President's Message

The keynote speaker at our Workshop 2011 in October was Jamie Vollmer, author of Schools Cannot Do It Alone: Building Public Support for America’s Schools. One of Vollmer’s themes could be summed up in this way: “Are we serious about unfolding the full potential of every child?”

That is a question that NJSBA has taken to heart, because we recognize that school boards are serious about the academic growth of every child, and because we, as an organization, are serious about giving board members the training and support they need to focus on student achievement.

Currently, NJSBA is developing a new strategic plan that will guide its future efforts in four key areas: Communications; Finance; Effective Governance; and Continued Relevance to Education Policy.

During a day-long strategic planning session in October, a representative group of officers, staff and members worked to revise the NJSBA mission statement to serve as the umbrella for our strategic plan goals. The new statement is still under development, but the group was in agreement on one important point: the new statement will place student achievement at the heart of our mission.

NJSBA is already being guided by this sentiment and is making student achievement a focus of our training programs. This fall, NJSBA launched a new version of the Governance III training, “Student Achievement.” To the third-year board members who attend the course, the program poses a critical question: “When was the last time your board meeting focused on the discussion of student achievement, rather than operational and financial concerns?” The new Governance III program gives board members information and resources that will enable them to begin a meaningful dialogue about curriculum, assessment and instruction.

Meanwhile, our affiliate organization, the Educational Leadership Foundation of New Jersey (ELFNJ), is sponsoring programs aimed at advancing student achievement through effective board leadership.

Next March, it will host its second program based on the Iowa Lighthouse Project. That effort identifies successful school board practices in high-performing districts. Watch for announcements in School Board Notes on how to register to attend that program. In addition, the foundation is coordinating the Sustainable Schools project, endorsed by the NJSBA Board of Directors in September. This research effort will address the intelligent use of public dollars for “green school” renovations and the ways that facility improvements can expand math and science offerings and student achievement. In March, ELFNJ will also partner with Leadership New Jersey to present a new program to build the skills of student leaders and school board leaders.

What can school board members do to advance student achievement in their district?

First and foremost, be an education leader. Devote as much of your board meeting as possible to the discussion of policy that will advance student growth and learning.

Second, be informed. Read NJSBA’s weekly education news report, School Board Notes. Listen to our Internet radio program, Conversations on New Jersey Education. Our guests have ranged from education reform critic Diane Ravitch to Gov. Chris Christie and Senate President Steve Sweeney.

Third, be involved. Attend your county school boards association meetings. It’s an excellent way to learn about the trends and issues affecting public school governance in your area.

Fourth, be an advocate. Join NJSBA’s EAGLEs – the Education Advocates Grassroots Lobbying Effort (www.njsba.org/eagle). Take action at the community level, whether it involves approving your own version of the sample resolutions posted on NJSBA’s website (www.njsba.org/resolutions.html) or reaching out directly to your legislative representatives. When lawmakers hear from the school boards in the communities they represent, the message is strong and persuasive.

Back to top

What School Boards Stand For

I’ve spent 25 years either working on a school board, or working for school boards. So I know school boards, and I know what you stand for.

That’s why each of us at NJSBA is proud to serve you. It’s our role to safeguard – and promote the importance of – local school boards.

However, I’m not convinced that we’re always effective in communicating to the public the value of school boards.

In fact, we heard some of that sentiment at Workshop in October. When Acting Education Commissioner Cerf visited Workshop, he mentioned many positive things. He acknowledged the hard work of teachers, administrators, and school boards. He got a big round of applause when he said “There are districts where the best thing we could do is leave them alone.” He noted how New Jersey is a high-achieving state – a fact that was reinforced just recently when the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, ranked New Jersey among the top two states in reading, and among the top four in math.

But some of the local board members who heard the commissioner speak posted comments on the news stories about his remarks. It seems they took exception to the acting commissioner’s comment that the reason NJSBA exists is to be a political force. And they took exception to the acting commissioner’s suggestion that the Department of Education is the only statewide organization that represents children.

It’s true that there are organizations representing teachers, principals and administrators. And they all have a financial stake in the process.

There are many special interests that stand to profit from changes in education law. That is reflected in the special interest money we see going into the political system, whether it’s PAC money from labor unions, campaign contributions from companies that want to turn schools into a business, or massive spending by hedge fund managers to promote vouchers.

New Jersey spends an estimated $25 billion a year on public education. Now, let me ask you: As a board member, how much of that $25 billion is in your wallet?

You are not compensated – financially, you get nothing. That’s because you’re not doing it for financial gain, you’re doing it for the love of your community. You’re doing it because you want to make a difference in the life of a kid.

As far as the other misperception – that NJSBA is solely a political organization – well, that comment upsets me, too. Don’t get me wrong. There are major changes being proposed by our legislators including changes to teacher evaluations and tenure. You bet we’re going to be at the table in the political arena. And we’ll be fighting for the advancement of public education every step of the way.

But as school board members know, NJSBA is more than an advocacy group. Our experts in school law, labor relations and policy provide guidance and direct assistance every day to school boards across the state. Through our School Board Notes and School Leader publications we get important information to your mailbox and your in-box. Most weeknights (and plenty of weekends), our field service team is out conducting training and working one-on-one with boards.

In the last year or two we’ve heard criticism of the institution and the role of school boards. They’ve been described, most memorably by one education commentator as an “anachronism and an outrage.”

But in spite of those complaints about local control and local school boards, I believe that here in New Jersey, nothing speaks louder than success. Consistently being rated among the top states in the nation is my definition of success.

That’s the message we want to spread to all the naysayers, because at NJSBA, we’re your voice. And that’s my view of school boards and school board members: You aren’t just valuable. You’re vital.

Back to top

New Jersey Board Member Criminal Background Checks: $388,000 Schools Don’t Have

By Scott Warnock

I have been a volunteer New Jersey school board member since 2004. This year, I was informed that a new law requires all New Jersey board of education members to undergo background checks. Then I learned that included fingerprinting. Then I learned the process would cost $81.

I’m angry. You might think that I’m angry because this process will cost me $81. No. Like the two boards that I serve on, many, maybe most, school boards have created resolutions to reimburse their members for these background checks. I’m also not angry that schools are reimbursing their volunteers – I voted “yes” to those resolutions, even though I decided not to collect my $81. But I am angry that lawmakers put the schools and us board of education volunteers in this position in the first place.

The New Jersey School Board Association says there are 4,800 school board members, so this initiative could cost schools a stealthy $388,000. To make this clear, when I say “schools,” what I mean is “taxpayers.” If you’ve been following the news, New Jersey is cash-strapped. How many programs did your school cut last year because of funding deficits?

Ah, you say, but these are background checks. Who could speak out against the humble background check? I don’t want any embezzlers, pedophiles, or drug dealers on my school board. I don’t want them living next to me, delivering my mail, or running my mutual funds either. But the proliferation of background checks for all kinds of jobs is a sign of our overly-insured, overly-litigious, overly-cautious, no-fault society. Background checks have become untouchable, as we’ve been lulled into believing such screening will make everything safe.

The overuse of background checks is basically a regulatory effort to do the impossible: Protect ourselves from the future. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in his book The Black Swan, voices frustration at what he calls “the scandal of prediction”: “... in spite of the empirical record we continue to project into the future as if we were good at it.” Along the way, Taleb quotes Yogi Berra, who once said, “It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

A background check will identify repeat offenders, and we do want mechanisms to keep certain offenders out of certain positions, like preventing sex offenders from being teachers, coaches, or priests. But a wide blanket of costly background checks cloaks the reality that screening for past offenses will not prevent future actions.

I’m also a volunteer wrestling coach, and I needed a background check as of two years ago to continue in that role. This particular check made sense to me considering my role as a coach and the nominal cost it imposed on us volunteers: about $15.

But for school board members? Are they looking for crimes against children? As a volunteer school board member, there is always a piece of furniture, usually a table but sometimes a podium, between me and any children. The NJSBA itself says, “Fulfilling the responsibilities of school board office does not require an individual board member to have contact with public school students. In fact, outside a legally constituted meeting, an individual board member has no more authority than that of any other citizen.”

Will the law weed out embezzlers? Would-be embezzlers would be better off heading up to Wall Street rather than trying to pluck funds from a school, which has a sizable group of ethical volunteers and paid administrators (who already undergo background checks) overseeing and double-checking financial decisions.

Will the law catch drug dealers? I can see drug kingpins plotting about how lucrative it would be to get elected to that sweet spot on the local board of ed. Their muscle can keep an eye on the corners while they attend the monthly meetings.

This $81 background check is a sizable cost to New Jersey schools for a negligible return. School board members are very low risk to commit any of the crimes they are screened for in their role. This $81 background check is not an understandable sacrifice on your way to the big paycheck and glory of school board service; we’re volunteers who get a slice of cake or a cookie once in a while. And this $81 background check is an irresponsible burden to place, ultimately, on taxpayers.

I was so frustrated and angry about this law that I contemplated resigning from school board service. Then I thought maybe I just would not comply until I got booted. But a certain underlying spirit led me to volunteer for my local school, and who, if anyone, would suffer for my resistance? The schools. My stance would cause aggravation for the administration and my board of ed colleagues. I’m a volunteer, so I stuck my fingertip on the virtual ink pad so I can keep trying to help out. And it’s that attitude that makes people like me, and our schools, easy marks for $81 fees that will further delude us into thinking we’re protected from, well, everything.

---

Scott Warnock, PhD, is a member of the Riverton and Palmyra boards and an associate professor of English at Drexel University. He can be reached at sjwarnock@comcast.net. A version of this column was published as a letter in the Burlington County Times and at the website http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com.

Back to top

What Board Members Want to Know

NJSBA’s Field Service Representatives have answers to frequently asked questions

By the NJSBA Field Service Staff

NJSBA’s Field Service Representatives (FSRs) function as every board’s own consultant on matters ranging from board governance to student achievement. They are a little like the old-fashioned family doctors that made house calls, bringing with them a wealth of resources, recommendations and wisdom.

Every day the FSRs speak with board members – by telephone, via email, at board meetings and retreats and at training programs. Below are some of the questions they’ve heard in recent weeks, and their advice.

How do I get my board to focus on improving student achievement rather than focusing on more operational types of issues?

There are a few easy steps you can take to put student achievement front and center in everyone’s mind: ask the board president or the entire board to put a teaching or learning topic on each agenda. This encourages the administration and the board members to concentrate on one or more academic-focused topics each month. Ask for quarterly updates on the district goals that involve improving student achievement. Always tie decision-making to the district goals and the goal of improving student achievement, whether decisions involve facilities or finance. Always ask: How does this impact student learning? These six words are a powerful tool to make sure your district maintains the proper focus.

How can we get parents more involved in their children’s education?

Parent involvement has become a frequent topic in schools and at the board table. Families seem busier than ever juggling work, family life, and their children’s activities. School officials often find it difficult to successfully involve a large number of families in the school community. It seems everyone is asking, “what can we do differently that will encourage parents and guardians to get involved in their child’s education?” District officials first need to define what “parent involvement” means to them and the outcome they envision for their school community. With the changes in family structure and demands, schools need to look for non-traditional ways of gaining parent support.

Understanding the families of the children we serve can go a long way to breaking down the barriers that lie between school and parents.

The primary focus a district can take is to get to know its parents and provide opportunities for parents to know them. Establishing a strong connection from the first day of school can lay the foundation for building a lasting relationship with parents. Teachers are a district’s first line for public relations and the first step can be a personal phone call to a parent in the beginning of the year to say “hello, I’d like to get to know you…we are going to be partners this year helping your child.” It is important to understand that parents come with differing perceptions of education. Some families pose particular challenges, and positive outreach from the school is crucial. When a systematic mission of the district is creating opportunities to help parents understand the connection between their involvement and their student’s success, sustained relationships will develop between home and school.

Building family support is a detailed process unique to every district and the students they serve. NJSBA’s FSRs can assist a board of education in creating a framework that encourages positive parent involvement.

If a board does a strategic plan, how can it hold the superintendent accountable for achieving the goals of that plan?

The goals of the strategic plan must become part of the accountability system for the board. The board uses the strategic plan goals in their annual goal setting. The superintendent uses the action plan developed in the planning process and reports to the board (we suggest on a monthly basis) what progress is being made towards those goals. The board should revisit those goals annually to update them and to make any course corrections. The goals are also used in the annual evaluation that the board does of its superintendent.

Our board uses committees to examine issues and make recommendations but lately we’ve felt that everyone else on the board isn’t getting all the information they need from committees to make decisions. What can we do?

The idea of having board committees is that they can share the work of the board, so that the board can come together in a full board meeting (typically the first meeting of the month) to share what they’ve learned, and with recommendations for any action that needs to be taken. When this system works, everyone should feel comfortable taking action at the “regular” meeting of the board, so that this meeting is relatively brief. Unfortunately, sometimes committees tend to stray into actual decision-making for the district. They come to expect that “decisions” – rather than recommendations – that come from their meetings should be adopted outright. Then other board members feel left out of making important decisions.

It seems that this is happening with greater frequency – board members want to fully vet all the issues at full meetings of the board. And when this happens, what is the point of members attending both committee meetings, then a redundant board meeting?

In these cases, we have recommended boards adopt a “committee of the whole” approach, which is, in effect, what they are already doing. At this meeting, all the pending issues and decisions are discussed such that all the members get the same information- and the same time—and can ask questions.

Both approaches require discipline – committees require that board members trust each other, and committee meetings of the whole require that issues aren’t overly debated so that the meetings run to the early hours of the morning. Some boards are hesitant to try the board of the whole approach – probably 90 percent of boards operate through committees. But many high-functioning boards operate as a committee of the whole because they feel it is more efficient, and tends to discourage micro-management. The recent increase in interest in this may be due to higher turnover on boards, and turnover in administrators.

Our board meetings go on far too long. How can we make them shorter?

There is no concrete answer on how long a board meeting should last. But if your meetings often extend into the wee hours of the morning, it’s time to review what is taking so much time. Are you meeting frequently enough? Many districts operate with two meetings per month, a work session to review information followed by a regular business meeting a week or two later. Are board members knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities, or are they spending time discussing items that fall under district operations and are the responsibility of the administration? If the answer is the latter, the board needs to make sure their discussion on agenda items is limited the scope of their responsibility. This may take a bit of time to work through. Your Field Service Representative can assist you with a meeting audit to determine challenge areas and assist with getting your meetings back on track.

What questions should I ask of applicants for the superintendent’s job?

There are two good places to look when formulating questions to ask an applicant for your superintendent’s position. First, familiarize yourself with the job description for the position – what does it say are the duties expected of the superintendent? Next, determine what issues are either ongoing or will be coming up that the new superintendent will have to handle. Using this information, you can formulate questions relevant to your district and determine if the applicant has the experience or knowledge to deal with those issues. For example, you know that demographics are changing in your district and your enrollment has been declining. This will be something the new superintendent will need to address and you can formulate questions around this issue – Do you have experience working in a district with declining enrollment? Were you responsible for the plan to close schools in the district? How did you construct those plans? Were they successful? What, if anything, did you learn and would you change anything about the plan?

When should our board go into executive session?

The Open Public Meetings Law (or “Sunshine Law”) requires boards of education (and other public bodies) to allow members of the public to attend their meetings and also requires them to discuss most of their business in front of the public.

In a very limited number of specific situations, the board may exclude the public from portions of a meeting known as the “executive” or “closed session.” Before adjourning to closed session, the board is required to adopt a resolution indicating generally what matters they will be discussing during closed session and when these discussions will be disclosed to the public.

Items that may be legally discussed in closed session include:

• matters considered confidential by federal law, state statue, or court rule;

• matters in which the release of information would impair the receipt of federal funds;

• material which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of individual privacy if disclosed;

• collective bargaining agreements or other discussion of the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement, including negotiations leading up to such an agreement;

• matters involving the purchase, lease or acquisition of real property with public funds, the setting of banking rates or investment of public funds where disclosure of such matter could adversely affect the public interest;

• tactics and techniques used in protecting the safety and property of the public and investigations of violations or possible violations of the law;

• pending or anticipated litigation or contract negotiations in which the public body is or may become a party,

• matters falling within the attorney-client privilege;

• personnel matters related to the employment, appointment or termination of current or prospective employees, unless all individuals who could be adversely affected request, in writing, that the matter be discussed at a public meeting;

• deliberations of a public body occurring after a public hearing that may result in the imposition of a fine upon an individual or the suspension or the loss of license or permit belonging to an individual.

---

The NJSBA Field Service team, along with contact information, is listed in the box below.

Back to top

Beware of the ‘Delayed Settlement Implementation’ Time Bomb

Postponing a settlement implementation can end up costing your district more than you think

By Robert Greitz

Let’s face it: Labor negotiations in the current economic environment are tough. Boards have little money and they are faced with a strict 2 percent tax levy cap. The cost of employee health insurance keeps rising, and the public outcry over the costs associated with public education casts a long shadow over all negotiations.

In many cases, these complications leave board members exasperated and feeling hopeless as to how a settlement can be reached with a minimum of acrimony and rancor. Don’t forget that negotiations with school employee groups require both sides to agree on the settlement. Having a third party issue a binding decision is not an option.

With all of that in mind, NJSBA’s Labor Relations department has noticed an interesting trend: the teachers unions are proposing a “great deal” for the board. Specifically, unions have been proposing either (1) delaying implementation of a settlement or (2) only paying half of a settlement for part of the contract period.

In making such a proposal, the union typically asserts that it will actually save the board money. Negotiations committees, of course, should always be skeptical when the union says that its proposal will be “better” for the board. But particularly with delayed or partial implementation proposals, in many cases the math simply does not support the union’s assertions.

Costing out the proposal To understand that the financial realities of the union’s proposal, the board must actually cost out the proposal. In many instances, these calculations will demonstrate that the board will actually wind up spending more than it can afford, with problematic long-term implications.

To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at an actual union proposal, which we shall refer to as “District X.” (Note that all identifying characteristics of this district have been changed to protect its identity.) In District X, the parties had been negotiating for quite some time, and started the new school year with an expired contract. The board was willing to settle at a 2 percent increase in each of the three years (with some givebacks on the union’s side that concerned the school schedule). The union rejected the board’s proposal, maintaining its insistence that its members receive an annual increase of 4 percent in each year.

During one of the sessions, the union came forth with a proposal of 3.5 percent in each of the three years, but stated that the board only needed to pay “half of it – or 1.75 percent in each year.” To demonstrate the beneficial nature of its proposal, the union showed the board the chart below.

Based upon this chart, the union insisted that its proposal would save the board money. However, what the union’s chart failed to take into account, and what the board almost overlooked, was the cumulative nature of the 3.5 percent increase. Simply put, the union was not proposing a 1.75 percent increase in each year, it was proposing that the board only pay half of that year’s 3.5 percent settlement in each year.

UNION-PROVIDED SETTLEMENT CHART
BASE YEAR TOTAL = $701,293
	3.5% Settlement	2.0% Settlement	1.75% Settlement
Year One	$725,838	$715,319	$713,566
Year Two	$751,243	$729,625	$726.053
Year Three	$777,537	$744,218	$738,759
3-Year Cumulative Increase	$76,244	$42,925	$37,466
	10.88%	6.12%	5.34%

While it is true that in the first year the board will only see an actual cost increase of 1.75 percent, all salary guides created would be based upon a 3.5 percent settlement.

This means that in the second year the board will have to pay out the remaining portion of the first year settlement, plus half of the second year’s 3.5 percent increase (for an effective full 3.5 percent in the first half of the second year.) The same reasoning would apply in the third year. This delayed implementation inflates the salary base each and every year.

The following chart will illustrate the costs to the board comparing a 2 percent settlement to the union’s proposal of paying only half of the 3.5 percent settlement in each year.

BASE YEAR TOTAL = $701,293
	Real 2% Settlement	Union-Proposed Half of 3.5% Settlement
Year One	$715,319	$713,566
Year Two	$729,625	$738,540
Year Three	$744,218	$764,390
3-Year Cumulative Increase	$42,925	$63,098
	6.12%	8.997%

This means that the Base Year total of $701,293 would increase in Year One to $713,566, followed by an increase in Year Two to $738,540, with Year Three increasing to $764,390. Plus, there is the additional half of the 3.5 percent increase in the third year which must be accounted for going forward.

As illustrated above, in most cases, these “only pay us half the increase” or “delayed implementation” proposals from the union are nothing more than a sugar-coated effort to increase the base year and get around the absolute need to fix any problems with the existing salary guide, such as balloons or a high cost of increment.

While there are some ways in which this type of proposal can actually work for the board, in most of the proposals NJSBA has seen from the local employee associations, such a proposal occurs when the cost of increment exceeds the settlement rate, or when the union wants the board to engage in some sort of fiction toward the public that a lower-than-agreed-upon increase was given. This does nothing more than “delay” the increase.

While the salary guides ultimately created will typically “cost correctly,” as they will be within the settlement rate, there are problems for the board as the cost of increment going forward is not corrected and the final year “base” amount is much higher when negotiations start for the next contract.

Next Round Negotiation Problems Furthermore, these types of proposals also set the board up for a problem in the next round of negotiations. In this scenario (assuming no breakage issues, where higher-paid employees retire and are replaced by lower-paid employees) the board will be using the amount of $777,537 as the “base year” amount off of which it begins the next round of negotiations. This means that even before the cost of increment is considered, in the next round of bargaining the board must come up with $13,148 (1.72 percent). This is the minimum starting point for salaries. So even if the board manages to settle at zero in the first year of the next contract, its costs will increase at least 1.72 percent simply to pay the existing employees as they move up the salary guide.

What is the reason the union is seeking to “delay” the implementation of the increase? In most cases it is because the cost of increment is high and/or there are structural problems with the guides (such as balloons). The union holds the salary guide sacrosanct, often voicing statements like “nothing can ever be done to change the structure” or “nothing can delay our dedicated staff from reaching maximum as fast as possible.” The board shouldn’t be swayed by such arguments; while the race to the salary guide maximum may be of paramount concern to the union, it’s of no concern to the board.

The bottom line is that there is not only a 2 percent cap which severely restricts the board’s finances, but there is also increasing public pressure being exerted on boards to hold the line on employee salaries. Many boards do not want and cannot afford a high settlement. If the cost of increment is higher than the board’s goal for a settlement rate, the guide needs to be restructured, period. (This means using strategies such as possible step insertions or step freezes.) The union does not “own” the guide and it must come to grips with the reality of the situation – this is not 2004 anymore. The guide problems will not “work themselves out” and the salary guide has to be fixed, or at least moved in the right direction. A salary guide can be created within the confines of any settlement (even one below the cost of increment) without the need to “delay the implementation of the increase.”

In short, in many cases the union’s proposed delayed implementation not only increases the union’s expectations in the next round of bargaining, but can cause severe financial problems going forward. In the example above, the board will somehow have to find the extra money to meet the costs of the delayed implementation and the salary guide before it even comes to any settlement number in the next round of negotiations. In many cases, this will result in large first-year settlements or other gimmicks and tricks.

Some union leaders seem to think that our current harsh economic environment will improve, the financial limitations on boards will disappear in the near future and there is no need to worry about the cost of increment or any of these problems. There is no evidence to support either of these arguments, as the 2 percent tax levy cap and other financial constraints appear to be here to stay for a long while.

With that in mind, boards cannot put off fixing the problems by “delayed implementation of the increase,” as it will only make the problems worse in the future. Boards must be vigilant in analyzing the actual costs of any union proposal and be leery of any proposal that delays implementation of the increase, because in many cases these types of proposals have a financially debilitating impact at the expiration of the contact being negotiated, and adversely affect each year of the agreement.

Delayed settlement implementation proposals are a little like a time bomb that has a long fuse. The true costs aren’t avoided, they’re just delayed slightly. When these costs explode, they make a big financial bang.

---

Robert Greitz is a consultant/negotiator in NJSBA’s Labor Relations Department. He can be reached at rgreitz@njsba.org.

Back to top