County Funding for I-SS

According to an article in Sunday’s Record & Landmark, Iredell County will fund I-SS 29.2 million dollars for the upcoming school year. This is several million dollars less than what was requested by I-SS. I am including a copy of the I-SS request below. The article quotes I-SS Chief Financial Officer Melissa Wike as stating that for this fiscal year the district was given 104.8 million dollars from the state. Thus the county funds do make up a significant part of the overall school budget. It should be noted that I-SS has much flexibility in how it spends the county funds.

The Record & Landmark articles also quotes Brady Johnson as stating that I-SS will wait to see how the state budget pans out before making any concrete decision about going forth with I-SS's contingency plan. The contingency plan includes a 2 percent pay furlough for administrators for the second straight year; the elimination of 25 positions through attrition; making Student Resource Officer positions 10 months instead of 11 months; decreasing local supplements for classified and certified teachers by 2 percent; and reducing the central office budget by 19 percent.

You can use the link below to access the web version of the Record & Landmark article about the school budget.

District will wait on state budget

One item in the I-SS proposed county budget is $8,445,946.32 for Supplements, Longevity, and Annual Leave. Two percent of that amount is $168,918.93. That means that two percent of the teacher supplements would be less than 168.9 thousand dollars. Certainly I-SS can make cuts without taking away from teachers’ supplements. In the same proposed budget there is over 3.1 million dollars for Instructional Support. Does this include the funds for the IFs and the supporting cast at the ADR center? If so, there is certainly some money that could be cut in that budget.

I-SS Proposed County Budget

Click on the image to enlarge it.

Put the IFs Back in the Classroom

Shown below is the Letter to the Editor that I submitted to the Record & Landmark regarding the IFs. It was printed in today's edition of the paper. I am including it here for those of you who do not subscribe to the paper. If you compare the letter below to the one printed in the paper you will see they only made a few minor changes. The paper did add the headline included below in green.

Iredell-Statesville Schools cannot afford to keep non-teaching teachers in the district's payroll

To the Editor:

A recent Record and Landmark article detailed the cuts in the proposed 2010 – 11 state budget as regards to education and the response of the Iredell-Statesville School administration to those cuts. As part of his response Superintendent Brady Johnson is quoted as saying that about 50 I-SS employees will retire at the end of the current school year and that the district will fill the 25 most critical vacancies and absorb the rest through attrition. This is supposed to save the district one million dollars.

The May I-SS Personnel Report recently approved by the School Board states that the two current Instructional Facilitator (IF) coaches are being promoted from interim status to permanent status. This indicates that I-SS is going to continue with the IF program. This is a program that has questionable value. The recent teacher survey indicated that many teachers do not find the IF program beneficial.

There are about 35 Instructional Facilitators currently employed by the district. These IFs should be moved back into the classroom to replace teachers who are retiring or resigning. This could save the school system another million dollars in salaries and benefits. If these IFs are truly exemplary teachers let their classrooms serve as models for other teachers. This would be a much better utilization for these individuals. As it is now, the IFs spend much of their time in meetings. They should be in classrooms instructing the students. I-SS can no longer afford to pay 35 teachers not to teach.

May Personnel Report

Update: The May 2010 Personnel Report is now included below.

I requested a copy of the Personnel Report that was approved by the Board at the May 10^th meeting. Of course it includes things such as Resignations and Retirements, but there were two sections that I found particularly interesting.

The first was the section listed: Approval of Administrative Appointments. Under this section there were a number of administrators listed along with their appointed positions. The list included principals, assistant principals, and Central Office administrators. The Central Office administrators on the list were Marty Moore, Jed Stus, Mary Anne Karriker, Kelly Marcy, Patricia Campbell, Dale Ellis, and Pam Schiffman.

In examining this list I noted that most, if not all, were being appointed to the position that they currently hold. I assumed that this meant that these individuals were being given a new or extended contract. To make sure I sent an e-mail to Dawn Creason asking her for clarification.

Today, I received an e-mail from Dale Ellis in which he stated that his contract and the contracts for Larry Rogers and Pam Schiffman were being extended. He stated that the others on the list had expiring contracts that were renewed and extended. In addition, Mr. Ellis also stated that there were no salary adjustments associated with any of the renewals and/or extensions.

I can understand extending the contract of an individual who is doing a good job in a valuable position. But why were the contracts for Dale Ellis and Pam Schiffman extended when they were not up for renewal? That makes no sense in this economy. If either one was threatening to leave I would say let him or her go.

And, speaking of the economy and all the cutbacks in the classrooms, since the contracts for Marty Moore and Jed Stus were expiring why not just eliminate those positions and reduce the Central Office administrative staff. There are already too many administrative positions at the Central Office.

Earlier I mentioned that there were two sections within the May Personnel Report that I found interesting. The second on was the section titled Approval of Administrative Transfers. In this section it was reported that Sherrard Lewis was being transferred from Interim 6-12 IF Coach to 6-12 IF Coach and that Kim Rector was being transferred from Interim K-5 IF Coach to K-5 IF Coach. I guess that Brady Johnson has decided to continue the IF program. What happened to the results of the teacher survey? With a number of teachers retiring or resigning at the end of the current school year the IFs could have been placed back in the classroom and saved the school system a significant sum of money.

I guess it is just ‘business as usual’ at the Central Office.

May 2010 Personnel Report.

Click on an image of one of the pages to enlarge that page.

Buddy Hemric's Letter to the Editor

The following is Buddy Hemric's 'Letter to the Editor' that was published in Saturday's Record and Landmark. Buddy has given me permission to post the letter. The wording is a little different from that which was printed in the paper. This is the version that Buddy provided to me and I assume it is what he provided to the newspaper. The Record and Landmark reserves the right to edit submitted letters and in my experience they exercise that right quite liberally.

This past year the ISS school system lost 50 teachers due to retirement or teachers leaving the system. Because of budget cuts at the state & local levels of government these teachers were not replaced. This has caused an increase in class size to 31 pupils per class. There are 35 teachers in the system that do not teach in a classroom. They are called IF Models. I.F. stands for "Instructional Facilitators". What is wrong with this picture?

Of the 35 IFs I found salaries for 26 of them ranging from $36,670 to $63,453. I must note this is an old list and may not be exact. The total cost of these "non-teachers" on this scale is $1,275,475.00. That will average out to $49,056.73 per "non-teacher". With 35 on the payroll at this average these "non-teachers" cost the taxpayers $1,724,086 dollars per year with no return for our kids, and 50 teacher positions left empty.

Buddy Hemric

Message From and To Mr. Johnson

Recently I sent Mr. Johnson an e-mail that dealt with a couple issues. One of those issues was the raises received by the Central Office administrators who were recently moved into interim positions. The following is the response I received from Mr. Johnson regarding that part of my e-mail.

Thank you Paul. The information about the salaries has caused a lot of dissension at a time when I was really trying to build consensus. I sure wish there was a way that I could convince everyone to pull in the same direction.

Brady Johnson, Interim Superintendent

I then replied to Mr. Johnson based on the comments and suggestions given on this blog as well as comments and suggestions I have received in e-mails from teachers and from speaking directly with a number of teachers. The text of my reply is given below.

Brady,

I understand your justification behind the salary increases for the Central Office personnel who were moved into the interim positions. However, you know that, due to many factors including the cuts in the state budget, teachers and other I-SS staff have also had to take on new responsibilities but they were not given salary increases. I think it is fair to say that, for many, the perception is that teachers and others did not get the raises due to the fact they did not receive fancy new titles to go along with their new responsibilities.

That being said, I do think that you can convince everyone to pull in the same direction but it is going to take more than words. You mentioned at the citizen's meeting that you wanted to take some of the pressure off of the teachers and that you were lighten up and tweak the application of the Baldrige plan. From what I have heard, that is not occurring, at least not at a number of schools. There only a few new teachers this year. That means that most of the teachers are quite familiar with the application of the Baldrige model. I recommend that you give teachers the freedom to decide how much of the Baldrige model they want to apply to their classes. Contrary to what Dr. Holliday thought, the majority of the I-SS teachers do know how to teach and they need the freedom and the time to implement a teaching style that best meets the needs of their students. You said that you expect the principals to know their teachers. Thus they should know if a teacher is struggling and be able to provide help as needed. Don't force remediation on teachers who do not need it.

The IFs can best be used to provide help as needed, not to pound teachers with all the Baldrige ideology and acronyms. At the citizen's meeting you also said you also wanted to change to role of the IFs. But apparently that has not changed either. You said that you wanted the IFs to be a true resource like the Lead Teacher that worked with you and your teachers when you were a principal. I am afraid that the only way that is going to happen is if there is a radical change in the IF model. Too many teachers see the IFs as they have seen them in the last couple of years and apparently many IFs want to continue doing what they have done in the past. I think you have to sever the direct connection between the IFs and the Central Office. Keep the IFs in the schools all day every day and have them report directly to the principal. They can meet after school like the teachers do. Another idea is to change the title from IF back to Lead Teacher. There is a lot of baggage associated with the IF title.

Again, let teachers teach. You said that principals and other school staff are at there to support the teachers as they enable the students to learn. Make sure everyone knows that. You said you see the PLC as a valuable teacher resource. I agree, but let the teachers meet and work together and share ideas without the IF getting in the way. If the teachers need the help of the IF/Lead Teacher, they can ask for that help. Why do the teachers have to keep a PLC notebook and turn it in to the IF? Let the teachers set the structure of the PLC to meet their needs not the needs of the IF.

I know that I do not have your experience as a public school teacher and administrator. Certainly my experience is that of a College instructor, although I did earn a High School teaching certificate when I was in undergraduate school. But, I have been married to Pam for 30 years and she has kept me informed over the years of various school procedures. In addition, we have a number of friends who are I-SS teachers and I have also been communicating with a number of teachers via the Citizen's group, my blog, and e-mail. Therefore, I did want to share my thoughts with you based on those contacts.

I know that as interim superintendent there is only so much you can do and that you already have a lot on your plate. From what I have seen and heard, teachers and other I-SS teachers are willing to work with you but they have to know that you are willing to work with them and that the attitude of the Central Office has changed.

Thank you,

Paul Klaene

If you also wish to send a message to Mr. Johnson his e-mail address is listed below.

bjohnson@iss.k12.nc.us

Report of the Meeting with Mr. Johnson

The meeting with Mr. Brady Johnson went very well. It was well attended both by teachers and citizens. Mr. John Rogers, School Board Member, and Mr. Larry Rogers, SHS Principal, were also in attendance.

The meeting started with Mr. Johnson telling everyone a little bit about his background in education as a teacher and as an administrator. He then went on to tell about the start of school and his goals as interim superintendent. As part of that he related some of the achievements of the school system such as the ABC scores, the schools that met AYP, and SAT scores. Mr. Johnson also told how the I-SS scores related to other schools in the state. Overall, I-SS is doing well. For example, with respect to the SAT scores, I-SS ranks 12^th in the state.

Mr. Johnson also talked of the principal’s focus group that was held last spring and that the three main issues brought forth from that session were inconsistent communications within the school system, the IFs were not evaluated by the principals, and that the Central Office did not value the input of the principals. To address those and other issues, Mr. Johnson said he asked the principals to meet and evaluate a number of school processes. He said that one of the processes that principals recommended fixing was the role of the IFs. Mr. Johnson then related some of the changes he put in place to do that such as having the IFs report to the principals and that the IFs will now be away from their schools only a half-day a week for ‘training’ instead of one full day a week.

Of course, Mr. Johnson also spoke of the Baldrige plan and that he saw the Baldrige system as one that aligns everyone in an organization so that everyone is working together toward a common goal. He also added that in the past the application of the Baldrige plan has been somewhat heavy handed at that there were plans in place to take some of the pressure off teachers. Speaking of teachers, Mr. Johnson said that he sees teachers as partners and that every other employee at a school should be working to support the teachers.

In addition, Mr. Johnson described the tentative plans for the search for the new superintendent. He said the process would start Tuesday at the I-SS Committee of the Whole Meeting when a representative of the NC School Boards Association will inform the I-SS Board of their obligations regarding the search procedure. Mr. Johnson added that there would be advisory meetings held at each High School during which the public will have input as to what qualities to look for in the new superintendent. There will also be student advisory meetings and staff advisory meetings. Mr. Johnson also said that there would probably be some type of electronic survey. He said that he expected that applications would have to be in by December or January and that interviews would probably start in February with the final selection to be in March or April.

Following this was the question and answer period. There were a number of good questions and, although I am sure that not everyone was completely satisfied with all the answers, I do think it would be fair to say that Mr. Johnson took the time to sincerely answer each question. Someone asked why the principals were surveyed but the teachers were not. Mr. Johnson stated that he expected the principals to know their teachers and thus to speak for them. There were questions and comments about Baldrige and the role of the IFs. Mr. Johnson again said that changes were being made and that he met with the principals and the IFs together and that he would be meeting with just the IFs to clarify his perspective of their role in the schools. I asked how he was making it known that he saw teachers as partners and that other school employees were working for the teachers. Mr. Johnson said that he had visited some 14 schools and that he was trying to get to the others soon and that he was trying to meet with many individuals at each school. He said that he would like to meet with everyone at their staff meetings but that staff meetings were on Tuesdays and that it would take over 30 weeks to get to every school. Someone then suggested that if he did go to staff meetings that he should take time to meet with just the teachers so that they could speak freely.

There were questions and comments about the EC program and IEPs. As well there were some questions and comments about the continued fear of teachers to speak out. There were also some questions of Mr. John Rogers who at one point commented that in the past the Board would instruct Dr. Holliday to do certain things and that he would often turn around and do something else. That, of course, led to some other questions and comments.

In conclusion everyone seemed to be very appreciative of Mr. Johnson for taking the time to meet with the group and several individuals spoke highly of their interactions with Mr. Johnson in the past. I know that this is not a complete description of the meeting. I did not take copious notes but I did try to cover a lot of what was said. Perhaps others who were at the meeting could leave a comment and fill in the gaps in my narrative or correct me if I did not relate things correctly. I know that Janey Munday gave her impression of the meeting in a comment to a previous post.

Meeting with Mr. Brady Johnson

As I mentioned in my previous post, I had the opportunity to meet with Brady Johnson. We met for about 2 hours on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Johnson had contacted me a number of days ago and asked me to meet with him on his first official day as interim superintendent. I must say that it felt good to go from being shunned at the Central Office to being invited back. One of the first things Mr. Johnson did during the meeting was to give me a heartfelt apology for the incident when Dr. Holliday told me to leave the Central Office. Mr. Johnson said that, although he was not at the Central Office that day, the office staff told him that I had been cooperative and polite. He said that things could have been handled in a much better way. Mr. Johnson said that in the future I will have the full cooperation of the I-SS staff and that there will be a greater focus on customer service. He also told me that I no longer have to go through the attorney in Raleigh if I want to request access to school records. He said that, other than confidential information, all records will be available for inspection and that anyone wanting access to school records should make that request to Dawn Creason, I-SS Director of Public Relations.

I asked Mr. Johnson if there would be significant changes under his leadership. He made the analogy that the school system is like a sailing ship with the captain stepping away from the helm and he has been asked to take the helm for a while. Mr. Johnson said that he is not going to change the course of the ship but he is going to trim the sails a bit to make sure things go properly. For example, he said that he sees the principals as the CEOs of the schools and that he is not going to micromanage them but he does want to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. He said that he had met with the principals, assistant principals, the Instructional Facilitators and some of the Central Office staff in the morning and that one of things he talked about was the situation with the Ifs. Mr. Johnson said that at some schools the Ifs are doing a great job but at other schools they are not. He said that the situation needed to be fixed. He also said that the principals were meeting Wednesday afternoon and that they were given a list of initiatives that were currently being used in the school system and they were to take each one and tag it as something to keep, fix, or abandon. Classroom walk-throughs and Baldrige wallpapering were on the list.

Speaking of the Baldrige initiative, I did ask him if that was going to continue. Mr. Johnson said that it would continue but not in such a heavy handed way. He said that since I-SS did win the Baldrige Award they could now take different approach. Mr. Johnson said he wanted to reduce the stress levels and that he wanted I-SS employees enjoy showing up for work each morning. He also said that he agrees with the philosophy that you should work smarter and not harder. He said that much would depend on the results of the afternoon principal’s meeting. Mr. Johnson also spoke more of the role of the Ifs. He said that the IF should be a master teacher and not a dictator. He said that IFs should be working with teachers rather than talking down to them. In addition, Mr. Johnson also said that the IFs should be reporting to the principals and that the principals will be evaluating the Ifs instead of the Ifs evaluating the principals. He reiterated that he wants the principals to be in charge.

Mr. Johnson did emphasize that all of this was to ensure student achievement. He said that he wants every classroom to be high functioning. One, where any parent would want his or her child. We talked a little bit about the ranking of the school system and he said that everyone is comparing schools these days and that the ranking based on various tests will continue. I then asked Mr. Johnson about Dr. Holliday’s formula and he said that Dr. Holliday may have devised his own formula but again said that some ranking will continue. (Mr. Johnson later sent me an e-mail saying that he spoke to Pam Schiffman and explained to her that I was interested in the I-SS process for ranking in the top ten. He went on to say that Ms. Schiffman designed this process and that she is more than willing to sit down with us and explain the formulas.) As part of all of this, I asked Mr. Johnson about all of the testing and especially about the testing during the first week of school. He said that he felt that it was important in order to determine the abilities and knowledge of each student since the teacher is expected to tailor the lessons to each student.

We talked about the search for the new superintendent and Mr. Johnson said that it could possibly take as little as three months and that it did need to be completed within a year. He said that he plans to retire June 30^th and that he is not interested in the superintendent’s position. He said that it was his understanding that the Board would consider candidates both from within the system and from outside the system and that there would input from teachers, other employees, and citizens. Mr. John Rogers, who joined the meeting about an hour after it started, confirmed this.

I asked Mr. Johnson about employee morale and he said that he knew that it was not what it should be. He said that he wanted students and teachers to go home knowing it was a good day. Mr. Johnson also said that he wanted to restore the trust factor and that he wanted all employees to be treated professionally. He said that he wanted teachers and all employees to know that they could speak out without fear of retribution. He did say that he does believe in the chain of command and that parents should talk with their child’s teacher before going to the principal and that teachers should go to their principal before going to him, but that in the end the buck stops with him.

Mr. Johnson did ask me to let all of the readers of this blog that he is very willing to meet with anyone who has a concern about the school system. He said he may not have the answer to each question and that if needed he would work hard to find someone who does have the answer. I asked Mr. Johnson if he would be willing to meet with the citizen’s group and he not only said yes, he said we could meet at a school facility. As I mentioned before, Mr. Rogers was also at the meeting and he said that he felt that the Board would also be willing to meet with the citizen’s group. In addition, Mr. Rogers said that the Board has to do a better job of answering citizen’s questions.

Here are a few odds and ends. Mr. Johnson also told me the following. As a winner of the Baldrige Award, I-SS does have some obligations to fulfill such as going to receive the award and making some presentations at conferences, but the expenses for those will be paid with money the system received because they won the award. I-SS should not have to order any more materials or services from Jim Shipley and Associates. Mrs. Holliday is continuing to work for the system in the same capacity but that when the house is sold and all matters here are finalized she will be moving to Kentucky.

In conclusion, this was a very good meeting. I do think that Mr. Johnson intends to make sure that the true focus is on the students and that he is very willing to listen to all sides and factions. And I did get the impression that, although there might not be as many changes within the school system as some were hoping, there will be a number of positive changes.

Now let me add this. It is very late as I write this and I majored in Physics not English so please excuse my writing style and any grammatical mistakes.