Illinois ASBO UPDATE Spring 2013

LEGISLATIVE ISSUE / SPRING 2013

INDISPENSABLE TOOL for SCHOOL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

How a bill REALLY becomes a law

pg. 20

NAVIGATING THE SYSTEM

www.iasbo.org

| 1

Facing the challenges of Senate Bill 7 | 24

INOIS ILL

A

IATION OC of SS

S OFFICIA ES L N

S

HOOL BUS I SC

REACH

HIGHER GROUND in

Your Leadership

The ILLINOIS ASBO LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE is a journey that puts established and aspiring leaders on the road to better practices within their district.

“

The Institute provides the tools and structure, and most importantly, a consciousness, that enables real improvement and better leadership practices.

-Tony Inglese Leadership Institute Graduate

2 |

”

Apply Now for the 2013 Cohort at:

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

PROVEN TOOLS

The 360-degree feedback instruments used within the Institute are time-tested and have proven effective for many leaders who now better understand their strengths and weaknesses.

REAL IMPROVEMENT

Participants have seen visible improvement in the way they are able to lead others in within their organization.

iasbo.org/leadership

INSIDE

Illinois Association of School Business Officials Update Magazine / Spring 2013 / v.20 / i.03

LEGISLATIVE ISSUE

NAVIGATING SENATE BILL 7

24 24

Face the Challenges Ahead as You Prepare to Fully Implement the Law Gain insight into the issues that will likely be the most difficult to navigate as you prepare to implement all sections of this new law.

Cover Story by Richard Voltz, PhD.

THE NEXT ISSUE: LEADERSH IP AND WELLNE SS Reach your potential and help others do the same.

How a Bill REALLY Becomes a Law An insider look at how the legislative system in Springfield operates from start to finish‌ and all the shenanigans that can happen along the way.

By Ben Schwarm

20 www.iasbo.org

| 3

PERSPECTIVE

ARTICLES

FROM-THE-PODIUM The Impact of Government: Changing the way we design, deliver and assess educational programs.

07

FROM-THE-OFFICE Taking Back the Vision for Public Education: A new policy priority in Illinois. 09

FROM-THE-FIELD Take Advantage of Education Reform Resources: The Association makes it easy to keep in touch. 11

CASE STUDY Beyond the Drill: Lessons learned in a real crisis situation. 14

FROM-THE-DISTRICT Some dos and don’ts as you prepare to engage with your legislators. 18

SCHOOL BUSINESS 101 Issues keeping members up at night: Pensions, GSA formula, healthcare reform and more. 19

Unfunded Mandates:

How Current Illinois Laws Fit into the Bigger Picture The laws passed in recent years to limit unfunded mandates may provide temporary relief, but they do not address the bigger problem of implementing mandates already in place.

By Scott F. Uhler and Allen Wall

30

More Than A Funding Model

The Education Funding Advisory Board views the Evidence Based Adequacy Model for school funding as a potential call for change in Illinois policy.

By Gregg Murphy

34

Healthcare Reform Update:

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 2013 & BEYOND

Districts need to plan now for upcoming costs, ongoing responsibilities and eligibility concerns.

By Lisa Collins Carlson, J.D.

38

4 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

RESOURCES

ON MY LIST

Overcoming Political Gridlock Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will require cooperation and compromise across party lines.

By Susan Hilton

40

What made the difference: Learn from leaders who achieved amazing results despite chaos and uncertainty.

43

THE FINAL WORD Great Ideas from Great Illinois ASBO Members Dr. Jay Curtis Morrow Superintendent United Twp. HSD 30 Jay has been involved in school legislation in a variety of ways at the federal, state and local levels. He believes that it is crucial to make positive contact with legislators. That way, the relationship will be in place when a truly significant issue needs to be addressed.

A deeper look at the issues: The lawmaking process, education funding, healthcare reform and more.

44

46 www.iasbo.org

| 5

Did you know...

Illinois ASBO is represented on many committees, boards or work groups that address education related issues in Illinois‌

Advanced P.E. Task Force Commission for High School Graduation Achievement and Success Education Caucus IASA Board of Directors (Consultant) ISBE Education Stakeholders Illinois Education Roundtable (ILERT) Illinois Energy Consortium Illinois School District Liquid Assett Fund Plus Management Alliance Executive Directors P-20 Council School Report Card Task Force State Charter School Commission Superintendent Advisory Committee

...Keeping the voice of our members at the legislative table.

Illinois Association 6 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

Find out more at: iasbo.org

PERSPECTIVE / Board President

FROM–THE–PODIUM 2013 marks the sesquicentennial of Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address. His brief but powerful speech was delivered at a point in time when the country was overburdened with debt and deeply divided about the fundamental purpose, role and authority of government. I find it interesting that 150 years later, while in a clearly different context, it appears we are still struggling to address these same fundamental issues.

The impact that government has on public education, from actions at both the federal and state levels and by each respective branch, seems to be more intense now than ever before. The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), along with other broad-sweeping laws at the federal level, has caused many schools to change the way they design, deliver and assess their educational programs. Illinois’ Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) is just one of many recent mandates from the State having significant impact to school administration.

Accordingly, local school boards, the layer of government closest to the students, have seen the persistent erosion of their authority and their ability to influence the educational services actually delivered in their communities.

Mark E. Staehlin DISTRICT CONTROLLER COMM. HIGH SCH. DIST. 99

SIMPLY SAYING

The impact that government has on public education, from actions at both the federal and state levels... seems to be more intense now than ever before.

Often it is you, the chief school business official, who is left to sift through the legal quagmire and to evaluate and direct the appropriate responses to changes in laws that affect the school’s operations. This edition of UPDATE covers a range of legislative items with the hope that you will be better informed and, accordingly, better prepared to address some of the new legal challenges facing your district.

Often the scope and complexity of new legislation calls for us to use separate legal counsel to obtain verbal or written legal opinions. Clearly that is the best course of action when unique circumstances exist and non-compliance penalties are significant. Other times, I believe our members find that UPDATE articles and using the “Illinois ASBO network”

are generally the two best ways to get up to speed quickly regarding routine compliance matters that we all face when new legislation comes our way.

Finally, if “Honest Abe” was a school business manager today, responsible for compliance with all the state and federal rules we face, his famous quote might be altered as follows: You can follow some of the laws all of the time and all of the laws some of the time, but you can never follow all of the laws – all of the time.

I hope you enjoy this great edition of UPDATE.

www.iasbo.org

| 7

THE

UPCOMING SPRING

SEMINARS

Check out www.iasbo.org/events or the latest Calendar of Events included in the UPDATE mailing for full seminar listings including location and PDC sponsorship and register for professional development today.

MAGA ZINE Illinois Association of School Business Officials Northern Illinois University, IA-103 108 Carroll Avenue DeKalb, IL 60115-2829 P: 815.753.1276 / F: 815.516.0184 / www.iasbo.org

Update Editorial Advisory Board PDC COORDINATOR MEMBERS Richard A. Lesniak, Ancillary Services Kristopher P. Monn, Educational Enterprise Grant L. Sabo, Facility Management

March 2013

S 24 3 10 17 24 31

M 25 4 11 18 25 1

T 26 5 12 19 26 2

W 27 6 13 20 27 3

Date 3/12/13

T F S 28 1 2 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 23 28 29 30 4 5 6

April 2013

May 2013

S M T W T F S 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

S 28 5 12 19 26 2

Time 8:00 AM

M 29 6 13 20 27 3

Cathy L. Johnson, Financial Resource Management

June 2013

T W T F S 30 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 1 4 5 6 7 8

Session

S 26 2 9 16 23 30

M 27 3 10 17 24 1

T 28 4 11 18 25 2

W 29 5 12 19 26 3

T 30 6 13 20 27 4

F S 31 1 7 8 14 15 21 22 28 29 5 6

Location

Best Practices in Purchasing - AAC #1443

Arlington Heights

ISDLAF+ User Group Seminar - Collective Bargaining Symposium

Naperville East Peoria O'Fallon

Ann C. Williams, Human Resource Management Robert J. Ciserella, Information Management Paul A. O'Malley, Sustainability

BOARD & EXTERNAL RELATIONS MEMBERS Mark E. Staehlin, President Aimee L. Briles, SAAC Chair

AT-LARGE MEMBERS Sandra Kwasa, Illinois Association of School Boards Phyllis A. Hanna, Glen Ellyn SD 41 John A. Gibson, Homewood SD 153

3/12/13 3/13/13 3/14/13

8:30 AM

3/15/13

7:30 AM

15th Annual Risk Management Seminar - AAC #1283

3/18/13

8:00 AM

The Value of Lasting Leadership - AAC #806

3/19/13

8:00 AM

Communicating and Lobbying with Legislators - How to Make Your Views Known and Affect Change - AAC #781

3/20/13

8:30 AM

Leadership Series: Situational Leadership

Downers Grove

3/27/13

8:30 AM

Legal Standards for the Management of School Personnel - AAC #820

Downers Grove

4/1/13

8:00 AM

The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader - AAC #1135

Dixon

4/4/13

8:00 AM

What You Should Know About Your 403(b) and 457(b) Plans

Downers Grove

Nelson W. Gray, Treasurer

4/8/13

8:00 AM

The Value of Lasting Leadership - AAC #806

Peoria

2010–13 Board of Directors

8:00 AM

Building Systems: HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing and Technology

Downers Grove

4/11/13

8:30 AM

The County School Facilities Sales Tax: Everything You Should Know

Naperville

4/12/13

8:00 AM

Bookkeepers' Conference

4/15/13

8:00 AM

The Value of Lasting Leadership - AAC #806

4/22/13

8:00 AM

Leadership Requirements for Moving from Good to Great - AAC # 481

4/25/13

1:00 PM

Annual Conference 2013: What Every Service Associate Needs to Know

Schaumburg

5/6/13

8:00 AM

Leadership Requirements for Moving from Good to Great - AAC #481

Carbondale

5/13/13

8:00 AM

The 360 Degree Leader: Creating a Positive Leadership Culture - AAC #1164

Collinsville

5/14/13

8:00 AM

Learning to Lead by Applying the Five Levels of Leadership - AAC #1360

Schaumburg

5/14/13

8:00 AM

The Administrator's Role in Collective Bargaining AAC #809

Schaumburg

8:00 AM

p-Card Users Group

Schaumburg

8:00 AM

2013 Legacy Project at Clearbrook

4/9/13

5/14/13 8 |

5/14/13

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

Downers Grove Bloomington Springfield

STAFF MEMBERS Michael Jacoby, Executive Director

815.753.9366, mjacoby@iasbo.org Susan P. Bertrand, Assistant Executive Director

815.753.9368, sbertrand@iasbo.org Angela D. Lehman, Communications Coordinator 815.753.9371, alehman@iasbo.org Rebekah L. Weidner, Staff Writer/Editor 815.753.9270, rweidner@iasbo.org Brett M. Olson, Designer 815.753.7654, bolson@iasbo.org Tammy A. Curry, Designer 815.753.9393, tcurry@iasbo.org

Illinois ASBO Board of Directors Mark E. Staehlin, President Hillarie J. Siena, President-Elect Richard A. Lesniak, Immediate Past President

Susan L. Harkin, Beth L. Millard, Curtis J. Saindon 2011–14 Board of Directors

David Bein, Jennifer J. Hermes, Glayn C. Worrell 2012–15 Board of Directors

Downers Grove Bourbonnais Downers Grove

David H. Hill, Luann T. Mathis, Ann C. Williams

Illinois ASBO Board Liaisons Aimee L. Briles, Service Associate

Advisory Committee Chair Kurt Hintz, Service Associate Advisory Committee Vice Chair Terrie S. Simmons, ASBO International Liaison Gil Morrison, Regional Office of Education Liaison Debby I. Vespa, ISBE Board Liaison Laurel DiPrima, IASB Board Liaison

Privacy Policy

Arlington Heights

All materials contained within this publication are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, displayed or published without the prior written permission of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials.

You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

References, authorship or information provided by parties other than that which is owned by the Illinois Association of School Business Officials are offered as a service to readers. The editorial staff of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials was not involved in their production and is not responsible for their content.

PERSPECTIVE / Executive Director

FROM–THE–OFFICE “Taking Back” the Vision for Public Education in Illinois – A New Policy Priority Many voices attempt to tell us how schools should be run. Business leaders, legislators, reform groups, tax watch groups and concerned citizens all have much to say about how to frame the educational experience, how to measure it and who is responsible for failure. Not much attention is paid to the successes that happen every day in just about every classroom in Illinois. Out of all of this comes reform. But reform is no longer something that we do, but rather a moving target that educators are trying to hit. Each year brings new emphasis and new acronyms: SB 7, PEAC, NCLB, RTT, LDS and RTI just to name a few.

Michael A. Jacoby EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ILLINOIS ASBO

SIMPLY SAYING

Illinois ASBO along with the Illinois Statewide School Management Alliance are committed to reshaping the current dialogue...

Add to this reform smorgasbord – extreme funding pressure caused by prorated general state aid and transportation grants, a six month lag in categorical funding, a flat if not decreasing local tax base and a constant threat of pension reform that could mean additional costs to local districts.

Sometimes it seems impossible to imagine any way to make it all work.

One of the tragedies in all of this is that the voice of education leaders and teachers is too often not heard and even when it is, it is not always valued. It is not that we are not speaking. Our legislative team is at every table and in every discussion in Springfield and honestly, we speak quite loud at times. But we do struggle with mustering political clout in these discussions. By political clout I mean getting legislators to listen to us as opposed to those who bring money or power to the table.

We also play much more defense than offense. Responding to non-educator proposals and trying to mitigate disasters means that we are often negotiating positions within onerous policy discussions that we do not think should be on the table in the first place. Most of those, in the end, are not good for children, teachers or families (e.g. high stakes testing).

That said, Illinois ASBO along with the Illinois Statewide School Management Alliance (IASB, IASA, Illinois ASBO and IPA) are committed to reshaping the current dialogue.

Look for us to call out the fallacies in reform proposals, stand firm for funding reform, present real data on the impact of reforms and lead the discussions on what really will work in schools and how to prepare students for the future.

From another angle, this spring Illinois ASBO will take targeted action to communicate as widely as possible the value of the profession of school business management.

Too many times we hear that districts cannot afford to hire a trained school business administrator. We want to show them that in these troubling times, they cannot afford NOT to.

YOUR VOIC E I S N E E DE D I N S PRI NG FI E LD – READ TI PS ON HOW TO BE ST E NGAG E WITH YOUR LE G I S LATOR S ON PG. 18. www.iasbo.org

| 9

SERVICE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION REWARDS REWARDS PROGRAM PROGRAM SERVICE

GET INVOLVED. GET REWARDED. The more you participate in Illinois ASBO, the more you gain from the relationships you shape with school business officials and fellow vendors.

Your involvement is also earning you GAINS points – redeemable for valuable rewards at the Annual Conference in 2014.

10 |

SEE WHERE YOU STAND AND ALL YOU HAVE TO GAIN: www.iasbo.org/gains Update Magazine / Fall Spring 2012 2013

PERSPECTIVE / SAAC Chair

FROM–THE–FIELD Take Advantage of Education Reform Resources The last several years have brought major reform in many areas that touch Illinois school districts, including financial reform, healthcare reform and pension reform. When it comes to the legislative issues and changes that influence the services I provide to Illinois school districts, I am well versed. However, as Service Associate members of Illinois ASBO, it is imperative that we recognize and understand all the state and federal legislative issues that are affecting Illinois school districts. Fortunately, the Association makes that undertaking easy by providing many resources that assist in my ability to be familiar with and appreciate the issues that school business officials are facing on a daily basis.

Aimee L. Briles VICE PRESIDENT WINTRUST GOVERNMENT FUNDS

SIMPLY SAYING

It is imperative that we recognize and understand all the state and federal legislative issues that are affecting Illinois school districts.

When the General Assembly is in session, all Illinois ASBO members receive the Alliance Legislative Report, a weekly e-mail that summarizes the government activities that concern Illinois school districts. These updates are a quick way to stay on top of legislative developments that could shape the future of school business. Every January all members receive a complete listing of all new and amended laws for the current calendar year that affect Illinois public school districts. July delivers a summary of bills that passed during the spring legislative session that have been advanced for the Governor’s signature or veto. The July publication provides an opportunity for you to help shape the future of Illinois schools by contacting the Governor’s office to voice support or dissent on any pending legislation.

I would recommend that all Service Associate members visit the Delegate Advisory Assembly (DAA) section under “Legislative Resources” on the Illinois ASBO website. There you will find a wealth of information detailing the issues being discussed and the potential affects on Illinois schools.

The DAA meets three times a year to review and then make recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding legislation or policy concerning education and the field of school business management in Illinois.

Finally, be sure to review the Illinois ASBO quarterly calendar of events, as there are many seminar offerings throughout the year that provide information to Service Associates on legislative issues being faced by Illinois school districts.

Twice a year, the SAAC hosts seminars specifically for Service Associate members at which Dr. Jacoby routinely provides an update on the “State of the State” and activities in Springfield. The next seminar is April 25, 2013; I would encourage all Service Associates to attend and strengthen your understanding of the issues in preparation for the Annual Conference in May.

www.iasbo.org

| 11

CONTRIBUTORS

Erik W. Bush

Lisa L. Carlson, J.D.

Susan Hilton

Business Manager/Board Treasurer McLean CUSD 5

Area Vice President/Compliance Consulting Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc

Director/Governmental Relations IL Association of School Boards (IASB)

A former city administrator and municipal CFO, Erik is a navy veteran and has been in the public sector for 20 years. In the private sector, he worked as an acquisitions and operations analyst including designing quality work systems. bushe@unit5.org

With more than 20 years in insurance and benefits law, Lisa assists employers and public entities in health and welfare benefit plan compliance and laws and regulations including ERISA, HIPAA, COBRA, FMLA and healthcare reform. lisa_carlson@ajg.com

Has been with the Illinois Association of School Boards for six years and now serves as the Director of Governmental Relations. Prior to that, Susan was a municipal lobbyist for five years.

shilton@iasb.com

Gregg Murphy

Ben Schwarm

Scott F. Uhler

Regional Superintendent I-KAN Regional Office of Education

Deputy Executive Director IL Association of School Boards (IASB)

Partner Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd.

Completed his doctoral work at Illinois State University with a dissertation evaluating the Evidence Based Adequacy model of school funding.

Gregg currently serves as Regional Superintendent for Iroquois and Kankakee counties. gmurphy@i-kan.org

Has been working in and around the Capitol for the past 27 years, 22 of those handling legislation for IASB. Ben heads the IASB Governmental Relations Department as chief lobbyist and leader of the legislative team. bschwarm@iasb.com

As a partner, Scott practices in the fields of school, municipal, election and library law. Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd concentrates in providing legal services to Illinois local governments, with offices in Chicago and Orland Park, Illinois. sfuhler@ktjlaw.com

12 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013 2013

Richard Voltz, PhD.

Allen Wall

Assoc. Dir. /Professional Development IL Association of School Administrators (IASA)

Partner Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd.

Has presented hundreds of workshops and academies on the topics of teacher evaluation, using technology in education and other school administration topics. rvoltz@iasaedu.org

Concentrates his practice in the fields of general litigation in both federal and states courts, municipal, school, library and family law.

Illinois ASBO would like to thank all current and past UPDATE contributors for their time and dedication.

Thank You !

jawall@ktjlaw.com

Would you like to be an UPDATE Contributor?

Contributions to the UPDATE Magazine are solicited periodically to enhance the content of the Magazine. If you have an issue that you feel needs to be brought to the forefront, present your article ideas to Angie Lehman at alehman@iasbo.org.

Keep in mind that issues are themed so your contribution may not appear for some time, or we may choose to distribute it in some other format. The issue themes that we will be soliciting articles for next year include: • Accounting • Purchasing and Human Resources • Facilities and Sustainability • School District Operations We look forward to seeing new faces on this page as we continue to make the UPDATE an indispensable resource for school business management.

www.iasbo.org

| 13

Matt Chapman, a teacher at Normal Community High School, evacuates students to Eastview Christian Church after gunfire at the high school, Friday, Sept. 7, 2012. Shots rang out in a classroom after a single student shot into a ceiling. No one was injured. (The Pantagraph, David Proeber)

Beyond the Drill: Lessons Learned in Crisis V

ery few of us wake in the morning believing today will be the day for an emergency. Very few of us find ourselves in the first stunned moments of an emergency and think, “Hey, this is an emergency,” thus prompting many varied and systematic responses to the event at hand.

Indeed, what often happens is we’re faced with an event so out of the ordinary that our central nervous system reacts and flight or fight unconsciously kicks into high gear. Experience reveals that what happens in the “fight” response must be prescriptive. Whether it’s addressing a fire alarm or shooter on campus, the best responses to crises and emergencies should require very little thought and very much programmed response derived from practice.

The employees and community of Unit School District No. 5 (McLean and Woodford Counties) recently found out a little preparation can go a long way in responding to an emergency.

14 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

CASE STUDY

By Erik W. Bush BUSINESS MANAGER MCLEAN CUSD 5

a ship. Understanding what threats may be present and then practicing a response to those threats can save lives.

Unit 5’s experience was no different, initially. At the onset of the shooting a group of administrators were dispatched to the evacuation site and another group established a communications post at the Unit office. These logistical steps were fairly easy compared to what came next…

Dealing With Unexpected Challenges

Laura Lawson hugged her son, Colegraham, 17, a senior at Normal Community High School, after they were reunited at Eastview Christian Church after a shooting at the high school, Friday, Sept. 7, 2012. (The Pantagraph, David Proeber)

First Response: Following the Drill On the rainy morning of Friday, September 7, 2012 a 14 year-old allegedly brought a number of weapons into Normal Community High School (NCHS), one of two high schools with an enrollment of more than 1,800 children in Unit 5. During the course of an early morning class, the 14 year-old allegedly removed a handgun from a backpack and over the next few moments fired multiple shots. Word made it to the school’s administrative office and the building was placed on hard lockdown.

First reports quickly started making their way through many formal and informal channels; the district’s administrative team implemented its crises response plan practiced on two occasions during the previous school year at NCHS. First responders from local, regional and state law enforcement areas began to flood the site of the school and an evacuation protocol was implemented under the direction of law enforcement’s Unified Command.

The military is famous for its commitment to drill and practice of every conceivable threat scenario on the battlefield, as well as in the barracks, on a plane or on

As students started arriving at the evacuation site, reunification with their parents became the driving mission.

Unlike at the end of a drill, when students are simply sent back to class, reuniting children with parents wasn’t part of previous exercises. It soon became evident the site itself made reunification slightly more difficult because of limited access. In this particular instance, the site was located in a large church – sizable enough to hold the more than 2,000 students, faculty and staff – but vehicle access to the church was limited to two, two-lane country roads.

Further compounding the logistical bottleneck was law enforcement’s decision not to allow Unit 5’s buses at the evacuation site. This decision meant that each and every student’s parent or legal guardian now had to navigate through limited thoroughfare access to a controlled release of their loved ones.

At the same time, law enforcement officers were making their way from classroom to classroom inside NCHS. Reports that the shooter had been taken into custody, without any injury, certainly brought some relief, but other aspects of the crisis added to the vexing predicament.

The alleged shooting occurred relatively early in the school day but as the morning progressed to mid-day, the question of how to feed (what was now) close to 2,200 people became pressing as well. Adding to this were reports coming from the school of confusion as law enforcement swept through the building. Very few students and employees had school specific identification visible on their person and as officers secured classrooms the sight of fully loaded semi-automatic weapons further distressed an already stressed student body.

www.iasbo.org

| 15

Overarching all these micro-events was the district’s lack of standard communications equipment. Administrators all had district-issued cell phones and the school had a few two-way radios, but a standard, interoperable system (one that would interface with law enforcement) was not in place.

Communication was difficult with the need for more twoway radios and a central repeater. Unit 5 had issues with the cell phones as well. Two-way communication becomes vital in the lock down and evacuation. Conversations between Normal Community High School, law enforcement, the church and Unit 5 were limited at times with dropped calls, busy signals and a need to communicate directions.

In previous drills, Unit 5 planned for faculty members to be able to take crisis folders to an evacuation site to account for their students. However, as law enforcement cleared rooms, police officers told teachers that they could take nothing with them. Opportunistically, administrators had brought master lists with them to the church.

As the day unfolded, these many issues were managed in a variety of ways. The business community stepped up in a big way and food from many local restaurants flooded the church. While it took many hours, parents and guardians generally were able to remain patient and reunite with their

16 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

children. A joint press conference of the Superintendent and Police Chief was held mid-day to apprise the community of goings on. The school was returned to Unit 5 by law enforcement roughly nine hours after the incident began.

The Superintendent and administrative team met with the school faculty shortly after the building was returned to Unit 5 control. Counselors were arranged over the weekend to be available first thing Monday morning.

Coming to a Better Understanding The incident demonstrated the need to be prepared.

Historically, there had been some resistance to multiple evacuation drills throughout a school year. Building administrators, weary of demands away from instructional time, now clearly see the need for practice. Bringing together multiple agencies in staged simulations allows for a deeper understanding of roles, contingencies and responses to situational elements that may develop.

Likewise, administrators and teachers need to be prepared for law enforcement’s response should a lockdown occur.

Reactions to riot gear-clad law enforcement officers carrying semi-automatic weapons are going to be different at a high school level than they are at an elementary school.

Adults need to be emotionally prepared for this.

CASE STUDY / Beyond The Drill

More smaller issues developed post event. A call for metal detectors, questions about what to do about backpacks, reflection on cell phone best practices and the role of social media all required time and thoughtful consideration and response.

The larger issues of practice and communication can likely be modeled after those who have gone before us.

In responding to crises and emergencies, there are fairly good sources of best practices available. However, some of these smaller issues will certainly need to be locally explored by each individual district. For instance: • Can your school community spontaneously support feeding a large number of children and adults, should the need arise? • Are there policies in your districts that could inhibit an effective response (like banning cell phones)?

Recognizing that no emergency is ever convenient, exploring these issues beforehand can reduce logistical impact in the situation at-hand.

Lessons Learned 1. Practice is essential. Train employees on roles and expose them to elements they can expect in an emergency.

2. Standard, interoperable communication tools are key to event management.

3. Plans should be in place for reuniting students with parents based on the specific evacuation site.

4. Smaller details like food, student medical needs and hygiene needs must be considered.

5. While drills can be done in a short time, emergency response can take multiple hours.

Managing press relations and community information sources is a key duty.

6. Plan for redundant systems. If something critical doesn’t work in the moment, what is the default backup?

Historically, there had been some resistance to multiple evacuation drills throughout a school year.

Building administrators, weary of demands away from instructional time, now clearly see the need for practice.

www.iasbo.org

| 17

PERSPECTIVE / Lobbying

FROM-THE- DISTRICT Time to Engage with Legislators

Find Resources to help you make your voice heard on pg. 45

As evidenced in this issue of UPDATE, decisions are made every day the Legislature is in session that directly or indirectly impact school districts. As a school business official, your voice is needed in Springfield to help keep unintended consequences of legislation out of the classroom.

As you prepare to engage with your Legislators both old and new, keep these tips in mind: 1. Be mindful of when you communicate — Ask about their communication preferences during sessions. Be persistent but also understand the timing of the issue you’d like to discuss.

2. Know your issue and the process — Understand the process (See How a Bill Really Becomes a Law, pg.20) and keep track of the status of the bill.

3. Understand the need for give and take — Like every good relationship this one has two sides. Making the extra effort to support your legislator goes a long way.

4. Take advantage of the “off-season” — When the legislators are not in session (typically June – October) is a great time to meet in person and open up the lines of communication.

DO BE FIRM – Bring along facts and figures to support your case and be clear in your position.

LEAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING – A single page, bulleted version of your argument they can refer back to.

COMPROMISE – It’s better to get some things you want even if you can’t get everything. If you can’t defeat a bill, dilute it.

PERSONALIZE – Understand how the issue and specifically affects your district and say it in your own words.

DON'T BE ARGUMENTATIVE – You can never win an argument with a legislator, so don’t start one. Never threaten or lose your cool.

WRITE A BOOK – Your legislator doesn’t have time to read a 10 page historical document, rather they need common sense and simple arguments.

GIVE UP – Be persistent in communicating your views. At the same time, don’t waste time lobbying opponents who are publicly opposed to your position.

WASTE THEIR TIME – With form letters and mass mailings that don’t give new information.

KEEP YOUR WORD – If you promise to provide information, drop everything and get it to them. This builds trust.

PROMISE SOMETHING YOU CAN’T DELIVER – This is quick way to lose credibility in the relationship.

KEEP TRACK – Follow the legislation through the process and update bill numbers and positions accordingly.

COME UNPREPARED – Be respectful of your legislators’ time, especially during busy in-session times.

KNOW THE OTHER SIDE – Understand the opposing view and give specific and factual rebuttals.

EXPECT TO ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY – Be willing to forgive, but not forget.

SAY “THANK YOU” – If they helped your position, let them know. Show them your support by attending events when the legislature is not it session. |

BURN BRIDGES – Thank your legislator for considering your position. Restate your position and say you look forward to future discussions.

18

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

PERSPECTIVE / On the Profession

SCHOOL BUSINESS 101 What legislative issues are keeping you up at night?

Michael M. Adamczyk

ASST. SUPT./BUSINESS & AUXILIARY SERVICES, COMM. CONS. SCH. DIST. 15

Have a question or issue that needs to be addressed by School Business 101?

Submit your ideas or questions to Rebekah Weidner at rweidner@iasbo.org

A: Possible changes in pension costs. Funding for education is probably going to be static or decrease. It is hard to budget when you don't know what the changes are going to be. With a shift of increased pension costs to districts being a high likelihood, districts will ultimately have less money to spend on the classrooms.

Kevin J. Nohelty

ASST. SUPT./BUSINESS OPS. & HR, HARVEY PUBLIC SD 152

A: School construction funding and that the Legislature appropriates money to CBD funds. We are waiting for these funds to come based on promises that were made years ago and not fulfilled. There are hundreds on the list; we go back to 2004.

Funding this would help to bring about jobs.

Michael M. Duffy

INTERIM SUPERINTENDENT, DURAND CSD 322

Want to add to the discussion?

Add your response in the Hot Topics Group within the peer2peer Network. Then, watch for the next School Business 101 discussion for a chance to be featured in the UPDATE Magazine.

A: There are two things that I think are going to be extremely harmful.

At the federal level, healthcare reform. The amount that will cost districts will be enormous. The second is TRS putting the cost of pensions at the local level and washing their hands of it. Those are going to be two huge financial burdens on districts.

Steve East

DIR./PURCHASING & FACILITIES, TWP. HIGH SCH. DIST. 211

A: I think we are all staying up at night worrying about the future of pension reforms. What most concerns me is that the structural issue that has caused the problem seems to be overlooked in the solutions that are on the table.

www.iasbo.org

| 19

how a bill

really becomes a law

20 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

What you learned in your school classroom will only get you so far in Springfield. Take an insider look at how the system really works from start to finish‌ and all the shenanigans that can happen along the way.

POINT OF VIEW

“I’m just a bill.

Yes, I’m only a bill.

And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.

Well, it’s a long, long journey To the capital city.

It’s a long, long wait While I’m sitting in committee, But I know I’ll be a law someday At least I hope and pray that I will, But today I am still just a bill.”

For the most part, the legendary (at least for folks my age) “I’m Just a Bill” skit from Schoolhouse Rock in the 1970’s is pretty accurate here in Illinois. A bill must make it through two legislative chambers and be signed into law by the Chief Executive whether in Congress in Washington, D.C. or in the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield. But, oh, the shenanigans that can happen on the way. That Schoolhouse Rock bill never came to Springfield to get mugged by a Rules Committee, stuffed into a “shell bill,” and tacked onto a provision in a 1,000 page “BIMP” bill that was voted on virtually sight unseen.

WHAT YOUR TEXTBOOK WILL TELL YOU Section eight under Article IV of The Constitution of the State of Illinois succinctly expresses what must happen for the passage of bills in our state. A bill may originate in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, must be “read by title on three different days” in each chamber and must have approval of a majority of the members elected in each chamber before being sent to the Governor for his consideration. Sounds simple enough.

Beyond the Constitution there are a few other hurdles for legislation to navigate. Both the Illinois House of Representatives and the Illinois State Senate have their own “General Assembly Rules” that they adopt and that must, generally, be followed. This includes the use of committees and certain timelines that must be met. The exception, of course, is when the legislators decide that they don’t want to follow their rules, which is always an option too. But I digress and will explore that a little later.

By Ben Schwarm DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS (IASB)

For the vast majority of bills that are introduced, the usual course is followed. A bill in a spring legislative session in Springfield will be: • Introduced in either the House or Senate.

• Read into the record on three separate days.

• Considered by a committee.

• Sent to the chamber floor.

If approved, sent to the opposite chamber to repeat the same drill there.

The process without any expeditious treatment will take about three months.

But who wants to hear about that boring process?

WHERE DOES A BILL REALLY COME FROM? Sometimes the idea for a piece of legislation actually comes from the legislator who introduces it. Mostly, though, the idea has come from a constituent who has had a problem navigating the State’s bureaucracy, from an interest group or lobbyist, or from some other think tank or organization that the legislator belongs to. My favorite is when a legislator says (this is much more common to hear from a Congressman in D.C.) that “I wrote the bill that . . . .” In my 27 years working in and around the Capitol, I’ve never known a legislator that actually “wrote the bill.”

Legislators certainly make legislation happen, but it is staff, lawyers and lobbyists that usually do the actual writing.

And in Springfield, truly o nly the lawyers at the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) write the official bill that is considered in the Capitol.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AND RULES AND HOW TO GET AROUND THEM The General Assembly Rules in both the House and Senate versions allow for the use of committees. Standing committees are named in each chamber generally by subject matter. So, for instance, a bill that proposes to change the provision in the School Code regarding high school graduation requirements would likely be sent to the Education Committee in the Senate or the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee in the House. www.iasbo.org

| 21

The real problem with the General Assembly Rules is that they are just that, rules. They’re not in the Constitution, or in state statute, but in a resolution adopted by each individual chamber.

When a bill is drafted and introduced, it will be “read into the record” in the chamber of origin. In the Senate, for example, there will be a day when the Secretary of the Senate (an appointed position selected by the Senate President) actually stands at the podium (the “well” as it is called by insiders) and reads the title of hundreds of newly introduced bills into a microphone before a usually totally empty chamber: “SB 230, a bill regarding education, SB 231, a bill regarding transportation” and so on. The Clerk of the House does the same thing in that chamber.

After the initial reading, the bill is sent to the Committee on Assignment in the Senate – in the House, they call it the Rules Committee. This committee decides which substantive committee to send a bill. Sometimes a bill is never assigned to a “real committee” and languishes forever in “Rules” or “COA.” This is the first ironclad gatekeeping device for the majority party.

The General Assembly Rules also require that a new bill be “posted” for a committee hearing at least six days before the bill will actually be considered by the committee. This is an attempt at transparency and for the public to become aware of legislation before the first vote is taken. And, really, this works pretty well.

Amendments, however, only need a one-hour posting notice before a committee hearing. Things can start to get a little sketchy about this point as legislation can be “fasttracked” by deliberately attaching legislative language to a bill by amendment, thus avoiding the “sunshine” of the six day posting requirement.

The real problem with the General Assembly Rules is that they are just that, rules. They’re not in the Constitution, or in state statute, but in a resolution adopted by each individual chamber. So, upon occasion, the chamber can just vote to “waive the rule requirement” if a majority of the chamber doesn’t want to follow that particular rule that day. For instance, they might want to consider a bill in committee that has not met the six day posting requirement, or better yet, they just want to send a bill directly to the chamber floor

22 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

that has never had a committee hearing. If a majority of the members vote to do it, it is done. That is the power of the majority party.

“I’m just a bill Yes I'm only a bill, And I got as far as Capitol Hill.

Well, now I’m stuck in committee And I’ll sit here and wait While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate Whether they should let me be a law.

How I hope and pray that they will, But today I am still just a bill.”

SECOND READING AND LEGISLATIVE TIME TRAVEL After a bill is discharged from a committee, it goes back to the chamber floor and is read into the record for a second time. Second Reading is the amendment stage – the only time a bill can be amended. Many times the proposed amended language has already been agreed to in the committee hearing, but officially, the amendment is added on Second Reading on the chamber floor. Bills that the sponsor knows still needs some additional work could sit on the “calendar” (the House/Senate agenda) for weeks waiting to be amended.

But here again is a time ripe for questionable antics. The reason for the three separate readings of a bill is to ward against someone jamming through an idea all in the same day. Theoretically, if a bill is amended on Second Reading, it couldn’t be voted on for final passage until the next day at the earliest (when the bill would have its Third Reading).

But the suspension of time and time travel is a regularly occurring phenomenon in the State Capitol.

Many times a bill will be moved from Second Reading to Third Reading properly, on separate days. But maybe a week later the sponsor decides the bill needs another amendment so the bill is “brought back to Second Reading.” Now it can be amended. However, and I am not making this up, the House Clerk merely announces that

POINT OF VIEW / How a Bill Really Becomes a Law

the bill “has been read a second time previously” and the bill can be amended on Second Reading and called for a vote on Third Reading – final passage stage – not only the same day but in a matter of minutes. The tactic in most cases is benign and simply correcting a small glitch in the legislation. But the practice can allow for a deliberate skirting of the rules by tacking on a new or controversial amendment and get an immediate floor vote before allowing the public to comment.

SHELL BILLS AND OTHER QUESTIONABLE PROCEDURES Sometimes the entire process is ignored from the start.

Since there is a procedure for amendment and this requires a shorter hearing notice posting and therefore an opportunity for less people to see language before it is adopted, there are legislators who deliberately opt for this route. They will introduce a “shell bill” a piece of legislation that contains no substantive language but is moved through the process for later use. It might change the word “the” to “a” or “10” to “ten” in the Pension Code.

Say the bill is approved by a House committee and then the full House and is sent to the Senate. It is discharged by the Senate committee still in the non-substantive form.

Then on the Senate floor, an amendment is added to raise the retirement age in TRS to age 75. The bill is more than half-way through the process before anyone knew what the bill would ultimately do. Granted, it would need a couple of more votes but in this scenario those votes could be taken in a matter of hours instead of days or weeks.

act. If the Governor vetoes a bill, it is taken up in the Veto Session in November and December. So it takes about a year for the entire legislative process. And that is how most legislation is handled.

But what about the bill that was written and submitted as a conference committee report (the final agreement between the two chambers when each had differing language for a bill) approved by both houses, sent to the Governor, vetoed, had the veto overridden and became law in the same afternoon? It really happened; it was the 2.2 pension enhancement bill in 1998. And they even had a “bill signing” ceremony that afternoon when the Governor actually amendatorily vetoed the bill! That is when you say “the bill was greased” as it moved quickly through the process with no resistance.

Only in Illinois.

“I’m just a bill Yes, I’m only a bill And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill Well, then I’m off to the White House Where I’ll wait in a line With a lot of other bills For the president to sign And if he signs me, then I’ll be a law.

How I hope and pray that he will, But today I am still just a bill.”

WHAT DOES THE GOVERNOR DO? This is not a rhetorical question. Once a bill is approved by both chambers the house of origin has 30 days to send the legislation to the Governor. The Governor, then, has 60 days to take action on the bill. So generally, a bill is introduced in January, the legislature meets in March and April to hold its committee hearings and adjournment is the end of May when most bills are called for final passage. The bills are sent to the Governor in June and he has until August to

SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK: Dorough, B., Ahrens, L., Newall, G., Frishberg, D., Yohe, T., Mendoza, R., American Broadcasting Company., ... Buena Vista Home Entertainment (Firm). (2002). Schoolhouse rock!. Burbank, Calif: Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment.

www.iasbo.org

| 23

NAVIGATING SENATE BILL 7

Face the Challenges Ahead as You Prepare to Fully Implement the Law 24 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

COVER STORY

By Richard Voltz, PhD. ASSOC. DIR./PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS (IASA)

The Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) (Senate Bill 315; Public Act 96-0861) was passed by the Illinois General Assembly and signed by the Governor in January 2010. In summary, PERA requires performance evaluations of the principal/assistant principal and teachers in every school district and must include data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor. It also requires a four rating category system and prescribed training for all principal and teacher evaluators.

Senate Bill 7 (SB 7) was signed into law by the Governor on June 13, 2011. SB 7 addresses, among other things: • A standard upon which the State Superintendent may initiate certificate/license action against an educator for incompetency.

• Requirements for the filling of new and vacant positions.

• Acquisition of tenure.

• Reductions in force/layoffs and recall rights.

• The system for the dismissal of tenured teachers.

• Required school board member training.

• Processes related to collective bargaining and the right to strike.

ISBE subsequently prepared the Part 50 Rules that define the procedures for implementation of PERA and SB 7. There are 138 “shalls” in the Part 50 Rules.

As Illinois educators prepare to implement all sections of this new law prior to September 2016, the following issues will likely be the most difficult to navigate.

1. THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE LAWS In my opinion, this is the most difficult bargaining issue administrators will face in their careers. There has already been more strike and strike threatening activity this school year than there has been in the last several years. This contentious bargaining is probably due to two main factors: 1. Lack of money at the district level.

2. Conversation about changing the teacher performance evaluation system.

This will only get more contentious as we get closer to the 2016 deadline of full implementation.

The Chicago Teachers Union mobilized 90% of its teachers to vote to strike. The support and organizing ability of the Chicago Teachers Union was overwhelming. It seemed as if every Chicago teacher manned the picket lines on a daily basis and were very passionate about their cause.

In my opinion, the strike was more about PERA and SB 7 than about wages, air conditioning and leaky roofs.

Teachers knew that Mayor Emanuel had plans to close 80 to 120 schools and teachers were going to lose jobs. Many

of these teachers would be veteran teachers who would have lower performance ratings than less experienced teachers. Not only would they lose their jobs; they would lose their teaching careers. After all, who would hire a veteran teacher with say 25 years experience, two masters’ degrees and the knowledge that this teacher had been RIF’d and had a lower performance-based rating than other less experienced teachers?

The message for the rest of the state is that every school district will be dealing with these same issues as we head into teacher performance evaluation reality. >>>TO NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE: Administrators need to include stakeholders in every step of this journey. When training administrators, train teacher leaders also. When practicing how to gather evidence, include teacher leaders in the process. When choosing assessments and student growth models, include teachers from the very beginning. This is one topic that administrators and teachers absolutely need to reach consensus on before implementation. www.iasbo.org

| 25

2. THE DIFFICULTY OF EVALUATING TEACHERS WITH AT LEAST 30% BASED ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC GROWTH

3. INTERPRETING WHAT “DISTINGUISHED” MEANS IN THE FRAMEWORKS FOR TEACHING (FFT)

The key provision in this new evaluation paradigm is the law requirement that teachers be evaluated using a standard research-based rubric for professional practice with at least 30% of the final evaluation rating based on their students' academic growth. The law also requires that teachers be RIF’d based on not only seniority but also their performance ranking.

I think one of the most debated and misunderstood concepts from the Danielson Frameworks For Teaching (FFT) is the question of how many teachers will earn the “Distinguished” rating. I have heard administrators say that no one is distinguished and teachers should be pleased to be rated proficient. Danielson herself states both in her book and in her videos that “…teachers visit ‘Distinguished;’ they do not live there.”

There is considerable debate in the assessment research world about the cause and effect relationship between the way to measure student growth and the evaluative rating of the teacher: In the November 2012 Educational Leadership Journal writers Goodwin and Miller state that there are several pitfalls in using value-added models. These include: non-teacher effects may cloud the results; data may be inaccurate; student placement in classrooms is not random; students' previous teachers can create a halo (or pitchfork) effect; and teachers' year-to-year scores vary widely.

In the November 29, 2012 article in The Huffington Post titled “Teacher Evaluation Systems Not Fully Supported In Many States,” the Center For American Progress reports that “Still, arguably the biggest challenge posed by these mandated evaluation reforms is that the majority of teachers do not teach in tested subjects or grades and as a result standardized student achievement data is not available to be used in their ratings.” This is another huge obstacle that needs to be solved before districts can use student growth scores for teacher performance evaluation purposes.

Until the research world can agree on a valid and reliable way to measure student growth and assign it to a particular teacher, administrators should be leery of the amount of weight put on this indicator. After all, a teacher’s career is in jeopardy. >>>TO NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE: Get your teachers involved now in the process. If you have not converted to the Danielson evaluation system, start a pilot process as soon as possible and include your teachers every step of the way. Start looking at methods to measure student academic growth and talk to teachers about possible assessments and measures for these assessments. 2016 will be here before you know it, so get started now.

26 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

Illinois administrators learned in their training that they are to record evidence in informal and formal evaluations.

Evidence does not have bias, interpretation or judgment. I often describe observation evidence as the following: 1) What the teacher says and does.

2) What the students say and do.

3) Can it be counted?

4) Can it be timed?

5) Can the teaching be summarized accurately using only evidence-based words?

Evaluators learn to collect evidence from the observations, categorize the evidence by domain/component, enter into reflective conversations with the teacher and finally, summatively rate the teacher.

Following the above stated process, how can anyone say that no teacher will be rated Distinguished/Excellent? The administrator would have to gather the evidence and rate the teacher based on that evidence. The summative rating could not be predetermined to be ‘Proficient.” It has been my experience that there are many excellent teachers.

These excellent teachers will learn what the FFT requires for a summative “Distinguished” rating and they will earn this rating.

Will there be less summative rated excellent teachers in Illinois now that the FFT is being implemented? Probably yes, but we cannot make that determination until we gather the evidence, categorize the evidence by domain/ component, reflect with the teacher and then rate the teacher. >>>TO NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE: We will need to conduct multiple informal and formal observations to gather enough evidence to make this final determination. It is my guess that teachers will continue to improve when it comes to illustrating the critical elements of the frameworks in these multiple observations. In my personal opinion, we have many excellent teachers in Illinois no matter what the measure.

COVER STORY / Navigating Senate Bill 7

MAJOR 7 MAJORCHALLENGES CHALLENGESOF OFSB SB7 The recently published study by The Illinois Education Research Council and the University of Chicago titled “Designing and Implementing the Next Generation of Teacher Evaluation Systems: Lessons Learned From Five Case Studies in Five Illinois Districts” determined four major challenges. They are: 1.

1. C Cultivating ultivating Buy-In Buy-In and and Understanding.

Understanding 2.

2. U Using sing Evaluations Evaluations for for Instructional Instructional Improvement.

Improvement 3.

3. R Reducing educing the the Burden Burden on on Principals.

Principals 4.

4. IIncorporating ncorporating Student Student Growth Growth into into Teacher Teacher Evaluation Evaluation Systems.

Systems

Teacher evaluators will need to observe teachers much more than the minimum required by the rules… This begs the question, “What will administrators not do in order to dedicate the time needed to do this work?”

www.iasbo.org

| 27

4. DETERMINING THE ACTUAL COMPETENCIES NEEDED TO EVALUATE PROFESSIONAL TEACHING PRACTICES While virtually all Illinois teacher evaluators have successfully completed the Teachscape training, I have drawn the conclusion that this training was a good interrater Danielson training. It did not include specific training on the relative importance of the various components within the Danielson Frameworks For Teaching (FFT).

The FFT emphasizes the importance of Engaged Learning as the most important Component and Domain 3, Instruction, as the most important Domain. Evaluators must evidence engaged learning for the teacher to be rated as proficient or distinguished in the FFT. Danielson defines engaged learning as the student being intellectually involved in the work. An evaluator must evidence this intellectual involvement. This begs the question of how an evaluator would evidence student engagement when a teacher is lecturing or when the classroom activity is totally teacher centered.

In a lecture classroom the observer could evidence the number of students looking at the teacher, the number of students taking notes, the number of students verbally interacting with the teacher either by asking or answering

questions, etc… However, it is difficult for the observer to evidence that “virtually all students are highly engaged” in a lecture or teacher centered classroom. The key for “engaged” classrooms is for the students to be intellectually doing the work. The more the classroom resembles active intellectual student work the higher the teacher would be rated in relation to “engaged learning.”

If a teacher evaluator only sees lecture or teacher centered activities after observing a teacher multiple times in both informal and formal observations the teacher would be rated “Needs Improvement” at best. This is one of the reasons evaluators need to make multiple observations, to see the teacher in a variety of activities. >>>TO NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE: I encourage (really require) administrators to go around the room and ask students questions about what work they are doing. Danielson describes engaged learning as the student intellectually doing the work. In order for a teacher evaluator to evidence engaged learning, the administrator must talk to students and record the conversation for evidence purposes.

5. FINDING THE TIME THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATIONS WITH VERACITY Teacher evaluators will need to observe teachers much more than the minimum required by the rules (one informal and one formal for tenured teachers and one informal and two formal for non-tenured teachers) in order to afford teachers fundamental due process. No teacher evaluator is going to be part of a process to honorably discharge a 25-year veteran teacher with just a few observations.

At a minimum, I believe it will take eight to ten informal/ formal observations over a two-year cycle to gather enough evidence for all ten components in Domain 2 and 3 of the FFT. This begs the question “What will administrators not do in order to dedicate the time needed to do this work?”

Assuming all these teachers are tenured this would be 230 out of the 360 possible attendance days in a two-year time period, or less than one per day.

This was also noted by “The Next Generation of Teacher Evaluation Systems” study as a challenge. An average school administrator (in my informal polling of administrators as I have trained over 1,500 in Illinois) indicates about 23 teachers per evaluator. An evaluator would need to conduct 23 x 10 or 230 observations in an evaluation cycle.

>>>TO NAVIGATE THIS CHALLENGE: In my work with teacher evaluators, I recommend that they schedule these formal and informal observations. What gets on an administrator’s calendar gets done. By scheduling observations the administrator can dedicate the time needed to do this work.

28 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

Good evaluation systems would include a reflective conversation with each teacher after each informal and formal observation. This increases the number to 460 obligations out of 360 days. Assuming the administrator would not be able to observe or meet on 10% of the days this leaves 460 obligations out of 324 days or 1.42 or two per day. Remember, about 8 of the 10 observations are informal which amounts to 10 or 15 minutes each.

COVER STORY / Navigating Senate Bill 7

6. ARRIVING AT A JOINT DECISION ON HOW TO SUMMATIVE RATE THE TEACHER USING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND STUDENT GROWTH A real sticking point will be when the joint committee decides to determine how the final rating will be calculated.

The law says that for professional practice the rating “Shall quantify the relative importance of each portion of the framework to the final professional practice rating.”

This can be done using mathematics or using words but I think districts need to be aware of the Danielson FFT key concept that Domain 3, Instruction and Component 3c, Engaged Learning, are at the heart of the frameworks. This domain and component need to have high importance for professional practice.

Combining professional practice and student growth will add a high degree of difficulty to the summative rating. There has been no final guidance from ISBE or the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council on how to do this. Most districts are waiting for some type of state model or recommendation. This calculation will be vital to the acceptance and trust placed in this new evaluation paradigm.

PREDICTIONS ON FUTURE CHANGES TO THIS EVALUATION PROCESS Utilizing Video — It is extremely hard for a teacher evaluator to script all that is happening within a classroom for informal or formal observations. I predict teacher evaluators will use video to record the actual teaching and use the video in the reflective conference with the teacher.

In addition, the district can make a video library of effective teaching to show new teachers and teachers needing improvement.

The Need for Peer Evaluators — It is difficult for high school administrators to evaluate content knowledge of the teaching if they are observing teaching in a field that they do not have a professional educational background.

For example, how does an evaluator judge content in a foreign language classroom when only the foreign language is spoken? Or, judge the content in an AP Calculus classroom? This stresses the need for peer evaluators.

Peer evaluators will need to go through the pre-qualification training as administrators but they could provide excellent evidence on content knowledge. These peers would need to be teachers who had previously been rated as Excellent.

Student Input — Student input for grades 6 through 12 would provide valuable information the administrator could use. Illinois has developed a climate survey titled “5Essentials” and the questions asked in this survey could be very helpful for the administrator to use when rating student-teacher relations, expectations, etc.

There are many unsettled issues that need to be resolved before full implementation of principal and teacher performance evaluation systems. Navigating the challenges discussed in this article and many others is vital to making implementation of the law as smooth as possible.

For more information: Readers can subscribe to Rich’s blog at http://richvoltz. edublogs.org or follow him on Twitter @rvoltz where he will continue to offer advice, research and opinions concerning this Next Generation of Teacher and Principal Evaluation.

www.iasbo.org

| 29

Unfunded Mandates:

How Current Illinois Laws Fit Into the Bigger Picture

The laws passed in recent years to limit unfunded mandates may provide temporary relief to school districts, but they do not address the bigger problem of implementing the mandates already in place with increasingly limited funding.

30 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

By Scott F. Uhler

ARTICLE

PARTNER KLEIN, THORPE & JENKINS, LTD.

Allen Wall PARTNER KLEIN, THORPE & JENKINS, LTD.

The Problem of Unfunded Mandates School districts, like other forms of local government, face the ongoing problem of how to implement and pay for any state mandate that is not funded by the State of Illinois. Such legal mandates have been defined as “any State-initiated statutory or executive action1 that requires a local government to establish, expand or modify its activities in such a way as to necessitate additional expenditures from local revenues, excluding any order issued by a court other than any order enforcing such statutory or executive action.”

The ongoing dilemma for public schools is how to manage the new costs forced on them by the State or the Illinois State Board of Education (“ISBE”), with no corresponding authority to raise revenue necessary to pay for the new expense. 2 The difficulty faced by school districts boils down to basic math. Districts have a spending ceiling imposed by state law resulting in a limited amount of funding for an array of programs and services.3 Every new expenditure imposed by the State means some other expenditure has to be reduced or cut.

The total number of Illinois school mandates created by the General Assembly or ISBE exceeds one hundred.

This number only increases as new mandates are added and existing ones remain. The hidden costs of these mandates is cumulative and debilitating and each new mandate hits harder than the last since few (if any) mandates are ever repealed. Local school district officials and administrators increasingly must make decisions based on financial resources, rather than the educational best interests of their students. By imposing mandates, the General Assembly and ISBE usurp decision-making from locally-elected school officials.

Class sizes increase, while extracurricular, enrichment and other programs that nourish the interests and talents of students decrease as school districts struggle to

reconcile expanding financial demands with diminishing resources. These hidden costs reduce education to a bottom line business where money, rather than learning, predominates. Such a result can adversely affect the morale of locally-elected school board members, school district administrators, teachers, parents, students and community members whose resources fund the schools.

Decision-making is severely undermined and limited by ever-expanding mandates.

The problem of unfunded and underfunded mandates has plagued Illinois for decades. Ironically, as a matter of philosophy, the General Assembly agrees it should not impose mandates on school districts without paying for them. In 1981, the General Assembly enacted the State Mandates Act (“SMA”). In 1991, legislators amended the SMA in a renewed attempt to bring the problem under better control. More recently, lawmakers enacted Public Act 096-1374, that established an instructional mandates task force and created a temporary moratorium on the passage of instructional mandates for the state’s public schools.

Another statute, Public Act 096-1441, seeks to relieve public school districts from an obligation to comply with unfunded and underfunded state mandates established after August 2010. While these provisions may have some benefit to school districts, analysis of these laws indicates that in practice they have been universally ignored by the General Assembly and ISBE; consequently, these statutes provide little or no relief to educators facing diminishing financial resources and the need to meet increasing student achievement rates.

1.

30 ILCS 805/3(b).

2.

The Illinois Property Tax Extension Limitation Act limits the increase in a school district tax increase, on an annual basis, to 5% or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less.

3.

Id. School districts also are limited to the spending authority granted by the School Code and the Illinois Constitution, both of which specifically limit school funding authority with no ability to raise additional revenues from the public.

www.iasbo.org

| 31

The total number of Illinois school mandates created by the General Assembly or ISBE exceeds one hundred. This number only increases as new mandates are added and existing ones remain.

1.

The State Mandates Act: No Meaningful Protection

The SMA states one of its purposes is to avoid “the imposition of State standards upon essentially local responsibilities without appropriate reimbursement or other appropriate fiscal participation on the part of the State government.”4 A State mandate as defined in subsection 3(b) of the SMA is, “…any State-initiated statutory or executive action that requires a local government to establish, expand or modify its activities in such a way as to necessitate additional expenditures from local revenues…”5 Included in the SMA is a provision for state reimbursement to local government for increased costs that arise from the imposition of certain mandates.6 However, the SMA excludes a number of mandates from reimbursement. For instance, any increased costs accruing to local governments as a direct result of mandates dealing with the organization and structure of local government or due process mandates are not reimbursable by the State.7 If all or part of the increased costs to a local government as a result of a mandate are met by federal or other sources of aid, only the net increase to the local government shall be included as an amount subject to reimbursement.8 Importantly, a statute creating or enlarging a mandate can include language stating the specific reasons why the mandate should be excluded from any reimbursement obligation.9 The SMA also provides the legislature with the ability to exempt the State from the obligation to reimburse local governments for the cost of implementing mandates simply by saying so. It is in fact standard legislative practice to do so. The Illinois Appellate Court noted in this regard that, “[t]he General Assembly can exempt any mandate without any limitation by so identifying the mandate… the net result is an amendment of the State Mandates Act for that particular purpose.”10 A review of the SMA reveals the vast number of occasions when amendments have been made to the SMA in order to shield the State from having to make reimbursement to 32 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

local governmental entities for the cost of complying with a mandate. That has not stopped the State from imposing the mandate anyway. The SMA, then, provides no meaningful protection to local governments from the growing financial stress imposed by State statutory and/or regulatory mandates.

2.

The Instructional Mandates Task Force: A Short-Lived Solution

On July 29, 2010, the General Assembly, again apparently impressed with both the significance of this issue to school districts and the need to provide relief, enacted Public Act 96-1374 which directed ISBE to create the Instructional Mandates Task Force (“IMTF”). The IMTF was formed to “…explore and examine all instructional mandates governing the public schools of this State that currently exist and… make recommendations concerning, but not limited to, the propriety of all existing mandates, the imposition of future mandates and waivers of instructional mandates.”11 The IMTF was directed to submit a final report of its findings and recommendation to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before July 1, 2011.12 Further, beginning on the effective date of Public Act 96-1374 – July 29, 2010 – and continuing for one year after the IMTF submits its final report, the Act states that “there shall be a moratorium on the passage of instructional mandates for public schools… ‘instructional mandate’ means any state law that requires a school district to devote any amount of time to the instruction of or engagement by students in any subject or course.”13 Public Act 96-1374 indicated that the IMTF would be abolished on July 2, 2011 and this section of the School Code repealed on July 1, 2012.14 The moratorium on the passage of instructional mandates for the State’s public schools ended on July 1, 2012, one year after the IMTF submitted its report.15 Thus, any relief from mandates for Illinois’ school districts provided by Public Act 96-1374 was narrow in scope and short in duration.

4.

30 ILCS 805/2(b)(2).

30 ILCS 805/3(b). For an exposition of the SMA, see Attorney General Opinion No. 96-025, dated July 24, 1996 at pp. 2-6.

6.

30 ILCS 805/6.

7.

Id. 8.

Id. 9.

Id. 10.

Board of Education of Maine Township High School District 207 v. State Board of Education, 139 Ill.App.3d 460, 463-464 (1st Dist. 1985).

5.

ARTICLE / Unfunded Mandates

3.

Public Act 96-1441 and The Prohibition Of Unfunded Mandates: Welcome Relief!

Public Act 96-1441, which took effect after August 20, 2010, provides that “[n]o public school district or private school is obligated to comply with the following types of mandates unless a separate appropriation has been enacted into law providing full funding for the mandate for the school year during which the mandate is required.”16 Those types of mandates covered by Public Act 96-1441 are: 1. Any mandate in the School Code enacted after the effective date of the law and 2. Any regulatory mandate promulgated by ISBE and adopted by rule after the effective date of the law other than those established with respect to Public Act 96-1441 or statutes already enacted on or before August 20, 2010.17 In the event that the General Assembly provides partial funding for a mandate covered by the law, a school district may choose to discontinue or modify the mandate to ensure that the costs of compliance do not exceed the funding it has received. In order to gain such relief from partially funded mandates, they must submit a request to the regional superintendent each year before February 15th.18 The regional superintendent shall hold a public hearing on the school district’s request and inform the school district by March 15th whether its request is granted or denied. If the regional superintendent denies a petition, the school district may appeal the decision to State Superintendent of Education

by April 15th. The State Superintendent must hold a hearing on the school district’s appeal of regional superintendent’s decision by May 15th and that the State Superintendent shall make a final decision at the conclusion of the hearing.19

The Bigger Picture Even if the SMA, Public Act 96-1324 and Public Act 961441 were able to stem the tide of new unfunded and underfunded mandates, the situation for Illinois school districts remains dire. The existing one hundred mandates that have been imposed over the years have not been eliminated or rolled back. Thus, school districts must still implement a host of mandates that drain limited financial resources. Compounding the problem is teacher salaries and benefits that continue to rise despite the financial stress under which school district operate. Without genuine relief from the mandates already in place, Illinois’ public schools will be forced to accelerate disturbing patterns of cuts in programs and services designed to promote the best educational interests of the students. The hidden costs of unfunded and underfunded mandates – loss of local control over community schools, larger class sizes, cuts in extracurricular and enrichment programs and a loss faith in public education – will continue to mount. Surely, our children deserve better.

11.

105 ILCS 5/27-1.5(c).

105 ILCS 5/27-1.5(g).

13.

105 ILCS 5/27-1.5(i).

14.

105 ILCS 5/27-1.5(h).

15.

105 ILCS 5/27-1.5 (i).

16.

105 ILCS 5/22-60(a).

17.

105 ILCS 5/22-60(a)(1)-(2).

18.

105 ILCS 5/22-60(b).

19.

Id. 12.

Public Act 96-1441 certainly provides the State’s school districts with welcome relief from unfunded and underfunded mandates going forward. Unfortunately, the scope of the law does not address the multitude of unfunded and underfunded mandates imposed on Illinois’ public schools prior to August 20, 2010. www.iasbo.org

| 33

More than a Funding Model: A Call for Change When the Education Funding Advisory Board took an initial look at the Evidence Based Adequacy Model of school funding in Illinois, they found a model that could link school funding levels, educational best practices and academic achievement.

The Evidence Based Adequacy Model (EBAM) of school funding is a comprehensive school reform model used to set funding levels based upon local educational needs. This adequacy model has been developed extensively by Allan Odden of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin (Odden, 2007). In this model, research based practices necessary to educate students and the resources necessary to fund these practices are identified for a prototypical school. Costs are then assigned to these practices and resources. The costs in the prototypical school can then be extrapolated to a district’s individual demographic makeup to determine the adequate funding level necessary for that specific school.

The 2011 Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) report first cast light on Evidence Based Adequacy Model as a potential replacement of the current Successful Schools model. An appendix of the report included an analysis by Mangan and Puriton (2011) to estimate the cost of implementation in Illinois. Their study found that to implement in Illinois would be $25 billion or a 16% increase. Some of the tenants of the EBAM of school finding can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the prototypical school

34 |

Characteristic

Requirement

Class Size Targets K-3

15 students

Class Size Targets 4-8

25 students

Specialist Teachers (PE, Art, Music, etc.)

.2 times the total classroom teacher count

Special Education Teachers

1 per 150 students

Special Education Aides

1 per 300 students

Principal

1 per school

Assistant Principal

1 per school

Librarian

1 per school

Summer School

1 teacher per 30 FRL qualifying students

Extended School

1 teacher per 30 FRL qualifying students

Tutor

1 per school or 1 per 100 FRL qualifying students

Pupil Support Staff

1 per 100 FRL qualifying students

ELL

1 teacher per 100 ELL students

Instructional Facilitators/Mentors

2.25 per school

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

ARTICLE

By Gregg Murphy REGIONAL SUPERINTENDENT I-KAN REGIONAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

A Comprehensive Reform Model The Evidence Based Adequacy Model for school funding is significantly more than a funding program. It identifies interventions and practices that would be present in schools throughout the state. As a comprehensive reform model, it removes a degree of local control from school funding by prescribing research based practices at the school level. The driving force for such a funding model, however, is the ability to coordinate school reform efforts statewide using research based initiatives.

For Illinois to move from current fiscal practices would mark a significant change in Illinois school funding policy, not matched since the

introduction of the Resource Equalizer in 1973. At that time, an effort lead

by Hickrod worked to educate policymakers as to the limitations of the Strayer-Haig funding formula. Their efforts were designed to draw focus to the shortcomings of the then current funding system that disproportionately benefited school districts with high property values. At that point a resource equalizer was added to mitigate some of the inequity.

With the state needing only to show a rational mechanism to distribute educational funds, the urgency to initiate funding policy reform has been limited. The EFAB report, however, issued a call for change.

The Evidence Based Adequacy Model for school funding is significantly more than a funding program. It identifies interventions and practices that would be present in schools throughout the state.

A Matter of Interpretation In the past 40 years, Illinois has lacked significant policy change to improve either funding equity or adequacy in education. The absence of significant policy change since 1973 can, in part, be attributed to Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state Education Clause: The most recent case heard by the IL Supreme Court, Carr v.

Koch (2012), regarding school funding resulted in the high court affirming the lower court’s judgment and dismissing the case. This case was dismissed on arguments that the plaintiffs were unable to establish standing to bring the cause. This ruling came 18 years after the last case that scrutinized the educational funding system in Illinois. The case, Committee v. Edgar (1994), tested the constitutional nature of the current funding system with regard to finding equity. In its decision, the court acknowledged the disparities in school spending among school districts but noted that it was only a goal for the state to eliminate these differences. The court did not find a requirement for equal or adequate funding but instead a system that was based upon a rational mechanism to distribute funds among the schools in the state. (Committee v. Edgar, 174 Ill.2d 1, 672 N.E.2d 1178, 1994).

www.iasbo.org

| 35

Investigating the Components of EBAM As a second step to continue the momentum, a study was designed to investigate if schools that implement components of the EBAM actually show improved student performance (Murphy, 2012). A study of this nature could then be used to inform policymakers of potential benefits and drive policy development. The study focused on Illinois elementary schools and used the ISAT composite score as

a measure of student achievement. Schools included in the sample were those that met the EBAM criteria displayed in Table 2. This was a quantitative study that selected only components of the EBAM that were required data reported to the ISBE (School Report Card, Teacher Service Record, Home District Enrollment Report and Kindergarten Program Data Report).

Table 2 Evidence-Based Adequacy Model Selection Criteria Description

Target

School Size

400 – 500

Class Size for Grades K, 1, 2 and 3

<17

Class Size for Grades 4â&#x20AC;&#x201C;8

<26

Full Day Kindergarten

>90% of total K enrollment

Preschool

>75% of average K-3 enrollment

In Illinois, only 16 of the 2,583 elementary and middle schools met the selection criteria. With such highly selective criteria, the concern exists that the demographic characteristics of the sample may be dissimilar to that of the population.

To address this potential concern, a Chi-Square test of independence was used to determine the degree to which the group of schools that met the selection criteria and those that did not meet the selection criteria were similar.

The analysis considered Percent White, Percent Black, Percent Hispanic, Percent LEP, Percent IEP, Percent Low Income, Mobility Rate and Attendance Rate. The analysis showed the two groups to be substantially similar. Only the Percent IEP students were proportionately dissimilar, where

36 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

there was a greater percentage of students with IEPs at schools that met the selection criteria.

Finding the sample similar to the population, the study moved forward to determine if the schools meeting the criteria had significantly higher student achievement. The short answer to this question is no. When comparing the composite ISAT scores of students attending schools that meet the selection criteria with students at schools that did not meet the selection criteria, there was statistically no difference (F(1,3013) = .043, p= .835). The percentage of students meeting or exceeding, as shown by the composite ISAT score, was not significantly different in a school that met the selection criteria as compared to the ISAT scores of schools that did not meet the selection targets.

ARTICLE / More Than a Funding Model

More Than School Size and Class Size At first glance, this finding lacks the promise of advancing a school funding reform in Illinois. The results should not, however, be misinterpreted to mean that school size, class size, full-day kindergarten and preschool programs do not have an impact on student achievement. These are each initiatives that research has shown to be successful in improving student achievement. Instead, this finding suggests that the questions being asked were but an initial attempt to assess a limited number of variables of a comprehensive reform program. While school size and class size are components of the model, this evidencebased model includes system wide initiatives.

The Evidence Base Adequacy Model of school funding represents a comprehensive school reform and here appears to be more than the sum of the parts. As such, the components such as embedded teacher professional development, school day tutoring programs, extended day programs and summer school programs were absent in this initial study. These are also variables that are occurring in schools but go unreported to the state, making it difficult to identify schools and districts that are engaging in such comprehensive school reforms.

While school size and class size are components of the model, this evidence-based model includes system wide initiatives.

The Work Ahead Now that the EFAB has proposed the Evidence Based Adequacy Model for school funding in Illinois, it is necessary to continue the work to determine the effectiveness of the funding model. This study was able to show that those components of this funding model that are reported to the state may not be sufficient to assess the

potential impact of an implementation of the EBAM. There is a need for studies that more fully test the impact of all of the components of the EBAM to show the potential of this reform model. These types of studies can serve as a trigger to bring about funding reform in the state where legal challenges have been unsuccessful.

www.iasbo.org

| 37

HEALTHCARE REFO Strategic Planning for 2013 and Beyond While most healthcare reform provisions apply to employers uniformly, school districts may have unique concerns or budgeting issues. Districts need to strategically plan now for upcoming costs, ongoing responsibilities and eligibility concerns that will impact them between now and early 2014.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO FOR 2013?

1. W-2 REPORTING: Make sure that if you filed more than 250 W-2’s for the prior tax year, that you are reporting the cost of health care on your employee’s W-2 issued in January 2013 or later.

2. WOMEN’S PREVENTIVE CARE: If your plan is not grandfathered, make sure your plan is amended to cover women’s preventive care services for plan years that begin on or after August 1, 2012.

3. FSA LIMITATION: Make sure your cafeteria plan is amended to limit medical flexible spending account plan salary reduction elections to $2,500 annually for each participant.

4. NOTICE OF STATE EXCHANGES: All employers will be required to use a model notice to tell their employees of the existence of the state exchanges.

This may pose a challenge to HR professionals when they have employees looking to them for advice or guidance on making coverage decisions. (This notice has been officially delayed until further guidance.)

5. ADDITIONAL MEDICARE TAX: Make sure you review your payroll process to assure withholding of the additional .9% Medicare Tax for individuals earning over $200,000. This applies to wages earned after 12/31/12.

WELLNESS INCENTIVES GIVE HEALTH PLANS A BOOST IN 2014 In 2014, Districts will be able to take advantage of greater incentives for participation in a wellness program based on a health status. For most, plans will be permitted a 30% differential in cost, but the government has expanded this to 50% for an incentive based on tobacco/non-tobacco use status.

COUNTING HOURS HAS BECOME VERY IMPORTANT! As of January 1, 2014, employers must offer health coverage to substantially all employees working 30 hours or more per week to avoid the possibility of being assessed an annual penalty of $2,000 per full time employee (working 30 or more hours per week).

If your district has positions that have variable hours (meaning that you cannot reasonably determine whether someone will exceed 30 hours per week on average – for example, a bus driver scheduled for 20 hours per week who may pick up many more hours on a random basis

38 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

driving for special events), you may take advantage of a measurement period of up to 12 months (a look back period) to determine health plan eligibility. If an employee meets the 30-hour threshold during the look back period, he or she will be eligible for coverage for a specified period of time going forward (a 6-to-12 month period).

School districts have unique issues with the fact that employees don’t all work a full 12-month period. School districts may not use non-working summer months to average overall hours.

ARTICLE

By Lisa Collins Carlson, J.D. AREA VICE PRESIDENT/COMPLIANCE CONSULTING GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES, INC

ORM UPDATE ARE SMALL DISTRICTS EXEMPT FROM PENALTY IN 2014?

If you employ fewer than 50 “full time equivalent” employees, you may be exempt from penalty if you do not provide coverage or do not provide “affordable” health care coverage to your employees. How do you determine if you have 50 or more? Count all of your employees who work 30 or more hours per week. Then count all of your part time employee hours and divide those hours by 30.

If you have fewer than 50 full time equivalent employees

and if you offer health care, it must comply with all of the mandates under the healthcare reform law (i.e., coverage for dependents to age 26, first dollar coverage of preventive care, no annual or lifetime limits on essential benefits, etc.). However, there is no requirement that you offer coverage or that such coverage is considered “affordable” and no penalty will be assessed if you fail to offer coverage or fail to offer affordable coverage.

WHAT FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS DO I NEED TO BUDGET FOR? There are a number of fees and taxes that are imposed under healthcare reform. The following is a brief summary of the items that will likely increase your health care costs (note, additional fees and taxes may also impact health plan costs other than those outlined below): 1. PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH FEE (COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH FEE): Group health plans will be assessed a fee based on the average number of covered lives in the plan during that year. The tax will sunset for plan years ending after 9/30/2019. The amount will be $1 per participant for plan years ending in the fiscal year 2013 and $2 per participant thereafter, indexed annually.

The tax will be paid by the insurer for insured plans and by the plan sponsor for self-funded plans.

2. REINSURANCE TAX: Beginning in 2014, insurance carriers and self-funded employer plans will be responsible for paying a fee of approximately $63 per participant (including dependents) on an annual basis for a period of three years to fund a pool to address carrier losses on state exchanges.

3. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX: A premium tax is imposed on insurers providing health insurance for any U.S. health risk during the calendar year in which the tax is due. The amount of the tax that will be collected is $8 Billion for 2014, $11.3 Billion for 2015, $11.3 Billion for 2016, $13.9 Billion for 2017 and $14.3 Billion for 2018. For 2019 and following years, the aggregate fee is indexed to the rate of premium growth. Each year, the fee will be apportioned based on each insurer’s relative market share of net premiums written for the prior year.

4. CADILLAC PLAN TAX: Effective in 2018, a 40% tax on premium equivalent costs over a specific threshold is expected to be assessed on insured or self funded health plans that are deemed to be benefits rich.

CONCLUSION Healthcare reform poses challenges to school district employers, particularly with regard to staff who were not traditionally offered health care coverage. Further, additional taxes and fees must be considered in making decisions and budgeting for future health care costs. You should consult

with your benefits advisor, broker or counsel if you need assistance in assessing eligibility and/ or potential future costs. It is critical to begin this process now as January 2014 is just around the corner.

www.iasbo.org

| 39

Overcoming Political Gridlock: Despite the current atmosphere in Washington, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will require cooperation and compromise across party lines.

40 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

ARTICLE

A Victim of the Gridlock Often Republicans and Democrats that attempt to reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan manner are ostracized by their fellow party members and penalized by leadership. The gridlock is so pronounced now that political analysts say it is worse than ever in modern history. One issue that has clearly been the victim of gridlock is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

The political gridlock has not always been this bad, so why wasn’t it reauthorized before? Under President George W. Bush, the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. The Democrats did not want to concede any changes to ESEA for Bush, a Republican. Bush did not push too hard for changes because that would have been admitting that NCLB was not as successful as he had hoped it would be. Fast forward to President Obama’s election. In that election, the Republicans gained control of the House and the Democrats retained control of the Senate but with fewer members than before. The Republicans in the House did not want to give the new President any wins for such an important issue as Education.

In 2012, much of federal legislative activity was on hold for a number of months leading up to the November General Election. The election changed very little about the layout of Washington, so it will be interesting to see if the political gridlock continues. The Republicans retained their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Democrats retained their majority in the U.S. Senate. And, of course, President Obama was reelected.

So, where are we now? Nothing has happened regarding this issue in almost a year. The only option of relief available to districts has been the State’s ability to apply for a waiver through the U.S. Department of Education, applicable

By Susan Hilton DIRECTOR/GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS (IASB)

beginning this school year, of some of the more onerous provisions of NCLB. The House decided in 2011 that they were going to reauthorize ESEA through several bills instead of one package. The Senate has opted for one package, which they introduced in October, 2011. Without cooperation and compromise, reauthorization will not get through as long as there is split party control.

House: Several Bills Approach the Issue In February, 2012, Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced and passed out of the Committee on a party line vote the Student Success Act (HR 3989) and Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (HR 3990).

These bills establish a new accountability system that delegates authority and flexibility to the states and local school districts and provides for adequate time to design, develop and implement strategies over a two-year time frame.

The legislation also: • Maintains student disaggregation and ensures accountability by requiring the continued measurement of student academic achievement and graduation rates disaggregated by the subgroups identified in NCLB. • Eliminates AYP/AMO and eliminates the unrealistic goal of 100% proficiency.

• Eliminates the “highly qualified teacher” definition and puts states in charge of designing a teacher evaluation system.

• Allows states to determine which schools are “failing” and how they should be fixed – no federally mandated models must be used.

• Provides funding in Title I to be used among and between these special population programs: Rural Education Achievement Program, Neglected/ Delinquent, Indian, Title III and Migrant programs.

www.iasbo.org

| 41

ARTICLE/ Overcoming Political Gridlock

The House introduced several other pieces of its package in 2011 and passed them out of Committee: HR 2218 – Charter Schools – This is the only piece that has passed out of the full House. School management groups opposed this legislation because it would foster the expansion of charter schools outside the traditional school board's authority, potentially reducing federal support to traditional public schools. It also established a new $300 million competitive grant program for states, charter school boards and governors, which siphons very scarce dollars away from mandated federal education programs.

HR 2445 – Funding Flexibility – School management groups supported this piece of legislation that would provide greater flexibility to states and local school districts in re-directing federal funds. This legislation passed out of the House Education and Workforce Committee back in July, 2011.

HR 1891 – Education Spending Act – School management groups opposed this legislation because it proposed significant reductions in federal funding to public education programs. This legislation passed out of the House Education and Workforce Committee back in May, 2011.

Senate: A Package Deal to Address NCLB The Senate bill, which was never assigned a bill number, passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in October, 2011. There are significant features of the bill that both support raising student achievement while eliminating serious counterproductive requirements contained in current law. Those include: • Setting goals based on college and career readiness while eliminating the current AYP system.

• Strengthening the use of growth as one element in a set of multiple measures for determining accountability rather than relying totally on cohort cut scores for that purpose.

• Focusing improvement strategies on the lowest

42 |

2013 Update Magazine / Spring 2013

performing schools while eliminating the inappropriate labeling and interventions for strong schools which under the current system inaccurately set up all schools for failure.

• Advancing the improvement of standards and assessments while not subjecting them to federal approval.

• Supporting improved teacher evaluation systems.

Although positive in direction, these broad components must be refined, including greater recognition for local flexibility and school district capacity, in order to fully achieve the desired goals.

What’s Next?

There has been no discussion of reauthorizing ESEA for some time. Now that the President is in office for another four years, those of us that advocate for public education are ever hopeful it is an issue that will rise to the forefront very soon. However, if the Republicans and Democrats cannot even compromise on fiscal cliff issues to prevent our country from plunging into an additional or further recession, the best we may have to hope for is the waiver process set up by the President through the U.S. Department of Education.

RESOURCES Defining Qualities in a Difficult Environment Whether it is the latest proration of General State Aid or what new mandates will pass through the legislative floor, the current climate of school finance in Illinois may seem full of chaos and uncertainty.

Great by Choice is a study of organizations who not only survived in an uncertain environment; they achieved 10X the average industry results. By applying the same leadership qualities that set them apart, you too can help your district or company thrive “despite it all.”

Not what they expected to find We are often led to believe that innovation, risk-taking, fast action, radical change and even good luck are what set apart great enterprises. As Collins and Hansen took a closer look at “10Xer” companies like Southwest Airlines and Microsoft, they were surprised to find that these principles did not exactly hold true.

Rather than more risk taking, they found the leaders to be more paranoid.

Instead of reacting to external pressure with radical internal changes, these companies actually changed less.

And it wasn’t innovation itself, but the ability to scale innovation that made the difference.

The key leadership behaviors that set the leaders of these organizations apart were:

• • •

Fanatic Discipline — Rising above immediate pressures and consistently acting in accordance with values and standards.

Productive Paranoia — Maintaining hyper vigilance in good times as well as bad.

Empirical Creativity — Conducting small, practical experiments and using those results to make bold, evidence-based moves.

By applying the same leadership qualities... you too can help your district or company thrive “despite it all.”

On My List Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck — Why Some Thrive Despite Them All

By Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen

Overview: In the face of uncertainty, there are defining qualities that can set apart your organization as “ the one that thrived”— and they may not be what you expect them to be.

In Great By Choice, Collins and Hansen summarize years of observation and research of organizations who rose above their counterparts in difficult and chaotic environments. The same behaviors that led these organizations to thrive can be applied and imitated by leaders in any industry.

From surviving to shaping The 10Xer companies in this book understood that unexpected events were bound to happen. They were constantly asking “What if?” and preparing so that they could act from a place of strength and flexibility.

By doing so, they were able to move away from “survival mode.” Rather than sitting back and waiting for the next big blow to hit, they built a culture that allowed them to shape the outcomes of events that were to come.

www.iasbo.org

| 43

Dig Deeper Into the Issues: Recommended Reading on School Legislation Staying up-to-date on the issues is key to your success as you navigate school legislation. Below are some resources that can help you do just that!

How a Bill Really Becomes a Law If you want a closer look at the legislative system in Illinois, there are many resources at your fingertips on the Illinois General Assembly Web site:

Constitution of the State of Illinois www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm

Rules of the Illinois House of Representatives www.ilga.gov/house/rules.asp

Rules of the Senate of the State of Illinois www.ilga.gov/senate/rules.asp

Speak Up! Refer back to last Spring’s feature UPDATE article to review tips and strategies on how to build good working relationships with your legislators. www.iasbo.org/files/UPDATE/SpeakUP.pdf

Get Social!

Twitter can be a great resource when you are looking for the most up-to-date information on pending legislation. Follow people or groups who are in the know to learn about what is happening in Springfield.

Throughout the year, we load the peer2peer Network with valuable documents that are presented to the Board of Directors and Delegate Advisory Assembly: Simply log in and visit the “Cal’s Corner” page under Resources.

Maneuvering Senate Bill 7 Dr. Richard Voltz (See his article on pg. 24) is a thought leader on educational leadership and the evaluation process. Take advantage of his expertise and links to online resources through:

Wikispaces

Blog

Twitter

http://illinoisasa.wikispaces.com

http://richvoltz.edublogs.org

Follow @rvoltz

The Illinois State Board of Education also offers tools and resources on implementing Senate Bill 7 through their Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Web page: www.isbe.net/peac

44 |

Update Magazine / Spring 2013

RESOURCES

A Closer Look at the Evidence Based Adequacy Model Recommended by Gregg Murphy. See his article, “More than a Funding Model” on pg. 34.

Illinois Education Funding Recommendations: A Report Submitted to the Illinois General Assembly Educational Funding Advisory Board (2011) www.iasbo.org/files/UPDATE/EFABreport.pdf

Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and doubling student performance Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative (2007) www.iasbo.org/files/UPDATE/SchoolAdequacyReport.pdf

Go-to Web Sites on Healthcare Reform

Recommended by Lisa Carlson. See her article, “Healthcare Reform Update” on pg. 38.

Employee Benefits Security Administration U.S. Department of Labor A comprehensive page that details the Affordable Care Act and other health care related laws and regulations and provides technical guidance and compliance assistance. www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform

Heathcare Reform Resource Page Gallagher Benefits Services, Inc. Practical resources include: a timeline of key changes for employers, on-demand webinars, regulatory guidance as well as other tools and resources. www.gbshealthcarereform.com

www.iasbo.org

| 45

THE FINAL WORD Speaking Up About School Legislation Dr. Jay Curtis Morrow Superintendent United Twp. HSD 30 jmorrow@uths.net

“We were able to make a significant change.”

I’ve been involved in a variety of ways. On the federal level, I meet annually with our Representative to discuss federal education policy such as No Child Left Behind, Race-to-the Top, IDEA, Title 1 and Perkins Vocational funding. On the state level, I have frequent communication with our state senator and representative.

At the local level, I also meet with mayors, city administrators, township officials and county officials. Recently, in working with the county treasurer, we were able to make a significant change on individual tax bills within a TIF district to distinguish the amount dispersed to the taxing bodies and to the TIF. We received many positive comments from taxpayers and used it as a teaching tool to demonstrate the impact of TIF to taxing bodies.

“Positive contact is crucial.”

Positive contact is crucial. School officials rarely get a call saying “keep up the good work.” Elected officials are the same. I make it a point to thank our officials for their work and not complain every time I see them. I think this helps when there is a truly significant issue that needs to be addressed and can practically be addressed by our local legislative caucus. Also, I think it is helpful to understand that you are not always going to agree with local elected leaders.

As a school leader, one must make a succinct, direct argument, with evidence and hope that your relationship building has paid off.

What lies ahead…

On the state level, a potential pension cost shift, as well as flat-lined GSA payments and pro-rated categorical payments will further tighten school budgets. The specter of sequestration for federally funded educational programs is very concerning. In the end, kids will suffer with fewer educational opportunities.

Also, school district implementation of the PERA/SB 7 will take an incredible amount of resources to fully implement. Unintended consequences of these massive educational reforms may surface in the form of legislative “fixes.”

| Update JIM46 WOMACK / NIUMagazine / Spring 2013

More about Jay Jay was a business teacher and coach and then an Assistant Superintendent for Business prior to being named Superintendent.

319 MEMBERS, 329 HOT TOPICS AND COUNTING.

Join the Hot Topics group and add to the conversation www.iasbo.org | 47 at p2p.iasbo.org

Illinois ASBO 62nd

Annual Conference MAY 15-17, 2013 WHAT ARE YOU

SHAPING? Plan how youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll develop your skills and knowledge, make connections within your professional community and take part in events that shape your Association.

Register and choose which events youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll attend at: www.iasbo.org/AC2013 48 |

Renaissance Schaumburg Hotel and Convention Center | Schaumburg, IL

Update Magazine / Spring 2013