School board to buy more electronic white boards?

On tonight's consent agenda (generally including only non-controversial items that are approved without discussion) is a request by the LCPS administration to spend $1.7 million on electronic white boards for grade 3-5 elementary school classrooms. At my request the chairman has changed this to an information item instead, so there will be a presentation and discussion. Like it or not, this is a controversial expenditure in our community and the request deserves some daylight. The request will first be discussed at the Finance Committee's 5:30 meeting preceding the full Board meeting.

A vote on the request may come either tonight or on December 8th. (Item 7.16 -- link may change)

Update at 5:54 pm:
I'm sitting in a meeting of the Finance committee where we had discussion of this matter and asked questions of staff. We will discuss it again in the full board meeting later this evening. The funds are federal funds that come with very specific restrictions.

• The funds must be for one-time expenses (not ongoing commitments such as raising salaries).
• The funds must improve student achievement for students with disabilities.
• Purchase of assistive technology is recommended (though not required) by the federal government to meet the other criteria
• Because 63% of students with disabilities are included in regular education classrooms, the regular education classrooms are eligible for the technology. The technology then benefits not just students with disabilities but also general education students.
• The funds requested by the administration will be used for purchase and installation of the devices themselves but also for training in how to use them.
• The electronic whiteboards come with speakers and a remote microphone for use by the teacher. The use of this audio assistive technology has been shown to improve the achievement of elementary school students, something I don't think we can say about the whiteboards. If this is approved, and I suspect it will be, I hope that teachers will adopt use of the audio assistance.

If you have ideas of what would be better than whiteboards and still meet these criteria, please let the Board know.

Update 10:25pm: The Board took up the purchase as an action item. I moved to table it until the next meeting to give us more time to explain this to our constiuents and explore the alternatives. The motion did not receive a second. The Board voted 7-1 to accept the transfer. I voted against it because I don't believe the community supports it yet.

Will the School Board encourage cell phone use in high school?

At-Large representative Tom Reed has been seeking to rework the policy governing cell phones and other devices for many months, and the question finally comes to the full board tonight. He & I share the philosophy that because cell phones in high school can't be prevented they should be regulated and used for educational purposes where possible.

His proposal specifically authorizes High School students to use cell phones, iPods and other personal electronic devices during lunchtime while in the dining area. The administration opposes this change, concerned that it will become increasingly difficult to restrict use outside of lunchtime and that students will be harder to communicate with during lunchtime.

I will propose an additional amendment that Mr. Reed has said he will support, rephrasing the policy to encourage principals to loosen restrictions, but without requiring them to. My amendment would change this:

Unless expressly authorized, students are prohibited from operating pagers, cell phones or other personal communication or electronic devices during school hours, either while on school property, under school control or attending any school function or activity of any elementary, middle, high, academy, alternative, or technical center school.

to this:

Students are permitted to operate pagers, cell phones and other personal communication or electronic devices during school hours when authorized to do so by school personnel. Authorization is required whether on school property, under school control or attending any school function or activity of any elementary, middle, high, academy, alternative or technical center school.

(Item 8.34)

Update 9:46pm: The Board adopted (6-3) the alternative language I proposed for the first paragraph of the policy. (In favor: Stevens, Reed, Guzman, Ohneiser, Marshall, DuPree. Opposed: Geurin, Bergel, Godfrey)

Dr. Guzman then offered an amendment to change the sentence permitting use of electronic devices during lunch time in the lunch area. His amendment was to allow the principals to designate the place to permit use. The amendment passed 4-3-2. In favor were Guzman, Stevens, Reed & Ohneiser. Opposed were Geurin, Godfrey and Marshall. Abstaining were DuPree and Bergel.

And finally, the Board voted 5-4 in favor of Mr. DuPree's table the motion and send it back to the Policy committee, which will meet again in January or February. (In favor: DuPree, Against: Stevens, Reed, Guzman, Ohneiser).

Will the Board Set Budget Priorities?

Two weeks ago the Board met and considered setting budget guidance to the Superintendent. This was done for the first time last year, with mixed results. I believe the guidance should be updated, but I had the feeling that the rest of the Board would just as soon not try again. To my surprise, we tabled the motion until this meeting because the hour had grown late. We take the question up again tonight. here is my take:

In my opinion last year's goals are no longer appropriate for our situation.

1. Preserve and support existing academic programs designed to promote student achievement.

At a minimum, we should modify the goal to reflect our commitment to proven methods by changing “designed” to “proven.” While this is a good goal, some members last year felt it was too restrictive to academic programs. One possibility is to restate it this way:
Preserve core programs and staffing levels to prepare students for the next stage of their growth.

2. Provide an adequate compensation package to employees including, if possible, both a step increase and some degree of a COLA.

Last year we were not able to provide either a step increase or a COLA, and soon after adopting this goal abandoned it for a no-RIF goal. It is difficult to imagine that either is possible in the current environment. I suggest the following instead:
Retain all difficult-to-fill positions and uniquely skilled personnel.

3. Minimize increases in class size.

My concern with this is that it is not an outcome-based position. According to the studies Dr. Hatrick has cited to us, class sizes can increase without detrimental impact to most students. Minimizing class size increases temporarily may result in elimination of other positions and programs that have an actual impact on achievement. Additionally, it is unlikely that class sizes will not be increased significantly, and it is not a good practice to adopt goals that we know we can't meet.

4. Maximize operational efficiency.

This goal is too broad to be effective. The data show that LCPS is operationally efficient at a system-wide level. The Board should specify specific areas of efficiency in which we expect to see improvements:
Reduce the use of consumable materials in instruction, administration and communications. Reduce or postpone purchases wherever possible.

5. Expand the use of user fees.

The Superintendent proposed, and the Board accepted, significant user fees in FY10. For FY11:
Implement or increase user fees only for optional programs that would otherwise be eliminated.

6. Seek savings in the areas of non-school based funding, recruitment, and non-academic programs.

I can stand by this final goal as written.

Update at 8:34pm: The Board rejected this approach in favor of directing the Superintendent to make his budget conform to the School Board's 38 adopted goals.

South Riding area Middle School to be named for Lunsford?

Tonight the Board will vote on a name for a new Middle School adjacent to South Riding. Its boundaries were set in the spring. The panel recommended naming the school after Mike Lunsford, the beloved and respected LCPS Director of Transportation who died suddenly this summer after more than 40 years of service.

We received some feedback a few weeks ago that the women and men who worked for Mike want to name the transportation and maintenance facility in Leesburg after Mike instead. I haven't heard discussion on the Board about this but I prefer to name the school for him. His name will be heard more often by more people for many more years on a school than a maintenance building. Naming the school after Mike also reinforces that his mission wasn't buses and fuel and tires: it was kids, their safety and their education.

The alternative choices are Eric Olsen Middle School and Justice Middle School. Eric Olsen was a lacrosse coach who lost his very young life a year ago, the Freedom High School stadium now bears his name. (Item 9.02)

Update at 7:58pm: The Board voted unanimously to follow the naming committee's recommendation and named the new school "J. Michael Lunsford Middle School." I cannot wait to attend the dedication. I will be there whether I'm still on the Board at that point or not.

ES-20 to become Buffalo Trail Elementary School?

South Riding and surrounding neighborhoods are currently engaged in a bitter fight in an attempt to ensure that somebody else's kids go to a new elementary school next fall. The school that nobody wants to go to will be named by the Board tonight (November 30, 2009). A community panel suggested the name Buffalo Trail Elementary School.

The committee’s alternate second and third name choices for School Board consideration were McGraw Ridge Elementary School and Conklin Ridge Elementary School, respectively.

I am not aware of any recommendations by Board members to deviate from that name. (Item 9.01)

Update at 7:58pm: The Board voted unanimously to follow the naming committee's recommendation and named the new elementary school "Buffalo Trail Elementary School."

Tonight's Meeting: Naming Schools, Budgeting for Buildings & Whiteboards

Loudoun County's School Board holds its twice-monthly meeting tonight, rescheduled from last Tuesday.

We begin with a formal public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program and the Capital Asset Preservation Program, inviting members of the public to speak. I suspect we won't hear many comments unless some folks want to remind us about the need for a new High and Middle School in the Ashburn and Lansdowne area.

Later in the evening we will vote on whether to accept a recommendation of the joint committee of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors on our future capital needs. (Item 9.05)

We're on hold with the CIP because after the Superintendent supplied the Board with a CIP proposal on November 10th it was almost immediately pulled back when Supervisor Lori Waters stated the next day that there were more funds available for construction in the next few years than the LCPS staff had understood. The School Board has not been provided with an updated proposed CIP reflecting the new numbers.

Also at tonight's meeting, will the School Board:

• Name ES-20 as Buffalo Trail ES? (Answer: Yes)
• Name a Middle School for Mike Lunsford? (Answer: Yes)
• Set budget priorities for FY 2011? (Answer: No)
• Allow student cell phone use in high school? (Answer: No)
• Buy more electronic whiteboards? (Answer: Yes)
  

Cafeteria Food

As I've mentioned in the past, I eat lunch at a school cafeteria once a week, with my son. I've done this for years, and I ate with my daughter for years before that. Conventional wisdom holds that most school cafeterias in the US don't serve our kids very well, but that there are a few that are models of freshness, nutrition and edibility (watch Supersize Me). Michelle Obama brought attention to the subject this week with a visit to a Virginia school. Naturally there are parents who want those amazing prototypes here in LCPS and aren't finding it, and on occasion they ask me to do something about that.

Something struck me about this last week. When I'm having lunch and looking around the table I can see that parents as a whole in this community are not up in arms about nutritional value. My casual observation is that the parents who pack lunches for their elementary students by and large aren't packing more fresh fruits and vegetables, less processed foods or lower-fat options than the cafeteria offers. They certainly don't have less sugar.

Big changes happen when the community demands it. I would love to see the parents in this community come together and insist on nutritional improvement for all kids, but I don't expect that will happen until after I see them insist on improvements for their own.

Learning A Healthy Life
VA Dept of Education Nutrition Page
Governor's Scorecard for Nutrition and Physical Activity

Sex Offender Restrictions around Schools

A parent wrote to me this morning asking about restrictions on sex offenders in Virginia living near schools.

The Code of Virginia states:

§18.2-370.3. Sex offenses prohibiting residing in proximity to children; penalty.

Every adult who is convicted of an offense occurring on or after July 1, 2006, where the offender is more than three years older than the victim... shall be forever prohibited from residing within 500 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a child day center... or a primary, secondary, or high school. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony.

There are several wrinkles to this so I recommend you read the entire section and consult with the Commonwealth's Attorney's office and Sheriff's office if you have questions about it. They are charged with enforcement, although LCPS is obviously responsible for child safety on school grounds.

2009 VSBA Convention presentations

Many of the presentations that were available to school board members at last week's conference are available online now, and you can see them too.

2009 VSBA Presentations

Long-term solutions for DN High Schools: Do-over!

From two of today's commenters on the previous post regarding this subject:

I believe that this blog is supposed to be about "long-term solutions" We need to get back to that focus and come up with some suggestions so that Mr. Stevens has ideas to move forward with.

and

Can we PPPLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE get back to some sort of useful discussion. This is getting old.........

I join these readers in hoping for a more constructive discussion, so let me offer this new post for folks who do want to talk about the future and not the past. Before you comment though, please:

1. CLICK HERE AND VOTE

and

2. Read my post about Anonymous Comments

Thank you.

Feel free to continue rehashing old wounds in the comments on the previous post.

Anonymous Comments

Most of the folks who comment here don't put their name, or even an alias, to their comments. Most show up as simply "Anonymous." I'm okay with that as a matter of principal. People ought to be able to talk to and about their government anonymously.

That said, anonymous comments really degrade the quality of the discussion. I know some folks who won't get involved in the comments because they don't want to get dragged into the murky waters that anonymity sometimes creates. I think that's the wrong choice, I would prefer that they at least pick an alias. Case in point: the Lansdowne/Ashburn posts with their dozens of comments. When everyone is listed as "anonymous," it's impossible to know whether this is the conversation of a few dozen people or (more likely) 3-4 individuals commenting over and over again, going back and forth at each other.

The one thing I would change if I could is to require that commenters leave a name, any name, when they leave comments. Unfortunately it's either allow "anonymous" or restrict it to logged-in users, and I prefer to allow anonymous.

If you comment, please leave your name or at least a consistent alias. It's very helpful to those of us who are reading what you have to say.

Lansdowne options

In the comments on a previous post, Sonya said...

John, I am a lansdowne resident and I am not sure what my options are on Dec. 3rd. Can you tell me what to expect. Am I expected to speak to the two presented options or can I bring a 3rd option to the table?? Help.

Sonya, the best thing to do prior to the December 3rd Public Hearing is to work together with your neighbors to decide what the community wants to express, and then work with them on expressing it directly to your representatives on the School Board as well as at the public hearing. Lansdowne's represenatives are Bob Ohneiser and Tom Reed. It's pretty late in the process to propose a different solution, but if neither of the two options on the table currently pass then there will be an opportunity. This is very unlikely however.

There will also be opportunity for public comment on December 8th prior to the Board's vote.

2009 Convention Notes

I'm at the 2009 VSBA convention, getting ready for a day of seminars. I noted in a previous post which sessions I planned to attend, that's still the plan. I'll leave notes here throughout the day.

First session:
Central Office Staffing and Organizational Effectiveness Related to Student Achievement

Findings:

• There is a strong significantly significant negative correlation between COSR and AYP in largest quartile and in top half
• Average COSR goes down from 4th to 2nd quartile, but in quartile with largest populations, COSR is higher than in 2nd and 3rd.
• There are many other factors and cannot be distilled down to just these variables
• The results do not support creating central office staffing strategies or formulas that might be perceived as a factor in maximizing student achievement
• Alternatively, the lack of strong correlations between central office staffing and AYP attainment raises the issue of the value of higher concentrations of central office staff relative to site-based instructional positions (Nothing in the data points at creating more central office staff as a way to improve AYP)
• There is some evidence to suggest that the size of a school division has an impact on its organizational effectiveness relative to student achievement.
• Budget challenges should not only focus on the dollars saved but also the deployment locations of staff

A newly elected board member from another district said “lots of folks in my community think the central office has too many people making too much money.” Presenter’s response: “Is there a long line of people in the community applying for those plum jobs?”

Second Session:

Disproportionality of Minority Students in Special Education

Chesterfield County is a suburban district with almost exactly the number of students as Loudoun, with a somewhat higher proportion of minority students.

VDOE gives a disproportionality range, currently 5%. Chesterfields disproportionality in 2003-2004 was so bad that the state mandated action.

Child study process needed improvements with greater focus on pre-referral interventions

• Eligibility criteria for MR and ED eligibility needed improvement
• Over-reliance on individual member of eligibility team to know criteria
• Training in use of eligibility criteria had not kept pace with changes
• Regular ed teachers were only a part of the team if making a referral

Actions:

• created a uniform general education Child Study Team process that increased collaboration, was not part of SPED process.
• Encouraged pre-referral intervention, data-driven decision making.
• Six elementary school teams volunteered to pilot the program
• Developed a Parents Advocacy Handbook

CCPS has a five-year strategic plan with annual action plans and quarterly accountability reporting. LCPS needs this soooo badly.

Dr. Bullock: “Can’t just refer kids to special ed and give up on them”

Third session:

Sexting, Cyberbullying and Employees misusing Social Networking sites

Sexting

• 20% of teens admit have sent or posted
• 22% of teens admit to have received
• Most are exchanged in relationships
• Embarrassment, harassment
• Violation of criminal law but no knowledge of prosecutions in VA. Conviction would require registration as a sex offender

Role of School Boards

Prevention

• Policies won’t stop sexting
• Policies do set expectations

Education

• Commonwealth attorney
• Arlington offered workshops to students, parents & teachers
• Sexting curricula
• Educating everyone in the community is a key

Dealing with incidents appropriately

• Work with CA’s office to avoid prosecution of students
• Criminally prosecuting students does not make sense to most people
• Discuss before issues arise
• Explain school discipline/consequences to discourage prosecutions
• Lobby to decriminalize
• Nine states have considered or enacted legislation related to sexting

Problematic Student Speech Online

• Early cases were usually about student-to-student harassment
• Recent cases have been student-to-administrator
• First amendment rights apply unless speech is curriculum-related or disruptive.

Problematic Employee Speech Online

• Issue will increase with hiring of new young teachers
• Concerns: Students will view content, teachers will interact with students inappropriately, impairment of ability to teach, disruption in school, embarrassment to district
• Social engagement on social networking sites can be part of “grooming” for an inappropriate relationship

School Board Role

• Training for new teachers every year on the appropriate and inappropriate use of social networking
• Recommend no social networking with students at all
• District-sponsored, created and supported emails to students only
• Monitor employee sites

Fourth Session: School Law Update

Review of recent special education case law, including:

• Forest Grove SD v. T.A., School District must pay for private special education if it does not offer “Free and Appropriate Public Education” to students who should have special education services.
• J.P. et al v. Hanover County SB, School district did not provide effective autism services and has to pay for private placement tuition. Focus on mediation to resolve cases, legal fees are often greater than tuition.
• J.D. v. Kanawha County BoE, Do not reference mediation when making an offer previously made under mediation.
• Hogan v. Fairfax Co. SB, If the IEP process begins, the school district must ensure that the process is completed. School District should not let the parent stop or stall the process.
• M.S. v. Fairfax Co. SB, Denial or reduction of reimbursement for private school services may only be made for individually analyzed years. Offer an IEP annually to parents who remove children from the school district.
  In-service training for staff is a good use of money to prevent mistakes and lawsuits.

General education case law review:

• Commonwealth v. Doe, local school boards have final say on who is allowed on school property
• Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Reduction in Force policies

• The only way to make significant reductions in budget is to reduce personnel cost.Make sure that the salary schedule states that it is only for a single year.
• Good RIF policies will be reassuring to employees, improving instruction.
• Can have multiple RIF policies for different departments or groups of employeesRecommend only having a RIF policy for teachers, all classified employees have expiring contracts already.
• Danger of performance-based RIFs is in the subjectivity of the evaluator and the complexity and vagaries of the evaluation instrument.
• Ensure that each policy has a “School Board prerogative” exception to override everything else.

Low Hanging Fruit: Employee Pay for Performance Programs

Performance Bucks Program

• Incentive program
• Free “money” to pay for gifts and prizes
• Rewards safety, attendance and verifiable exceptional performance
• Accounting and balance tracking mimics passbooks savings account
• Encourages self policing
• Reductions in non-loss time accidents and loss time accidents
• Bus accidents have dropped significantly
• Workmans Compensation costs
  

Have exceptional gifts

• Shop on black Friday for camcorders, GPS
• Hold auctions
• Award bucks fairly, no nepotism, clear criteria
• Provide opportunities for employees to buy smaller items… Yard Sales
• Follow “Plan Do Check Act”
• $12,000 annual investment (vending machine proceeds) has returned over $200,00 savings over four years.
• Strictly for operations, not classroom performance
• Limiting factor is source of funds to purchase goods. PPS does not use taxpayer funds for the program

Long-term solutions for Dulles North High Schools

I'm trying a new online experiment today. There is a lot of back-and-forth in the blog comments about Tuesday's vote to move Lansdowne to Tuscarora High School as a temporary measure. That move is water under the bridge now and the arguments are stale, but the long-term solution is still unknown. Let's get your thoughts on the right long-term solutions now.

I'm going to try an experiment for this, using Google Moderator. Please click here to make and vote on suggestions for a long-term solution for Dulles North High School crowding. I have already submitted nine ideas for your consideration, including those most commonly discussed. If we get enough feedback with this method I might use it to solicit public input on other topics in the future.

Of course you're free to use the comments section as well.

The lights are on at night

Last night while leaving the LCPS admin building at 1AM following our marathon meeting, I looked up at the windows on the Greenway-facing side, and I saw the light. The light that people tell me about when they say "no wonder this school system costs so much, look at the lights they leave on at night!"

I always wondered what people were talking about. Usually at night I leave from the front of the building and that has made the difference. The lights in the building are wired so that when you turn off a bank of lights a single flourescent tube in a single fixture remains lit, probably a security feature. There's one in the school board office, and looking up at the building last night I'd guess there's one about every 20 feet. This is visible from the rear of the building (facing the greenway) but not the front just because of the interior design, in which private offices along the front side of the building are on the window side, blocking the view of the lights from the outside. Private offices on the back side are interior offices, leaving cubicle farms along the back walls.

Tonight at the School Board meeting

1. Color guard presentation by new NJROTC program at Loudoun County HS.
2. Resolution recognizing American Education Week.
3. Resolution honoring school psychologists.
4. At least 62 speakers by my count, all but four regarding boundaries. One of those four was Delegate-Elect Tag Greason pledging a good working relationship.
5. Report by Dr. Hatrick. County-wide attendance is back up to 96% after an H1N1 dip in October. Presentation of fiscal analysis of LCPS salaries and spending compared to other DC metro districts.
6. 90+ minute debate on sending Lansdowne students to Tuscarora HS, ending in a vote of 6-3 in favor. Ms. Bergel, Dr. Guzman & I were opposed.
7. Adoption of a policy regarding discipline on busses
8. Tabled an item to pass budget priorities for the Superintendent
9. Received the staff presentation of ES-20 (Dulles South) recommended boundary plan
10. Received the Superintendents' recommended Capital Improvement Program and Capital Needs Assessment. The gap between what the Superintendent says we need and what the Board of Supervisors says we can afford in the next six years: Four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, an advanced technology academy, five land parcels, two computer labs and one major renovation.
11. Received the Superintendent's recommended Capital Asset Preservation Program. Two previous years of dramatic underfunding are rolling into future years of dramatic underfunding.
12. We briefly discussed proposed minor policy changes, plus a change to our policy on student use of electronic devices that would allow High School students to use them during lunch time in lunch areas. A vote on that policy will come at our next meeting.
13. Meeting adjourned at 12:45 AM.

The Embarassing History of Virginia's Elected School Boards

I came across an editorial today from the Tidewater-area Daily Press, about Virginia's long history trying to suppress elected school boards. Virginia was the last of the 50 states to authorize elected school boards, and some Virginia school boards are still appointed.

The main argument in favor of elected school boards is the obvious one. While democracy can be messy, cantankerous and unpredictable, it is the foundational principle of our nation. The more democracy, the better. If we don't like the results of democracy in a particular place, then we should pay more attention to making it work, not abandon it.

I don't know what prompted this article. I'm not aware of an organized movement to revert to appointed school boards in Virginia, though I'm sure that many Boards of Supervisors in Virginia would be happy to be rid of theirs. There was a bill in last year's legislature that would have enabled Supervisors to disband their local school boards at will, but it didn't get very far.

While the editorial doesn't elaborate on its opening statement, it does elaborate that for much of the last century the objective of banning elected school boards was to thwart civil rights. The author quotes from Virginia's 1901 ironically titled "constitutional convention":

Another convention delegate, J.B.T. Thornton of Prince William County, captured the consensus view on elected school boards. In rejecting a proposal to mandate elected school trustees, the equivalent of today's school boards, Thornton said, "… if this report is adopted, as presented here, there are a number of counties in the State in which we will have [N]egro trustees. That is a condition of affairs that is abhorrent…"

I can only be glad that I live in a very different Virginia, one that now has quite a number of African American school board members (both appointed and elected) from across the state.

Our elected school boards about democracy, history

Board meeting, November 10th

There are a number of very interesting items on the Board's agenda for tomorrow night. You can see them all online, below are a select few.

The Board will...

1. ...adopt its Legislative Program, the set of positions it takes on proposed changes to state law.
2. ...vote on whether to start the process to determine High School boundaries for Stone Bridge and Tuscarora high schools. The current proposal is to start the process now and finish it in three weeks, opening only Lansdowne students to a potential move. The Board has the option to delay the process, or to open the potential for adjustments to additional schools and neighborhoods.
3. ...consider whether to set budget priorities prior to the Superintendent's budget proposal.
   
4. ...receive a recommendation from staff about boundaries for a new elementary school in Dulles South.
5. ...receive the Superintendent's recommended Capital Improvement Program. Given the recent signals from the Board of Supervisors, expect to see very little in the way of new schools to relieve crowding in the next few years.
6. ...receive the Superintendent's recommended Capital Asset Preservation Program, for major maintenance items at schools and other facilities. The Supervisors had already cut this budget dramatically a couple of years ago, postponing major maintenance to future years. Those future years are now here, expect to see that maintenance put off yet again.

We anticipate starting the evening with many speakers on the boundary questions, and a late night.

Video of the Day: AOS Director George Wolfe

I found a website online called Mindbites which appears to sell individual video lessons online, and one of the instructors is Loudoun County Academy of Science Director George Wolfe. I don't get to see Mr. Wolfe very often, but he is one of the coolest people I have ever met. He has an enthusiasm for knowledge that is truly infectious.



Here's a link to another Mindbites featuring George Wolfe.

Somebody splain this to me

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Montgomery County, MD didn't spend enough money on its school system last year because it was so strapped for cash in the bad economy. So now Montgomery County Schools may have to pay up to $64 Million in fines to the state, leaving less money for educating its children. Do I have that right?

The opinion is the latest development in a debate over the funding of schools that has raged since March, at times pitting county governments against school boards

School funding debates between county governments and school boards? Oh, do tell.

The central issue has been the ability of local governments to comply with Maryland's "maintenance of effort" which sets minimum spending on education.

Virginia has a similar law, called the "Standards of Quality." Every single school system in Virginia exceeds the spending required by the Standards of Quality, so it's not an especially high hurdle to clear. And still, the financial situation in Virginia is dire enough that the legislature is considering reducing the standards of quality because they're not sure all districts can afford to keep them up. Apparently we're not alone in that:

During the economic recession, Montgomery and Prince George's have had trouble meeting the spending requirement.

So what's a county government with financial troubles and a big expensive school system to do? Hmmmm (scratching my chin):

Montgomery and Prince George's county councils ordered their school systems to reimburse them for debt service on public school construction, an expense usually covered by the counties.

Yeah, I probably should have seen that one coming. So to recap... the county council (equivalent to Virginia's Boards of Supervisors) ordered the school system to surrender millions of dollars. I'm with you so far. But that's not a problem because it's all the same taxpayer money, right?

The attorney general described that move as an "artificial" way of meeting the minimum requirement for education spending while actually decreasing the amount spent on education.

Uh oh. I guess they're going to come down hard on those county councils then.

The 21-page opinion issued by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler could leaveMontgomery County liable for $16 million to $64 million in penalties, county officials said. The state Board Of Education will decide whether to penalize the school systems.

Wait. The county councils raid the school budgets to balance their own, and as a result the school systems may have to pay millions of dollars in fines to the state? Okay, now you've lost me.

I'm sure glad nothing like that could happen here in Loudoun.

Montgomery school budget solution could cost millions in fines

Video of the Day: Eagle Ridge Back to 2009 School Video

Lansdowne to Tuscarora HS?

As my colleague Tom Reed pointed out on his blog earlier this week, the School board will set in motion a new process to determine boundary assignments for the Lansdowne neighborhood at its meeting next Tuesday. This comes in the wake of a process in the spring that failed to create attendance zones for the new High School, which is under construction north of Leesburg.

One part of this is unclear to me, and that is exactly where the recommendations come from. Some Board members have told me just what you read on Tom's post:

staff is preparing a new recommendation regarding attendance zones... he Staff's recommendation will propose to move the Lansdowne community's students to Tuscarora High School (THS)

This gives the impression that this was a staff-initiated action. What I'm hearing from staff is different: that this is a Board-member directive. I don't understand why it matters whose idea this was, which makes it all the more curious to me why nobody wants credit for it.

The action item itself raises an interesting point, that "the School Board established an Ad-Hoc Committee to examine the current attendance boundary policy." That committee's work isn't complete yet, but the recommendation carries the fingerprints of some of its members.

The staff's memo (link) provides two options:

• Option 1 follows current School Board Policy and practice by assigning rising ninth and tenth grade students to Tuscarora High School, effective Fall 2010. Rising juniors and seniors will be surveyed under current policy to determine their interest in proceeding to Tuscarora High School beginning Fall 2010.
• Option 2 is a four-year phased approach in which only rising night graders will be impacted by the proposed attendance area change in Fall 2010. Each subsequent year, the incoming grade nine students will attend Tuscarora High School until all Lansdowne high school students attend Tuscarora High School. The attendance boundary will be fully implemented by the 2013-14 school year.
  

Note the following:

1. Option 2 follows a practice that has not yet been adopted by the Board but is advocated by a few members of the Board.
2. No options are presented that would leave Lansdowne students at Stone Bridge.
3. Under option 2 there will be two sets of High School buses running through Lansdowne... one going to Stone Bridge, the other to Tuscarora.
   

The recommended Board action is to make the information available to the public, schedule a public hearing on December 3rd, and make a decision on December 8th.

It important to note that these proposals balance enrollment so that there is less available capacity at Tuscarora and less crowding at Stone Bridge. Nonetheless I remain concerned that about the time the Lansdowne students are all at Tuscarora, Tuscarora's enrollment will grow beyond capacity from kids in Leesburg and points North. There isn't any plan for what to do when this happens, there is no school in northern Ashburn or the Lansdowne area, no land dedicated for a school, no funds to build a school. This will all come to a head during the next Board's term, though. A problem to be solved another day, and possibly by different people.

Stone Bridge High School Attendance Memo (with Map)

Could Charter Schools help with enrollment growth?

I started reading a story in this morning's Washington Post about the growth of charter schools in DC with the usual thoughts: while charter schools aren't a panacea to problems, it is important to have a diversity of educational options open to everyone. This is definitely a value held within LCPS as there are a striking number of paths available to high school students in particular, and quite a number of options for adults as well. That support for educational diversity doesn't generally extend to elementary school, the concept of home schooling (LCPS philosophy: you're either in public school or you're not) and especially not to charter schools (which use public funds).

It is a long-held dogma of my fellow Democrats that the use of public education funds for schools that aren't run by the public school system simply drains resources desperately needed by the public school system. That dogma is falling away, as President Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan both advocate a role for charter schools in our educational infrastructure.

There are two reasons that charter schools could work very well here in Loudoun, and even to the benefit of the public school system. The first is that Loudoun's combination of wealth and education demands the best options for its children and I am confident we would attract exceptionally innovative programs and educational talent. The second reason is that we have simply run out of space for our kids. Any charter school that could build its own facilities, or convert existing non-school facilities into school use, would be doing all of us an enormous favor.

Loudoun's enrollment growth over the last decade has outpaced the willingness of the Board of Supervisors to fund new schools, and objections to specific school sites will impact the availability of new schools for years into the future. Charter schools could quickly bring online more desperately needed seats, relieving crowding in key areas of the county and putting Loudoun where it belongs... on the leading edge of educational innovation that best prepares our kids for the next phase of their lives.

Md., Va. dip toes in charter school waters

Video of the Day: LVHS Spirit Wear Video

National Math Scores

Last month, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of nationally standardized math tests for 4th & 8th graders. I received an analysis from the National School Boards Association, which said something very interesting:

Overall, there was little or no change from the 2007 scores, although the results were somewhat positive at the 8th grade. However, achievement at both levels has consistently been on the rise since 1990 so much so that 4th and 8th graders today are 2 to 3 years ahead in math than their counterparts two decades ago.

I'm not so surprised once I think about it a bit, about the difference between my education and that my kids are getting. It struck me when I read it though.

Video of the Day: LVHS Winter Guard 2009

A Lone Vote on New High School Land

Last week the School Board voted to purchase about 100 acres of land for about $10 million (Loudoun Independent) on which to build a High School and, someday, an elementary school. It was an 8-1 vote, and I was the "1." Why?

I don't have any objection to the site itself. Throughout the acquisition process I had two serious concerns that I expressed in closed meetings, so my objection was no surprise to my colleagues and senior staff.

The first objection was with the role of the Board of Supervisors. In the 2.5 years I have been on the Board, I have witnessed the waste of millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours evaluating sites that were ultimately rejected by the Board of Supervisors. The last two rejected sites (Lenah & Wheatland) were put under contract with a process that purported to get BoS buy-in before spending all that time and money, and yet turned out to be wasted when BoS changed their minds. I have maintained ever since that this BoS needs to acquire land for schools from now on just to prevent the repeated waste of LCPS time and money. You can lay the blame where ever you want as to why those acquisitions failed... lay it at the feet of either Board or staff. It doesn't matter. It's still wasted money and I can't continue to support it.

Next, this deal was negotiated with an unprecedented number of parcels and landowners for a school site purchase. Six landowners with eleven parcels were involved. Each was negotiated independently. Now that the contracts are complete, it looks fine but this is a bad precedent and I felt strongly that LCPS should have required the owners to negotiate as a single entity for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that any one landowner could be a holdout that screws up the whole deal late in the process. More practically and immediately, a different $50K deposit was required for each plot of land, instead of for the whole contracts as is generally done. We now have $550 in deposits committed to these contracts, instead of the $50-$100K normally required.

In the future it will be difficult to find single parcels of land, and this kind of multi-party deal will become common. It is important to create a new negotiating format to suit it.

So those were my objections. Let me know your thoughts.

Video of the Day: LCHS Marching Band Christmas 2007

Loudoun County High School Marching Band in Leesburg Christmas Parade 2007

Video of the Day: School Reserves Fill Budget Shortfall

Loudoun County Uses School Reserves to Fill Budget Shortfall




See my previous post on this subject.