided that has caused them to persist even in the face of adversity. Most likely it is all of these elements and more. However, learning even a little bit about how these superintendents were able to convert their mistakes and failure experiences into opportunities to strengthen their leadership skills can provide models for others, especially those aspiring to or struggling in this key leadership position in education.

Powerschool ad fpo Pg. 47

It’ll be hot this April in Austin.

At the State Capitol, that is.

Mark your calendar now for the conference that puts you right in the heart of the action.

th

TASA’s 9 Annual Spring Conference for School Executives April 25–27, 2001 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Austin

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

Presorted Standard U.S. Postage PAID Austin, TX Permit No. 1941