October 30, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual Board members.

 Bus Purchases

 Bus purchasing was postponed from our last meeting.  After talking with several reliable sources about transportation costs, I came to the conclusion that replacing approximately 5% of your fleet is probably a good idea.  This avoids larger leases or purchases down the road that can become “budget busters”.  My issue with this is timing.  These leases can be dealt with in June, when the health of our annual budget is more measurable.  I made an amendment to only lease a special needs bus at this time.  This amendment failed due to lack of a second from my fellow Board members.  The lease of two new buses and the new bond debt that goes with it passed 4-1.

School Calendar

There was a great deal of discussion about the school calendar at this meeting.  I am extremely concerned about taking a full week for fall break plus the additional day for the Woolfest.  If the focus is kept on student success, I believe it would be better for our students to cut the fall break down to the Friday of Woolfest plus an additional two days on another week.  This past year, our district missed a great deal of school for snow days, and our Board excused some of those missed days to prevent the students from being in the classroom past June 3^rd.  Our teachers still had to come in and attend professional development.  My concern is the lost days of instruction.  This is a major setback for our students and reduces opportunities for our students.  It also puts our schools at a competitive disadvantage relative to other school districts.  Until all of the schools are proficient, I don’t see how this is best for our students.  I have received input from several parents expressing their concern about such a long fall break.  However, I welcome input from all stakeholders.  Please feel free to contact me at SMNordheim@aol.com before November 20^th, which is the date of our next board meeting.

Staffing Allocation Formula

There was a discussion on our staffing allocation formula.  I am still researching this topic and will comment on this important topic in the future.

October 16, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual Board members.

 

Unbridled Learning Test Results

Pendleton County Schools have been given the label of “Needs Improvement/Progressing” by the state.  Our improvement came from the growth scores on standardized testing and the program reviews.  The program reviews were added last fall and are the district’s self-assessment of how well the educational programs are working.  This counts for nearly a quarter of a school’s overall grade.  Northern Elementary joined PCHS this year and are considered “Proficient” schools.  Overall scores at both schools were 71.9.  Southern Elementary’s overall score was 63.8 and earned a “Needs Improvement/Progressing.”  Sharp Middle School earned a 60.7 and is now classified as “Needs Improvement/Focus School.”  This is a step in the wrong direction for Sharp Middle School.  However, I know that our district administration already has steps in place to address this issue.  I would like to thank all the employees in our district for their hard work and dedication to the education of our students.  We can still see growth in the coming years if we stay focused on what is working in the classroom and continue initiatives that will build capacity in our teachers and students.  Additionally, our district spending needs to be centered on instruction.

 Treasurer Report  

After last month’s report from our District “outside” Auditor, I think you would agree that district spending and revenue are worthy of Board discussion on a more regular basis.  Ms. Denise Keene stated last month that our spending was not sustainable.  In fact, Ms. Keene writes in her report “It will be impossible to maintain current programs past 2017 without increasing revenue or reducing expenses.”  (p. 12).  I will also mention again that Ms. Keene reported that we had a decrease in “Ending Net Position” of $1.511 million.  Despite what you may read in our esteemed local press, any questions I had at this meeting were not accusations directed at our Director of Finance.  These concerns were also not about hundreds or even thousands of dollars.  They were concerns about several hundred thousand dollars.  Comments made in a recent news article are simply meant to confuse the reader and deflect attention from the larger issue, which is district administration spending.  I need to stress to the public that as Board members we do not have to submit questions ahead of a meeting.  It is the public meeting of your School Board, and the public has every right to know what is going on and not have the discussion take place behind closed doors.  I also need to stress that budget priorities are not decided by our finance officer, but by the Board (who gives direction to the Superintendent).  There may be false arguments made that try to place budget problem blame on the bookkeeper.  I do not shift my budget oversight and budget direction responsibilities to others.

 

September 18, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

This meeting included the annual report from outside financial auditor, Ms. Denise Keene.  That report was followed by our district Finance Director’s (Ms. Jan Johnston) presentation of our Fiscal Year (FY15) 2015 “working” budget.  The school district’s fiscal year starts in July and ends June of the next calendar year.  While these reports are prepared by different groups and presented separately, they obviously need to be viewed together.  This is because the audit shows “where we were” last year financially, and the working budget shows “where we think we’ll be” financially this school year.  While I voted “yes” to accept both reports, this vote comes with additional concerns that you need to be aware of.  The outside audit was a 71 page document.  The working budget was a 41 page document called the “MUNIS” report that is a standardized budget spreadsheet that most or all Kentucky public school systems use.  The administration, in concert with our Board chair, currently posts the meeting agenda about 48 hours prior to the School Board meeting (whether you agree with this lead time is another issue!).  I would argue that reading both documents, being briefed by their authors, and drawing conclusions from them requires a little more time.  I become smarter on our district budget priorities every month that I serve as your Board member.  While I voted to accept this working budget, I disagree with some of its spending priorities.  Any opportunity for changes in compensation or workforce size occurs before contracts are signed with our district employees, and not in September.  After just a few days with these documents here are a couple of things I noted:

 

(1)    One item on the auditor’s report is called the “Ending Net Position”, which is a snapshot of the district’s fund balances on the last day of the fiscal year.  One of Ms. Keene’s reports calculates this position without consideration for property (school buildings, land, vehicles, etc.) and debt (bonds payable).  The net position rises and falls daily as bills are paid and revenue comes in, but if taken at the same point year over year it is one indicator of our district’s financial health trend over the long term.  Our net position at the end of the 2010 school year was $8.751 million.  Over the last year (or portion) of Superintendent Yost’s service in FY11 it fell dramatically (by $2.689 million).  This drop was reversed in the first year of Mr. Strong’s tenure, and our position increased $.030 million (or $30,000).  The downward slide continued the following year (fiscal ’13), as it fell by another $.645 million. Ms. Keene’s report this year showed that our “Ending Net Position” fell again, by another $1.511 million.  This left a value of $3.936 million at the end of June 2014.  You don’t need a degree in accounting to realize that this is not sustainable.  Federal funding cuts (sequestration), and flat local revenue (property values and no significant school tax increase) are not helping matters.  These two sources of revenue, however, would only fix about 1/3 of our dilemma.  The Board and administration have to address the spending side of the equation in order to operate within the funding that our county, state, and nation can provide.  The good news is that one of our long term bond debts was refinanced.  After this transaction was complete (and the “normal” annual bond payments made), our long term debt on bonds fell by $2.073 million (to $29.634 million).

 

Pendleton County School District “Ending Net Position”

 

June 30th of Fiscal Year	Change in Ending Net Position	Ending Net Position
2010		8.751 million
2011	↓ 2.689 million	6.062 million
2012	↑.030 million	6.092 million
2013	↓.645 million	5.447 million
2014	↓1.511 million	3.936 million

 

 

(2)    Administrative costs have risen faster than other district spending.  The current administration has addressed spending concerns in many areas of our district budget over the last 36 months.  Instruction, debt servicing, student transportation, building maintenance, and food service costs have been held to modest rises (or even reductions).  The largest of these expenses is instruction.  Three years ago teacher payroll ($7.01 million) was just over 39% of our general fund income.  For the school year we just started, the budgeted commitment is to be about the same portion of our spending ($7.42 million or 40%).  This 3 year trend is not the case for school administration and support.  The MUNIS accounting software names these employee groups: student support, staff support, district admin, school admin, and business support. Three years ago these 5 groups total payroll was $1,838,000.  This was just over 10% of our district’s general fund budget.  By June 2015 this annual total is projected to be $2,841,000.  This comprises 15% of our general fund for this school year (fiscal 2015).  That 5% shift in priorities means a million more dollars per year (compared to 2011)!  This salary total doesn’t include benefits, and the benefits are quite robust in one of these groups.  Whether or not that extra admin and support spending is the best “bang for your buck” in producing better prepared graduates will be in my thoughts as the working budget becomes the final spending report over the next 9 months.

September 2, 2014 Tax Hearing & Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

The 2014 school tax rate meeting was one of the more baffling meetings of my term to date.  The minutes of the meeting will shed some light on the mechanics of the votes.  The thoughts and positions of board members are more difficult (or in some cases impossible) to understand.  I obtained a DVD of the proceedings attempting to make sense of it.  Mr. Strong made the recommendation to the Board for the “compensating” rate plus an additional 4% added to this rate for real estate and tangible property.  There was support for this position on the Board, but I disagreed.  I have written and discussed with voters at length in previous months about our district spending priorities (administration positions, vehicles, etc.) and their impact on our annual budget.  While our district could definitely use additional revenue, I have become convinced that these additional dollars will be subject to the same flawed outcome.  Our district budget problems are caused by spending, and these problems are many times larger than the $155,000 that this additional revenue would provide.  This tax rate motion (compensating +%4) failed 2-3.  Because of my support for additional programs in the last school year (pre-school program, new reading and math curriculum), I felt compelled to support a lower level of rate increase.  I made a motion for compensating +2%.  This motion was seconded, but also failed 2-3.  A third proposal was made for the compensating rate with no other increase.  This passed 5-0.  The real struggle will occur over the next 9 months as we address our spending priorities and attempt to “balance” our working budget.

 

August 21, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Tonight, we honored 14 retirees at our board meeting- Leonard Whalen, Gary Grigson, Virginia Wright, Cheryl Hughes, Kim Simpson, Karen Delaney, Lynn Orr, Debra Holland, Brenda Kells, and Charles Elliot.  Retirees honored but not present were Barbara Hutchinson, Bill Ockerman, Helen Haywood, and Joel Nahari.  I thank each of you for your commitment to the Pendleton County Schools and most importantly to the impact you have had on each of our students’ lives.  I have a plaque next to my desk and it reads “A teacher takes a hand, opens a mind, and touches a heart.”  While it says teacher, it could easily read a bus driver, a custodian, or a counselor.  My point is that each of you has been instrumental in the emotional and educational development of our students.  Thank you for getting our students home safely at night.  Thank you for cleaning up after them at school and for preventing others from getting sick.  Thank you for making an impact on our students that you will never see or even know.

July 31, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

In the spring of 2014, the Kentucky Center for School Safety performed a safety assessment at Pendleton County High School and Southern Elementary.  Mr. Chad Simms (PCHS Principal) and Mr. Mark Hegyi (Southern Elementary Assistant Principal) presented the safety assessment findings to our board.  They addressed issues such as building access, tobacco use, bullying, consistent rule enforcement, and active supervision.  In fact, if everyone in our district participated in the active supervision of our students, issues such as bullying, smoking, etc. would become less of an issue.  Active supervision, similar to active parenting, is the key to addressing many of the issues plaguing our schools.  When a parent is present, children are less likely to get into trouble.  The same holds true for active supervision at the schools.  Thanks to both of them for sharing their insight.

 

July 14, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Director of Special Programs Pam Harper addressed our board tonight regarding the Pre-school program.  Because of the elimination of mid-day transportation, our Pre-school student enrollment has gone down significantly.  This elimination of mid-day transportation was done to save the district $50,000.  To get enrollment back up, Ms. Harper suggested that we implement a Four-year-old Pre-school Wrap-around Program.  Essentially, Pendleton County Schools would provide instruction to the students for a half-day.  Then students would be transported to local contracted day care programs for the remainder of the day.  Transportation would be provided to the day care program through the school bus system.  Some of the students may start their day at the daycare facility, and then they come to Pre-school in the afternoon.  I strongly support early Pre-school education and this is why:  Research strongly supports that early learning plays a crucial role in helping students prep for kindergarten.  Many of our students in Pendleton County (68.5%) are not kindergarten ready.  In our March meeting, Ms. Harper mentioned that Pendleton County scored 13^th from the bottom of all districts on kindergarten readiness.  The only districts in Northern Kentucky falling below Pendleton County are Gallatin County, Newport, Dayton, and Augusta.  The children in our county are coming to school with great needs.  It is difficult to catch them up if they enter kindergarten already behind.  If we don’t reach these students early, it impacts each and every one of us.  When these students fall behind, they become disruptive in the classroom.  This disruption prevents every child from learning, not just the disruptive student.  If they fall behind, they are more likely to drop out of school.  Dropping out of school puts them at risk of earning less income.  Over a lifetime, they will earn an average of $375,000 less than high school graduates, and roughly $1 million less than college graduates (Center for Labor Market Studies, 2007).  This ultimately impacts the tax base in our county.  High school dropouts are more likely to get in trouble with the law.  If they are incarcerated, who pays for it?  We pay for it as taxpayers.  Therefore, I strongly support Pre-school education because of all of these reasons and more.

 

During board comments, I mentioned my school board training in Lexington this past weekend.  I heard one of the most inspiring messages I have ever heard at our board trainings.  Dr. John Draper shared with the audience that students should be able to nominate successors, someone who has supported their success.  I recommended that a program be established that allowed students to do just that.  A successor program would allow employees to feel valued and appreciated.

 

June 16, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Tonight was Courtney Moore’s first school board meeting.  Courtney was elected by the student body to serve this year as Pendleton County’s first school board student representative. I am so glad we brought student representation to the board last year.  Having Courtney there will remind each of us of why we are serving on this board and the impact our decisions can have on students.  I look forward to having her on our team and learning from her this coming year.

 

May 29, 2014 Fifth Thursday Meeting: Pendleton County Schools Pay Scales 2014-15

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Pay scales for Pendleton County School employees were up for Board approval at this meeting.  My reasoning for opposing these scales will sound eerily similar to last year’s reasoning (May 30, 2013 Meeting that was blogged on June 1, 2013).

Classified Salary Schedule There will be debate about the size on any raises, but the pay raises were applied fairly across the entire Classified Salary Schedule.  Therefore, I was in favor of this portion of the 2014-15 proposal.

Certified Salary Schedule As was the case last year, this fair and equitable treatment of compensation was not the case for the Certified portion of the proposal.  The best description I can find for these pay scales is “targeted favoritism”.  In order to understand the trends, one should have all three of the 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 Certified Pay Scales.  You then need to simply compute the percentage change from the prior year’s scale for every spot (or cell) on the scale (every step and Rank column).  This might take 1-2 hours for both year’s changes.

Problem #1: The Senior Rank 1 Group Last year’s trend was continued this year by applying approximately 2% increases to the cells of those hired in 1991 (or before) that have their Rank 1.  There is a significant reduction (-7.1%) in the cell just behind this group.  This year that cell is the 22 year step.  Last year it was the 21 year step (-6.4%).  If this trend continues, you could expect an even larger correction (8% or more) to the 23 year step next year.  This “snowplow wave of money” is good news if you were hired in 1991 or prior, and terrible news to those junior to this cell.  Interestingly, Mr. Strong states that he is doing this to smooth out the bumps in the pay scale and make sure that each year everyone is seeing an increase.  However, what is alarming is an even greater bump is being created in the pay scale where Mr. Strong will be attached this coming July (2014).  Mr. R. Anthony Strong will now be attached to the teacher’s pay scale with an index of 2.44.  This year group has cumulatively received an increase of 6% the last two years.  In my opinion, this is why our superintendent’s salary should never have been linked to our teacher’s pay scale.  Coincidence?  I leave that up to you to decide.  The temptation is simply too great to “scale up”, or protect or improve one’s own paycheck.

Problem #2: The Junior Rank 3 Group Another Certified group sure to be extremely disappointed this year is our Rank 3 teachers.  These teachers face a requirement to get their Master’s degree by their tenth year, which will move them to the higher paying Rank 2 column.  The 7-10 year step in this column took hits ranging from -3.4% to -9.6%.  The district currently has no teachers in this group, but there are 14 teachers in the 1-6 year steps that will be in these cells in the next several years until they complete their Master’s degree.  Just when these junior teachers need the money to help pay for these self-funded graduate degrees, the rug is being “pulled out” in order to “smooth out” this column’s step increases.  How fair and equitable is this treatment from our Board that completely pays for our Superintendent’s doctorate degree?  Another consideration is that it becomes more difficult to attract new talent to our teacher ranks when the junior teacher pay scales become less attractive.

Ever-Growing Administration A very disturbing process added an administrator to our ranks at this meeting.  Best practice would be to address additions to our staff as an action agenda item on the Pendleton County School Board Meeting Agenda.  This was not the case for this meeting, as embedded in the salary schedule was the addition of a second Director of Curriculum and Assessment.  This staff addition leaves the general public in the dark, as they are not aware that a staff addition is occurring.  This is especially disturbing when conducted by a Superintendent that has been noted in an article in Kentucky Teacher (June 7, 2012) for “transparency”.  I also disagree with this staff addition because I believe this district is “administration heavy”, and I am reluctant to vote for additions especially when we have cut two teachers this year.  I did suggest converting the “Director of Districtwide Programs” to one of the two “Directors of Curriculum and Assessment” to make it administration neutral for this coming year.  Our board should be voting on added positions as separate action items and not buried in the middle of the approval of salary schedules.  This is bad business practice and doesn’t hold board members accountable to the ever increasing size of central office administration.

Why I voted “No” As was the case last year, I made a motion to separate the certified pay scales and the certified administrative salary indexes from the proposed action item, and vote on them separately.  Unlike last year, this motion failed when I did not get a second from my fellow Board members.  Therefore, I voted “No” on this large action item.

May 15, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 Welcome Courtney Moore!  Courtney has been selected by her classmates as Pendleton County’s first school board student representative.  Congratulations to you and your family.

We approved the tentative budget and the PGES evaluation model.  Northern Elementary piloted the PGES last year.  Mr. Pugh reported that the teacher peer evaluation has been received positively among his staff.  We also approved a paving project at Southern Elementary, which is in much needed repair.  Michele Crowley presented a technology report to the board.  I was really impressed with the sessions that were offered for the SpecTECHular PD Academy last year, and I am hoping my schedule will allow me to attend this event on August 6^th.

April 17, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 Custodial outsourcing was a topic that generated much public discussion for this board meeting.  The research I have read does not support outsourcing custodial services in small districts. 

·        The main reason is that custodians in small districts often wear many hats.  When bidding these services out, it is difficult to identify the portion of the costs that are “pure” custodial.  I believe our bids produced mixed results because of these hybrid positions.

·         When I attended the KSBA Conference in January, I spoke to a vendor that provides custodial services.  This vendor told me that the savings is primarily because the vendor can buy the cleaning supplies in bulk.  What impact would this outsourcing have on our local economy when the supplies are purchased from other parts of the country and brought here?

·         The vendor also told me that if we used their services, they would have to bring someone into our district to “manage” the custodians.  I immediately thought to myself the last thing we need in our district is another manager.

·        One final note on custodial outsourcing.  The custodians in our district have helped care for our students.  They have cleaned up after our children when they have been sick in the classroom.  They assist our kids when they need help tying their shoes.  They provide an extra security measure in our district because they often know who should be on the school grounds or who shouldn’t be.  It takes many people to educate our students-our teachers, our counselors, our cafeteria workers, our bus drivers, our custodians, etc.  Let us value each member of the team and not treat them like they can be easily discarded.

We voted (3-2) to move forward on a school board student representative.  I am very excited about this and glad I pushed to have this introduced in our district.  While at NKU, I have seen firsthand how much student voice can add to the discussion.  I believe this will be beneficial to our district and help keep us focused on what is important- student success.

The Board voted to add a full-time school psychologist in our district.  In previous years, we had a school psychologist come into our district once a week to do the necessary assessments.  Sam Jones, Director of Special Education, mentioned that our students needed to be seen and services were being delayed because they were not able to be assessed in a timely manner.  Because of my work at the hospital, I have cared for many people that have overdosed on heroin or have struggled with addiction.  Many of these patients are from our county and have children in our district.  I want to ensure that we have the resources available to identify students that may need psychological help because we cannot grow them academically until these issues are identified.

March 20, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Martha Gosney addressed the board during the audience comments regarding the possible outsourcing of janitorial services.  Ms. Gosney spoke very eloquently in opposition to this effort.  I would be reluctant to ever outsource most jobs in our district.

 

During the board member comments, I responded to our board attorney’s concern about my board oversight role from last month’s meeting.  The following is what I read:

 

“I would like to say how delighted I am that we are going to be addressing the topic of a board member code of ethics tonight.  If we adopt something similar to the state recommended code of conduct, it is unfortunate that this code does not apply to every employee in the district.  I realize that as an elected official, I speak for one fifth of this county, and I am held to a higher standard than those who are not elected.  For the record, I would like to say to any employee who tries to tell me that I shouldn’t question the decisions made by our district leadership that they do not understand the role of a board member. To suggest that I owe them an apology for doing this is shocking.  I was elected by my constituents to do this, and my duty is to them.”

I was pleased that we had our first reading for two new policies – Legal Status of the Board (Student Representative) and Code of Ethical Conduct for Local School Board Members. 

An issue of concern at this meeting was the continued approval of Denise Keene, CPA for our outside annual audit of our district finances.  It is best practice to change auditors every 3 years.  Denise Keene has been our auditor for eleven years which included some “turbulent” financial periods in our district.  In no way am I questioning her proficiency.  I just think it is better to have another fresh set of eyes looking at our books.  In fact, State Auditor Adam Edelen suggested changing audit firms every few years in the same article I mentioned in my last blog from February 20th.  I was the only board member that had this view.  Her services were renewed for another year by a vote of 4-1.

February 20, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

The Chairman of the Board was not present.  The Board Vice-Chairman was conducting the meeting.  I had an issue with one item (Orders of the Treasurer) on the consent agenda and attempted to move it to the action agenda.  I will assume he did not understand what I was requesting since this was not honored during the meeting.  This may be a combination of his lack of understanding of the request and my lack of clear communication.  The bottom line is I ended up voting against the entire consent agenda because these items are always voted as a block unless an individual item is moved to the action agenda.

 

My issue with the Orders of the Treasurer was a lease payment to a Ford dealership in Lexington, KY.  When I looked at the dealership’s website, I noticed that the Director of Sales was our Superintendent’s brother.  I asked my fellow board members if this was a conflict of interest.  While I don’t deny that our district received the government rate for this lease, there are other Ford dealerships we could have used that are geographically closer than Lexington.  My question was met with a comment from our board attorney that said I owed our Superintendent an apology for raising this concern.  While I don’t normally discount the advice of O’Hara, Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan, and Sergent Law Offices, on this particular matter I could not disagree more with our board attorney, Don Ruberg.  Financial decisions are the responsibility of all elected board members.  In Amanda Van Benschoten’s recent article in the Kentucky Enquirer (March 24, 2014) on Board Oversight, State Auditor Adam Edelen commented that “when you have a high degree of oversight from our elected officials backed up by a high level of engagement by the general public, it really does create an environment where the potential for abuse is significantly diminished.”  While this particular contract was not illegal, I questioned its appropriateness.  I decided to stay focused on the issue and withhold my response to counsel until next month’s meeting.

 

February 10, 2014 Special Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

Due to the excessive number of days that Pendleton County Schools have lost during this school year due to inclement weather, our board met to alter the school calendar.  I absolutely was not in favor of using the Memorial Day holiday as a make-up day.  I think it is important to honor our fallen heroes on that day.  Our board voted to take March 31, April 1, and April 2 from spring break week as make-up days.  I voted in favor of this motion, and it passed 3-2.  I did not want to take all of spring break because some families have made plans for that week.  I mentioned in the meeting that those families who have made travel plans during spring break should be encouraged to apply for an educational enhancement (if appropriate) to get possible credit for days missed. 

 

January 28, 2014 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

 

I was pleased to see the issue of a student board member discussed at this meeting.  The School Board administration compiled the policies of several school districts in Northern Kentucky that utilize student members.  The Board expressed interest in a policy proposal and a subcommittee was formed to begin this process.  Hopefully this will become an adopted policy.

 

The single action item of this meeting was the salary (or index) and classified category type (A or B) of the new administration position of Director – Buildings and Grounds.  It is baffling to me that a Board of Directors or Board of Education could vote to establish a new or upgraded position and not define the pay structure of that position until a later vote.  This position was upgraded from “Maintenance Supervisor” at our October meeting.  Now in a January meeting we finally address the issue of compensation and pension benefit.   Our school administration proposed that this position be moved from a category “B” classified position to a category “A” classified position.  These pay scales are posted on the district web site.  In order to find the salary of this position, take the correct position on the scale and multiply by the “index” or multiplier.  This multiplier accounts for increased days worked, responsibility, credentials, etc.  The current position is a classified category “B” scale multiplied by the current index of 2.19.  The district Financial Officer proposed moving the position to the classified “A” scale with a proposed “index” or multiplier of 1.56.  According to the Kentucky Teacher’s Retirement System office, this is allowed only if the position is redefined to require either (1) a teaching certificate or (2) a 4 year degree.  The other major provision of this switch is that the employee changes from the Kentucky Retirement System (KRS) to the Kentucky Teacher’s Retirement System (KTRS).  The KRS is the same system that applies to other public sector state and county employees.  KTRS applies to teachers and a small percentage of school employees in positions with the degree or teaching certificate requirement.  One benefit to the district of this switch is that the KTRS funding is carried more by the employee (12%) than KRS funding (0%).  Kentucky taxpayers pay about 14% of KTRS funding versus Pendleton County taxpayers (Pendleton County School District) paying about 19% of KRS funding.  The administration proposal emphasized this savings.  Based on what report you read, both state pension funds are estimated to be below 60% funding by the Commonwealth.

 

The bottom line boils down to a combination of process and dollars.  The process involves voting on a new position and its compensation in separate meetings.  I do not support this way of doing business.  It resembles driving a new car off the lot without reading the sticker price.  The dollars part of the argument is that this administration claims it needs about $60,000/yr to fill this position with the right person.  That salary is close to the top end of the current classified category “B” scale when multiplied by the index of 2.19 (in between years 21 and 22).  A similar dollar amount is near the bottom, or year three of the “A” scale when using the proposed multiplier of 1.56.  In my opinion, this change would be a nearly irreversible one.  It would be very difficult to downgrade the position with the current administration. It could be argued that this change costs another teacher (or part of one) in the classroom.  This extra expense doesn’t fall in the place that helps our current educational crisis.  For these two reasons, I voted against the proposal.  It passed 4-1.

 

December 19, 2013 Board Meeting: “No” to Mr. Strong’s Evaluation

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Pendleton School Superintendent Mr. Anthony Strong’s evaluation was voted on during this board meeting.  I voted “no”   because my voice was not heard as part of this process.  This is important since I represent 1/5 of our county.

I also voted “No” to leasing two new Ford trucks.  I know that we needed to replace one of the trucks in the maintenance department because it was unreliable.  However, I voted “no” mainly because I feel it would be more cost effective to purchase a 1 or 2 year-old truck instead of leasing two new ones.

November 21, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Our board voted to purchase a new reading series for NES and SES.  I believe this investment in our students will bring a great return in student success.  Students who are good readers will naturally do better in other academic areas.  I am excited about the purchase of these new books.

Mr. Strong gave us an update on what he found out about the adoption of the Epipens in our schools.  Thanks go out to Dr. Brian Schack for his willingness to work with our schools to make them available.

October 31, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Pendleton County Schools Gifted and Talented Teacher Michele Lustenberg shared the many projects of her students in the areas of music, painting, history, and political science.  It was very apparent that she has spent countless hours on many of these projects.  As I listened to her speak that night, I could hear the passion for what she does.  It became very obvious to me why she was selected as a 2014 Kentucky Teacher of the Year Semifinalist by the Kentucky Department of Education and Ashland Oil, Inc.

Legislation was passed on June of 2013 that encourages schools to keep an epinephrine auto-injector in a minimum of two locations.  This epinephrine could be administered in the event that any student had a life-threatening allergic or anaphylactic reaction.  Representative Addia Wuchner sponsored the legislation.  I believe it is sound policy, and I am surprised this hasn’t been implemented in Kentucky before now.  Even though this legislation is not mandating schools to act on it, I think our district should follow it’s advice.  A student can develop a food allergy at any time.  Some of our students have two meals a day at the schools.  We need to be prepared in the event that a student develops that first allergic response during school hours.  We don’t want to wait until an EMT gets to our schools to get that lifesaving medication.  A five to ten minute response time can mean the difference in the survival of that child.  I encourage you to google Amarria Johnson and read about her tragic story.

October 17, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

The Unbridled Learning Test Results were presented tonight.  Our high school was the only school in the district to meet its goals.  Our board discussed steps needed to improve student performance and raise future test scores.  I offered a simple strategy to raise student performance:  Engaged parents plus happy teachers equals successful students.  The two most influential people in a student’s education are their parents and their teachers.  Our district needs to focus on strategies which get the parents engaged in the educational process.  I have had many conversations with teachers in our district, and they don’t feel valued.  One teacher shared with me that she has to spend her weekends writing out word by word what she says in her lesson plans.  I firmly believe that until our district starts actively engaging our parents and making our teachers feel valued we will never see an increase in student performance.

Security Vestibules were discussed at this meeting.  I ultimately ended up voting against it because these security vestibules will not keep guns out.  In fact, Sandy Hook Elementary had security vestibules, and the gunman was buzzed in.  While it gives the school front office control of entry at one doorway, I question their effectiveness at preventing a school shooting.  In my opinion, it gives schools a false sense of security.  My concern is that these security vestibules will simply be “Parent Control Stations” and control their entry into the building.  My goal is to engage the parents and make them partners in the educational process.  I strongly feel those educational dollars would be more wisely spent on counseling that could be directed at the prevention of violence.

September 19, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Our district paid tribute to the following retirees: Janice Polley, Jo Craig, and Jimmy Gregg.  Thanks for all that you have done for the students in our district.  My sons had both Mrs. Polley and Mrs. Craig for teachers, and they were outstanding in every way.  They went beyond just teaching the students content, but they truly cared about each and every one of their students.   It is of my opinion that only when a student senses that a teacher truly cares can the real learning begin. 

August 29, 2013 Tax Hearing

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

A tax hearing was held on August 29, 2013.  I personally would not consider any number above the Compensating Rate.  The people in our community are struggling to make ends meet.  Plus, how can I justify taking more from our taxpayers when our board voted the previous week to pay for our Superintendent’s doctorate degree.  I want to thank community members for coming out and speaking at our tax hearing.  I realize it is difficult to get up and speak about something you feel passionate about.  However, until more people get involved, our schools and community will never be the best they can be.

August 22, 2013 Special Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Upon the advisement of Pendleton County Board Attorney Don Ruberg, our board needed to revote on past business.  I don’t know if there is a legal precedence for this in any other districts. 

 I voted against our Superintendent R. Anthony Strong’s contract that will go into effect this coming July 2014 for many reasons.  First, his pay and compensation package would be a statistical outlier compared to districts of comparable student and budget size.  Secondly, I greatly believe in the democratic process, and when someone doesn’t believe and honor those same fundamental principles, I struggle with keeping that person in a position of leadership.

I also voted against paying for Mr. Strong’s doctoral degree.  As a board member, it is extremely important that I be fair to all the employees in the district.  Our teachers have to obtain a mandatory Master’s degree by their 10^th year of teaching.  We do not pay for teachers to obtain their Master’s degree.  Therefore, why are we paying for our Superintendent to get his doctorate degree, which is not necessary for his job?  If Mr. Anthony Strong’s skillset requires that we need to pay a higher than normal salary to retain his caliber of talent, why would we also pay for him to get his doctorate degree.  I couldn’t justify having it both ways.  The assumption is that he already has the skills necessary to do his job.  If our board wanted to be fair to all employees in the district, a more appropriate way to do this would be to offer a scholarship and allow everyone in our district to apply for it.    In Fort Thomas Schools, a small scholarship is awarded every year. 

August 15, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Michele Crowley, who is our Chief Information Officer, presented information about the SpecTECHular PD Academy.  I was very impressed and hope to personally attend this training next year.  In fact, it was of the caliber that this training should be offered to surrounding counties.

July 24, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

We had our first reading on policies on tobacco usage in our district.  Having designated outside smoking areas is a step in the right direction.  Ideally, I would like Pendleton County’s schools, campuses, and all related school events to be 24/7 tobacco free.  There are several reasons I would like to see this become a reality.  First, Kentucky is one of the unhealthiest states in the country.  Kentucky ranks 48th in child obesity, with 37.1% of our children considered overweight or obese.  Couple this with high smoking rates in Kentucky, and we are setting our children up for a lifetime of health issues.  Kentucky spends a great deal of their current state budget funding these chronic health problems.  Money spent on these health problems would be better spent on the education of our students.  Recently, a mother in the district called me and told me that her daughter got several bladder infections this past year because she felt as if she couldn’t use the restrooms at the high school.  She would not go to the bathroom all day because she didn’t want to go into the restrooms and come out smelling like smoke.  In fact, several of my son’s buddies communicated this same concern.  This is sad because the lack of enforcement of our policies is affecting the health of our students.  My question is who is in control of the restrooms at our schools?  It isn’t the non-smoking students who follow the rules, because they can’t use the restroom without smelling like smoke.  It isn’t the school administration who turns a blind eye to it.  The people who are in control of the restrooms are the students who decide to break the rules and see no consequences. 

June 27, 2013 Board Meeting

As always, these are my opinions only, and not the opinions of the Pendleton County School Board or any other individual board members.

Sorry to my voters.  I am catching up on writing about the second half of 2013.

During this board meeting, Ms. Pam Harper did a good job of presenting the TELL survey results.  The TELL Kentucky Survey assesses whether educators across the state report having the resources and supports necessary to facilitate effective teaching.  As school board members, our task is to use these findings to make informed decisions on school planning.  One area of concern is the percentage of educators that consider their class sizes reasonable to meet the needs of all students.  This percentage has decreased from 73.7% in 2011 to 41.9% in 2013.  This data is important because it impacts our district getting to Proficiency.  This is a quote from a letter I received from our Commissioner of Education Terry Holliday:  “When the results of the TELL Kentucky Working Conditions Survey reflect a high rate of teacher satisfaction with their working conditions, there is a high correlation to student achievement.”  I realize that we had to make drastic cuts these past few years to make us fiscally sound again.  However, we have to be careful adding positions that take another teacher out of the classroom.

Boone County Constable Joe Kalil presented the details of the POST (Protecting Our Students & Teachers) program.  This program is based on the very successful Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Program, which the airline industry has used since 9/11.  After extensive background checks and training, selected teachers and/or administrators could carry a firearm on school property.  I know this sounds radical for some people.  Some people would even say that teachers should never be expected to protect our students in that way.  I had the same reaction when my husband (who is an airline pilot) came home after 9/11 and said pilots would be carrying firearms on the planes.  I initially thought it was nuts allowing pilots to carry firearms.  Twelve years later, more than 15,000 pilots have been trained, and we have not had another event like 9/11.  I honestly believe in this program and know that if this was implemented correctly, it could be another measure to protect our students.  The problem is that politics gets in the way of implementing this program.  This is sad because at the end of day, the people affected by the lack of implementation are our students.