News

House Education Subcommittee continues PSSP discussions - more funding proposed for counselors, nurses and technology assistants outlined

(See related articles – Commentary and Analysis – in this issue of The Legislature newsletter.)

West Virginia school districts would gain an additional 442 new funding positions based on a plan being considered by a House education subcommittee.

The subcommittee met Thursday morning to review the proposal which the Joint Committee on Education adopted late last year.  Del. David Perry, D-Fayette, is subcommittee chairman.

Joe Panetta, director of the state department of education’s Office of School Finance, maintains the joint committee proposal will ensure establishment of positions for school counselors, school nurses and technology specialists.

According to committee discussion, the proposed legislation would establish a ratio of one counselor per 350 students, one nurse per 1,500 students and one technology specialist per 2,500 students.

In subcommittee discussions, Perry stressed the joint committee proposal “actually guarantees” funding for the positions based on those ratios, meaning county school boards would be required to maintain the positions and could not use the money for other funding purposes.

631 positions to be shifted to new step

House Education Counsel David Mohr explained the joint committee proposal would redirect 631 positions now filled by persons in school counselor, nurse and technology specialist positions to a separate Public School Support Program step.

According to Joe Panetta, executive director of the West Virginia Department of Education’s Office of School Finance, funding would be provided for an additional 414.83 professional educators and 101.12 service personnel during the first year of bill implementation.

He said in the third year, the ratios under PSSP Step 1 are to be reduced.

That “reduction” causes a corresponding reduction in the number of professional educators funded under Step 1 by 631.60 but funds an additional 1,054.07 professional personnel under Step 5, for a net increase of 422.47.  Service personnel are not affected in the third year, according to Panetta.

Based on subcommittee discussions, 808 school counselors would be funded; 189 school nurses, and 120 technology systems specialists.  Although that figure totals 1,117, only 1,054 additional professional personnel would be funded in the third year of bill implementation. 

 Perry said the proposed legislation would not prohibit county boards from funding positions “outside” PSSP allowance steps.

Dollars ‘guaranteed’ for positions

He also said the joint committee proposal, unlike the current funding formula, guarantees dollars will be committed to the positions. “Under the old (school aid) formula there’s no guarantee those nursing (and other) positions have to be (filled).”

Technology specialists

Nancy Walker, director of the West Virginia Department of Education’s Office of Information Systems, applauded the subcommittee for considering dedicated funding for technology specialists. She said technology assistants keep equipment working for use by students and teachers. ”Helping the teacher in the classroom is our bottom line and these people are employed to do that,” she said.

In answer to question by House Education Chairwoman Mary Poling, D-Barbour, Walker said 49 of the 67 technology specialists in the state are based at Regional Education Service Agency Offices (RESAs) and they may assist more than one county board of education.

RESA employees

In answer to a question from Poling, Deputy State Superintendent Jack McClanahan, Ed.D, explained these employees are employed under RESA personnel guidelines and not state professional and service personnel statutes. High demand for the positions often means school district/RESA technology specialists have considerable job mobility, with Walker saying the joint committee proposal will address some of those factors in terms of availability of additional technology specialists.

‘A step forward’

She also said the additional 53 technology positions are a “step forward.”  She said it is a small step, adding that guarantee deployment of these persons will aid in school efficiency and productivity: “The more technical support you get, the smoother the schools run.”

School counselors

Similarly, Barbara Ashcraft, state Department of Education coordinator of Evaluation, Special Programs & Support Services, said the joint committee proposal takes a “step in the right direction.”

Ashcraft discussed a number of issues she said affects counselors, including increased student demand for their services, coupled with school counselors having to assume duties other than counseling.

She said many counselors are not able to spend 75 percent of their time with students as mandated by state law due to other assignments often imposed by school administrators. She contends the additional counseling positions will provide more personnel to “connect” with students, especially at the elementary level.

Wood County Schools Counselor Michele Fling told subcommittee members she spends 20 minutes per week spread among 42 separate elementary classrooms dealing with a wide range of student issues, including deaths of a parent or sibling.

One counselor per 950 students

She read a letter from a counselor who works with 950 students countywide due to several factors, including the county’s decrease in students leading to budgetary reductions.

At the conclusion of her presentation, she and Ashcraft reiterated support for the joint committee proposal.

School nurses

Brenda Isaac, a Kanawha County school nurse and president of the state association of school nurses, also voiced support for the proposal: “I think that it’s essential that we grant the one-to-1,500 (ratio) and I’d like to see that implemented.

“It’s obviously just a beginning,” she said, adding her group would like school nurses to remain as part of the statutory definition of “teacher,” especially for salary purposes.

Perry explained the proposal would not eliminate nurses from that section of law. Isaacs’ concerns primarily relate to a proposal to require county boards to allot freed-up local share moneys to “classroom teachers.”

State superintendent interpretation sought

She said the nurses’ group is going to seek a state superintendent’s interpretation to clarify how nurses are classified.

Student Support Personnel

Under the current formula, classroom teachers, counselors, nurses with a four year degree, librarians, attendance directors and psychologists are considered professional instructional personnel.  Under the proposal, counselors and nurses would become student support personnel, along with technology systems specialists, which are not currently funded.

According to the WVDE’s Office of School Finance, the definition of “classroom teacher” includes all elementary and secondary teachers, counselors, librarians, speech language pathologists, and remedial specialists.

These individuals are entitled to certain salary supplements, which include: the $600 supplement for classroom teachers with 20 or more teaching experience, the $3,500 supplement for classroom teachers having certification issued by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and the $500 bonus for classroom teachers who provide early written notice of their plans to retire, based on statute and various State Superintendent Interpretations.

Additionally, counselors, speech language pathologists and audiologists are also eligible for the $2,500 supplement for having national or state certification by their associations, but this is limited to 100 new ones a year.

        
Transportation Next

On Feb. 5, the subcommittee will discuss the transportation aspects of the joint committee proposal. Del. Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, is to lead that discussion.

The bill is likely to be considered for reporting to the House Education Committee either next Thursday or during the following week, according to Perry.

On Feb. 7, Panetta is to address issues raised during subcommittee discussions.

WVSBA member-board response

As the bill is reported from subcommittee, a synopsis will be forwarded to all county board members. Members, as stated last week in The Legislature newsletter, will be urged to contact House members in regard to any individual county positions concerning the legislation.

Because WVSBA does have long-held positions on some aspects of the legislation, this information may be provided to the subcommittee next week, according to West Virginia School Board Association Executive Director Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D.

Other House Education action

In other action this week, House Education Committee:

• Approved a bill that increases from $50 to $100 the amount of faculty senate funds individual teachers may use for classroom supplies and similar materials, although faculty senates would continue to receive $200 per teacher. That bill is House Bill 4125. The Legislature’s Website reference is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4125%20intr.htm
  
  

The bill is up for passage in the House of Delegates today.

A second reference to House Finance Committee was dispensed.

• Adopted a measure that allows net proceeds held for a minor to be invested in a Smart529 college savings plan. The bill relates, in part, to settlements that may occur when a minor suffers an injury “to his person or property.”
  
  

Several provisions of current law govern procedures relating to these settlements (§44-10-14).

The bill is House Bill 4148. The Legislature’s website reference is

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4148%20intr.htm

The bill adopted Jan. 29 by House Education Committee has a second reference to House Judiciary Committee.

Bus operators having diabetes requiring insulin

House Education Subcommittee B voted Thursday to approve a committee substitute for House Bill 4059. That measure would allow “currently employed” bus operators diagnosed with diabetes which requires insulin to be eligible for employment if the operator is issued a passenger endorsement for his or her Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).

These intrastate waiver endorsements are granted by the Division of Motor Vehicles, according to Doug Thompson, Manager of Drivers’ Services.

 The subcommittee spent several minutes discussing a federal mandate that would disallow bus operators with diabetes from driving out-of-state whether for regular runs – as might occur in some border county areas – or for field trips or extracurricular runs.

County board liability

Del. Louis Gall, D-Raleigh, wanted to know whether a county board would be  liable for possible legal damages or expenses in case of an accident that could be contributed a driver’s complications with diabetes.

WVDE Transportation Director Ben Shew told subcommittee members the county board would be liable, although the state Board of Risk and Insurance Management (BRIM) would likely work to settle any resulting claims against the county board.

Subcommittee Chairman Larry Williams, D-Preston, said the bill will be considered by the full committee next week.

The Legislature’s Website reference for HB4059 is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4059%20intr.htm

It was approved by the House Health and Human Resources Committee Jan. 17.

SEC approves rules bill and measure concerning GEDs

In action last week, Senate Education Committee approved two measures.

The first, Senate Bill 459, would clarify the rule making authority of the School Building Authority of West Virginia (SBA).

In terms of the SBA, the bill provides legislative authorization for seven SBA rules previously approved by the Legislative Commission on Education Accountability (LOCEA).

The rules relate to:

1. §164-1.  Requirements for Comprehensive Educational Facility Plan.
2. §164-2.  Funding School Building Authority Projects.
3. §164-3.  School Building Authority School Planning and Design Criteria.
4. §164-4.  School Building Authority Project Administration and Review.
5. §164-5.  Contract and Agreements.
6. §164-6.  Reporting Procedures.
7. §164-7.  School Access Safety Act.

The bill also authorizes the Providing Real Opportunities for Maximizing In-state Student Excellence (PROMISE) rule of the Higher Education Policy Commission that was approved by LOCEA for passage by the Legislature.

The Legislature’s reference for the bill is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb459%20org.htm

The bill was adopted by the Senate Jan. 30 and has been referred to House Education Committee.

GED Degree

Senate Education Committee also adopted Senate Bill 161 which would require the state board of education to develop a program to pay the General Educational Development (GED) examination fee for eligible individuals. 

The state board would be required to promulgate a rule to implement the program.  The rule would have to include the following eligibility requirements:

1. Successful completion of a GED preparation program;
2. Successful completion of the GED Official Practice Test;
3. Standards for measuring successful completion of the program and test;
4. GED exam registration with a GED testing center approved by the state board; and
5. Any other requirements established by the state board.

Also, the state board would be required to provide the GED exam fee directly to the GED testing center.

The Legislature’s reference for SB161 is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/SB161%20SUB1.htm

The measure has a second reference to Senate Finance Committee.

In deliberations Thursday, the SEC discussed a bill relating to “Vision 2020: An Educational Blueprint for Two Thousand Twenty.”

There will be additional information regarding this legislation in the Feb. 8 edition of The Legislature newsletter.

Analysis

PSSP proposal garners opposition from Grant, Tyler representatives; Grant board member says bill would disturb structural integrity of current formula

By Howard M. O’Cull, Ed.D.

Representatives of  Grant and Tyler County Boards of Education are not pleased with a House of Delegates education subcommittee’s attempts to modify the state‘s Public School Support Program (PSSP).

Flanked by county Superintendent Dr. Marsha Carr-Lambert, D.M., Grant County Board of Education member Kirk Wilson quickly questioned a bill provision that essentially would establish a 1,400 enrollment “floor” for four  school boards which have fewer than that number of students – the Doddridge, Gilmer, Pendleton and Wirt County Boards.

Wilson said the House education proposal increases the disparity among counties and makes a funding formula which was rated an “A” lowered to a “C“or “D”. The annual Quality Counts Report “gave” West Virginia an “A” in terms of how education funds are distributed to counties.

Capacity
The Quality Counts rating is not about capacity – a county board’s innate ability to generate funds for education largely based on tax-generated revenues. Rather the report focuses on how resource-generating disparities among county boards are addressed through proportionate state school aid funding. In West Virginia, that funding is based on student enrollment which generates state-provided funds for educators, service personnel, transportation outlays, etc. Based on identical considerations of each district’s student enrollment (with weighted/adjusted for special needs students), these state-generated dollars are equitably distributed to ensure parity among school districts despite capacity differences.

Many legislators, however, see proposed PSSP changes, especially the 1,400 student floor, as the threshold at which county boards are able to offer educational services and programs that guarantee a thorough and efficient education for students. Educational equality is afforded all students, despite county pupil population – the central point made by subcommittee Chairman Del. David Perry, D-Fayette. He said PSSP changes should be considered in prospective terms.

Wilson said if the Legislature changed how districts “generate” student counts – literally “giving” some county boards credit for pupils they do not have – the PSSP is affected structurally because some districts will be required to count actual students (counts adjusted for special needs students) while other districts’ student counts will be padded. He said variances in student counts affects every PSSP step, including the much-acclaimed equity provisions for which West Virginia often receives high marks.

Many legislators, however, see proposed PSSP changes, especially the 1,400 student floor, as the threshold at which county boards are able to offer educational services and programs that guarantee a thorough and efficient education for students. Educational equality is afforded all students, despite county pupil population – the central point made by subcommittee Chairman Del. David Perry, D-Fayette. He said PSSP changes should be considered in prospective terms. (More on that later.)

 Perry said that figure was determined by Marshall University and West Virginia University researchers Cal Kent, Ph.D., and Tom Witt, Ph.D., respectively in their three-year PSSP study.

That potential floor generated the most discussion among four persons representing Grant and Tyler counties. Tyler finance official Jeff Davis said the proposal will act as a disincentive to those counties because they will not be required to continue to reduce staff or undertake other actions counties with declining enrollments will have to continue.

“Unlike other counties with declining enrollments, there are no penalties for these counties,” he said.

Wilson said counties might be encouraged to “lose” students to gain the 1,400 floor. “The fewer you have the more money you get,” he said.

Del. Stan Shaver, D-Preston, however, questioned that notion. Perry, again, said a certain economy of scale threshold must be met in student numbers before a county board can provide a quality education.

Based on their presentations, primary points made by the Grant and Tyler counties board representatives in regard to the House subcommittee proposal are:

‘Winners and losers’

• The bill creates “winners and losers,” largely based on current special needs counts. ” This was the primary point made by Tyler County Schools Superintendent Jeff Hoover. He contends – flanked by Del. Roger Romine, R-Tyler who represents that county – the bill’s “hold-harmless” provisions won’t match moneys Tyler County will “lose” if the proposal is enacted. “One county is being punished. The hold harmless I think is wonderful, but in realty we don’t think that’s what the intent of the legislation is,” he said.
  
  Continuing to address that issue, Hoover told the subcommittee “We know this (school aid formula revisions) are not an easy fix, but fix it so one county doesn’t have to take a beating like Tyler County does.”
  
  Under bill provisions, Tyler County is expected to lose $138,000 over the bill’s three-year phase-in period. This is based on several factors -- primarily the percentage of the county’s students identified as special needs. That figure exceeds a 20.5 percent threshold the federal government is mandating (RTI) for school districts in some ways by changing how learning disabled students (LD) are counted.
  

  According to some school aid formula critics, a few county boards have been able historically to procure funds to hire additional personnel because of weightings/adjustments for special needs students.

  Thus, two aspects come into play.  One is a requirement pushing the state to change its methodology for identifying fewer special needs students in order to receive federal dollars. The other is a corollary notion embedded in the subcommittee proposal that counties be funded on net enrollment basis – again largely due to the federal mandate.
  
  State Department of Education officials and legislators acknowledge some boards will lose funds based on special needs student counts or weightings that exceed newly-proposed federal and state thresholds. Due to historical weighting/adjustments for special needs students, some county boards are able, in literal terms, to procure “additional” personnel.
  
  Wilson and other county representatives, however, said school boards are required by federal and state laws to serve special needs students despite PSSP school personnel funding considerations.
  
  He maintains Grant County’s special needs count is mainly because of parents who move to the county because of the board’s offerings for these students. He said Grant County should not be penalized for a program designed to support such students. “If you just get your special needs ratio under 20.5 percent, you’ll be OK,” he said.
  
  The special needs questions, however, is more complicated because some superintendents contend counties may identify fewer special needs students because of federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations relating to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
  
  If the special needs student population is large, schools – and a county board – may have greater difficulty meeting AYP requirements. Thus, parents will “migrate” to school systems having a more defined special needs program.
  
  That issue emerged when the state superintendent addressed House Education Committee Jan. 21. House Education Chairwoman Mary Poling, D-Barbour, has asked the WVDE to examine this issue. Department officials have not responded to her request.
  
  
  The 1,400 floor
  
  
• This probably will prove to be the most controversial aspect of the legislation. The concept was tossed around several years ago as smaller counties continued losing students. Legislators and WVDE officials generally agree that funding provided counties through the school aid formula is not adequate if enrollment falls below a certain figure.
  
  Critics, especially Wilson, maintain the floor amounts to giving counties below the threshold “free money.” (Refer to the Jan. 18 and Jan. 25 issues of The Legislature for a discussion of this proposal.)
  
  Grant Treasurer Tony Oates and Tyler County Treasurer Jeff Davis said the 1,400 floor will discourage these counties from making hard decisions counties above the floor will continue to have to make as the state “goes” to the net ratio.
  
  

  Oates said many local boards facing net enrollment caps will have to cut some programs counties having fewer than 1,400 students will be able to maintain. Wilson made the same point. “There’s huge inequity for us and for our students.” He said his board by following new PSSP guidelines might be able to offer only 10th grade biology while a county board with fewer than 1,400 students could offer more advanced curricula.

  Oates said many local boards facing net enrollment caps will have to cut some programs counties having fewer than 1,400 students will be able to maintain. Wilson made the same point. “There’s huge inequity for us and for our students.” He said his board by following new PSSP guidelines might be able to offer only 10th grade biology while a county board with fewer than 1,400 students could offer more advanced curricula.
  
  Legislators contend the proposal varies little from current funding initiatives. Delegate Perry said, “That premise has been in effect for several years with the existing formula.”
  
  In 2005, the Legislature adopted §18-9A-26. The statute provides additional funding to school districts with enrollments of fewer than 1,400 students. These districts may apply to the state superintendent of schools for additional funding the Legislature appropriates for this purpose.
  
  The statute does not require any specific funding amount to be appropriated each year, nor does it provide a formula for distributing the funds. 
  
  These provisions make it difficult for qualifying county boards to forecast the funding they may receive each year, forcing them to compete against each other for state aid funds. Some superintendents contend they should not have to do this. 
  
  
  Other issues
  
  
• Tyler Superintendent Hoover said the hold harmless provision will hardly compensate for the $100,000 that board is expected to lose over the next few years and the legislation may prove “divisive” among county boards. Perry contends the issues have been discussed for four years with buy-in from stakeholders.

 

• The bill is projected to cost $48.8 million over the next three fiscal years. That cost, however, should be viewed in terms of fewer actual general revenue dollars going to public education during the past few years, meaning the plan helps recoup some of these funds, dedicating them to public schools. Del. Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, has made that point in two recent House Education Committee meetings. “We need to bring that money back into public education,” he said. Perry also made the point that “statewide counties would gain” in terms of the proposal.
• Several legislators, including Browning, said some county board representatives are examining the bill’s prospective provisions based on a static consideration of FY08 as a baseline and not considering the changes that would occur in the first year of the proposed changes when some provisions become effective.

 

• The bill makes no considerations of special appropriations – amounting to $525,000 – which the Pendleton and Pocahontas school boards have received over the last several years, according to subcommittee discussion.

 

• Grant County officials argue they will be required to employ additional personnel under a proposed PSSP step which would extract some positions from the current SAF Step I for professional educators. (Refer to previous article.)

 

‘View changes prospectively’ 

Perry’s comments embrace what is likely to be the Legislature’s approach to this PSSP proposal: It must be viewed in the long term effects as to what is best for county boards and students.  

The Legislature can, if the proposals are adopted, make adjustments next year or during the measure’s three-year phase-in, especially with hold-harmless provisions. 

Floor, special needs students
When all is said and done, the large issues appear to be the 1,400 floor, the revised calculations for special needs students and some “winners and losers” language. No PSSP proposal will have all “winners.”

For those with institutional memories, the way school boards “count” special education students has been the point of PSSP reform, since 1988 (Senate Bill 588).

The Legislature, realizing West Virginia was losing students based on headcount, noted the number of special needs students continued to increase, particularly in smaller counties, with additional services and personnel being applied to those boards.

County officials in many of these districts contended they were making a better effort to identify special education students. But a skeptical Legislature eventually enacted net and adjusted enrollment caps and funding boards based on the lesser of the two, with adjusted enrollment based on special needs counts primarily.

The new wrinkle appears to be RTI (Response to Intervention) with the federal government making the push for some PSSP reforms.

As stated, this current conversation began about four years ago when both houses of the Legislature, particularly the State Senate, determined some PSSP revisions were necessary.

Based on discussions with legislators from both houses as well as lobbyists and those much better in the know than I am, it appears the measure is headed for passage.

Perhaps Del. Walter Duke, R-Berkeley, had the best analysis, saying it’s time we looked “above the trees and forest and do things differently.”

The question becomes, will this legislative proposal be embraced as the means to make that difference? My bet is in the affirmative.

Howard M. O’Cull is executive director of the West Virginia School Board Association.

Bill Almanac

Note: The Bill Almanac may be used to track measures considered by the House and Senate Education Committees (as well as pertinent legislation from other committees). For purposes of brevity, a short title is used along with the bill’s current status. Other bill history usually is omitted. Only bills reported from subcommittee or committee are listed. Bills originating in committee are listed once they are given a bill number.  The Legislature’s Website link to each bill is included. Senate Bills are listed first. The Bill Almanac is updated weekly.
 
Senate Bills:

• Senate Bill 161, requiring the state Board of Education to develop a program to pay the General Educational Development (GED) examination fee for eligible individuals. Status: Second Reference to Senate Finance Committee. The Legislature’s reference for SB161 is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/SB161%20SUB1.htm
  
  
• Senate Bill 459, clarifying the rulemaking authority of the School Building Authority of West Virginia (SBA). Status: House Education Committee. The Legislature’s reference for the bill is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/sb459%20org.htm\

House Bills

• House Bill 4059, allowing “currently employed” bus operators who are diagnosed with diabetes which requires usage of insulin to be eligible for employment by county boards; certain restrictions apply. Status: House Education Subcommittee B approved Jan. 31 to report to full HEC. Measure approved by House Health and Human Resources Committee Jan. 17.  The Legislature’s Website reference is  http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4059%20intr.htm

• House Bill 4125, increasing from $50 to $100 the amount of faculty senate funds individual classroom teachers may use for classroom supplies and similar materials, although faculty senates would continue to receive $200 per teacher. Status: House of Delegates Third Reading Feb. 1.  The Legislature’s Website reference is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4125%20intr.htm
  
  
• House Bill 4128, allowing net proceeds held for a minor to be invested in a Smart529 college savings plan. Status: Second Reference to House Judiciary. Approved by House Education Jan. 29. The Legislature’s Website reference is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb4148%20intr.htm


The bill, adopted by House Education Jan. 29, has a second reference to House Judiciary.

2008 Legislative Calendar

√√ First Day – Jan. 9, 2008: First day of session. (WV Const. Art. VI, §18)

√√20th Day – Jan. 28, 2008: Submission of Legislative Rule-Making Review bills due. (WV Code §29A-3-12)

41st Day – Feb. 18, 2008: Last day to introduce bills in Senate. Does not apply to originating or supplementary appropriation bills. (Senate Rule 14) Does not apply to Senate resolutions or concurrent resolutions.

45th Day – Feb. 22, 2008: Last day to introduce bills in House of Delegates. Does not apply to originating or supplementary appropriation bills. (House Rule 91a) Does not apply to House resolutions or concurrent resolutions.

47th Day – Feb. 24, 2008: Bills due out of committees in house of origin to ensure three full days for readings.

50th Day – Feb. 27, 2008: Last day to consider bill on third reading in house of origin. Does not include budget or supplementary appropriation bills. (Joint Rule 5b).

60th Day - March 8, 2008: Adjournment at Midnight. (WV Const. Art. VI, §22)

--Source: West Virginia Legislature

State board of education seeks public input on policy updates

The West Virginia Board of Education wants your opinion. Board members voted at their January meeting to place three policies on public comment for 30 days.

Board members are seeking input on Policy 2200: Parent Involvement in Education. This policy, first adopted in 1989, updates guidelines to provide for development of a parent involvement policy in each county.

Also placed on 30-day comment is Policy 2515: Uniform Grading. This revision includes a grading scale and requires the weighting of advanced placement and international baccalaureate courses.

Policy 2520.35: 21st Century Science 9-12 Content Standards and Objectives for West Virginia Schools also is under consideration for revision. Proposed changes would provide better alignment between conceptual biology and biology, conceptual chemistry and chemistry and conceptual physics and physics. It improves alignment with National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card. It adds performance descriptors to earth science, human anatomy, physics and conceptual physics.

Educators, parents and community members are invited to review policies and make suggestions. Policies can be viewed and comments can be submitted by logging onto the West Virginia Department of Education Web site at http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies .
More information is available at the Office of Communications at (304) 558-2699.

Administrative Perspective

Concerns voiced over proposed changes in funding formula

By Martha Dean

This column will be a little short this week. I have been ill with a terrible cold and this is the week the West Virginia Association of School Administrators have their January seminar at Flatwoods.

A House education subcommittee met Tuesday about concerns relating to a proposal to change the school aid formula they have been working on for some time. 

Representatives from Tyler and Grant counties spoke to the subcommittee about the effects of the proposed changes on their county school funding. 

A Tyler County spokesperson pointed out Tyler was not the only county to be negatively impacted, but it would lose more money than any other county due to the changes.

Their information was organized around four points:

• Misleading presentation of information;
• Adjusted versus net enrollment;
• Enrollment floor (of 1,400 students);
• Position shifting from step one to step five of the formula.

The first point was that information provided counties concerning the proposal have been sketchy, misleading and incomplete. It is important for all school officials in all counties to understand the impact.
 
The second point was that most counties are being affected by net enrollment caps so the change from adjusted enrollment to net enrollment is probably appropriate. 

However, counties who have a high percentage of special education students due to unforeseen circumstances and there needs to be assurances funds will be available to guarantee the educational needs of children.

The enrollment floor of 1,400 students is very generous to very small counties. 

However, those on the cusp of 1,400 students are still small and have similar needs, but do not receive consideration.

 Also, is there really a need in very small counties for the additional personnel who would be generated? The point about shifting funding of counselors, nurses and technology specialists in a separate step of the formula is that the funding is being lifted from Step 1 and put in Step 5 where the “recommended number” of these categories of personnel is required. If the person is not hired, the county would not get the funding.

Grant County Board of Education member Kirk Wilson presented his interpretation of the funding formula that has been discussed among committee members. 

He questions the wisdom of changing a formula that adds almost $50 million in school funding but causes four counties to lose money. Further analysis showed per student funding based on the current formula was a statewide average of $5,299/student with a variance of $1,218/student which converts to 23 percent variance. 

The proposed formula would produce an average of $5,548/student with a variance of $2,311/students, converted to 42 percent. This application flies in the face of the need for equity.

The presentation was limited as to the number of minutes they had to present, but a Grant County representative had a plea to the committee: Look at the reasons for the changes and the effects and base any changes to the current formula on true need for additional money for specific purposes. 

A new model must recognize how school districts operate and how fixed and variable costs impact their operational costs. Inflation should be a consideration.
 
Wilson emphasized that their current proposal worsens equity among the counties and over funds a few sparsely populated counties while causing others to experience budget cuts.

Toward the end of the meeting, subcommittee members had a chance to question the presenters and to express their own views. 
Del. Roger Romine, R-Tyler, said he hopes the subcommittee would consider the information presented because he did not think that the subcommittee’s work was meant to cause any county to lose money. 

Del. Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, said the purpose of looking at the formula is to put more money into education and to correct the formula in a way that meets everyone’s need for funding.

Martha Dean is executive director of the West Virginia Association of School Administrators.

 

WVSBA Briefs

School funding proposals major programmatic focus for Feb. 22-23 school board association meeting

The primary focus of the West Virginia School Board Association’s Winter Conference is a panel discussion relating to the Joint Committee on Education’s proposed state Public School Support Program (PSSP) legislation.

First Lady Gayle Manchin is keynote speaker.

The conference will be held Feb. 22-23 at the Charleston Marriott Town Center Hotel.

The association will provide transportation to the Capitol beginning at 8:45 a.m. Friday, Feb. 22, for members to visit legislators. As in the past, members are responsible for making individual appointments and other arrangements with lawmakers.
.
The School Board Association and state Association of School Administrator will provide box lunches for legislators. If you wish to volunteer to assist at the “lunch stations,” contact Shirley Davidson, administrative assistant at sdavidson@wvsba.org.

Additional conference programs will include two open forums – one strictly dealing with legislation and the other “participant-lead.”

Conference activities Saturday, Feb. 23, will include a session relating to health and nutrition. Association President Sally Cann (Harrison) will be present that session along with WVBE member Barbara Fish of Wood County.
The conference concludes with a mock board meeting where members and superintendents will portray the Mountain County Board of Education and problems with delegations.

We will use this format to discuss a recent Ethics Commission opinion concerning how public entities are to consider input from delegations. Presenters include Howard Seufer Jr., association counsel, and WVEC Executive Director Lew Brewer.

The program adjourns at noon.

The association’s Executive Board will meet be at 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 21, at the Charleston Marriott.

The FY09 annual business meeting will be at 8 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 23. We will elect executive officers and regional officers.

 

Procedures outline for seeking WVSBA executive offices

By Peter H. “Pete” Dougherty

I am honored that Association President Sally Cann (Harrison) has appointed me as chairman of the WVSBA Executive Officers Nominating Committee. I also am honored that Judi Almond (Raleigh) and Pat Jones (Barbour) also have agreed to serve on the committee.

We have taken this committee and our roles seriously. Accordingly, we have developed the following procedures for committee operations. Please read them carefully, contacting me with any questions or comments. My contact information is: telephone 202.461.7390 (work) or email peteboe@yahoo.com and pete.doughertyt@va.gov.

The procedures are:

All Executive Committee slots are open for nominations, including that of president, president-elect, vice president and financial officer. Debbie Phillips (Putnam) now serves as vice president and Rick Snuffer (Raleigh) serves as financial officer. Steve Cook (Monongalia) had served as president-elect but, due his opting to run for Monongalia County Commission, that position is vacant. Thus, delegates to the FY09 Annual Business Meeting are responsible for electing 1) a president, 2) president-elect, 3) vice president and 4) financial officer. While current Executive Officers Philips and Snuffer may apply for those positions, they are – as we stated – open for application by any member of the association, based on procedures below.

As stated in the association’s Constitution & Bylaws, nominees for any elective association position may be made from the floor – with the consent of the one(s) being nominated. Persons have until Feb. 20 to apply for any of the above positions. The committee prefers one apply by an e-mail forwarded to each of us, although members may apply in writing. No telephone applications will be accepted. Once one applies, he or she will receive notification their application has been received. The Nominating Committee’s role from that point forward is to collate the name(s) of persons applying for the various positions, reporting the final tally of names to the WVSBA Executive Board at their Feb. 21 meeting. The executive board’s only role, at this point, is to receive the report. The Constitution and Bylaws stress no other responsibility.

Friday, Feb. 22, at the conclusion of the association’s Winter Conference First General Session, each person(s) having applied for an executive officers’ position will be allotted three minutes to respond to three questions the Nominating Committee will pose. A member of the Nominating Committee will provide each applicant a copy of three questions 30 minutes in advance. Strict timelines will be observed. As questions are distributed, lots will be drawn as to applicants’ sequence in making remarks.

Please contact only members of the Nominating Committee if you have questions about the procedure(s). Do not contact any member of the association staff for this purpose or member of the WVSBA Executive Board.
In terms of regional directors and associate regional directors, these individuals will be elected at caucuses Feb. 23, following the election for executive officers. I will contact each regional officer to see whether they wish to continue to serve, particularly individuals who rarely attend executive board meetings. If a current officer does not want to continue to serve, that point will be noted during the time of regional caucuses.

Announcement of our procedures will be posted in each issue of The Legislature published prior to the Winter Conference.  If you have questions or comments, please contact me. My contact information is…

As your Executive Officers Nominating Committee, we have developed a progressive approach to determining future association leadership and, of course, encourage you to become an applicant for the position – if you are willing to make the time commitment to see the association grow as we represent the state’s 55 county boards and West Virginia’s   281, 733  public school students.
I look forward to hearing from each of you.

Peter H. “Pete” Dougherty (Jefferson),

Chairman West Virginia School Board Association

Executive Offices Nominating Committee chairman

 

Agenda for W. Va. School Board Association Winter Conference Feb. 22-23, 2008, Marriott Town Center Hotel - Charleston

Friday, Feb. 22

1:00  p.m. First Lady Gayle Manchin, Keynote Speaker
2:00  p.m. “The School Aid Formula: Past, Present, Future Considerations”

Presenter: Cal Kent, vice president for business and economic research at Marshall University

Panel Discussion: Representatives of county boards, superintendents, legislators, school business officials, etc.)

Question/Comment Period

Concluding Remarks

(Refreshment break 2:30-2:50 p.m.)

4:15 p.m. Adjournment

7 p.m. Participant  Discussions

Session I: General Topics

Session II: 2008 Legislation

Saturday, Feb. 23

7 a.m. Breakfast

8 a.m. Annual Business Meeting

9 a.m. West Virginia Board of Education Nutrition Policies/School Health

Policies:  Barbara Fish (Wood), WVBE member, and Sally Cann (Harrison), WVSBA president
10:15 a.m.-Noon West Virginia Ethics Commission Rulings Regarding “Delegations”/Meetings Management

Role-Playing Exercise: Howard E. Seufer Jr. of Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, WVSBA Counsel; and Lewis Brewer, executive director of West Virginia Ethics Commission

Noon Adjournment
 
Note: According to WVSBA Administrative Assistant Shirley Davidson, 129 board members, county superintendents and administrators are registered for the conference. Registrations have not been received from 23 county boards as of Jan. 24. She urges members to contact county board executive secretaries in order to register for the conference. 

 

West Virginia School Board Association 2008 Meetings Schedule

WVSBA Winter Conference
Feb. 22-23
Marriott Hotel, Charleston

 

WVSBA Orientation ’08
June 16-18
Waterfront Place Hotel, Morgantown

 

WVSBA Presidents Retreat '08
July 18-19
Glade Springs Resort, Daniels

 

WVSBA Fall Conference
Sept. 12-13
Marriott Hotel, Charleston

Resources

Summit program having impact on increasing college enrollment

During a presentation to a joint meeting of the West Virginia Senate and House Education Committees Jan. 29, Randy Shillingburg, College Summit-West Virginia executive director, shared data illustrating the initiative is having impact on college enrollment.

Shillingburg said Kanawha County Schools’ in-state college enrollment rate was 9 percent higher than the average for the rest of the state in 2004. He said by 2006, after two years of College Summit implementation across the county, Kanawha County Schools’ in-state college enrollment had increased to 22 percent higher than the rest of the state.

“When you can show externally-validated data across a system of eight high schools, representing one-tenth of all students in West Virginia, you begin to see trends that are undeniable,” Shillingburg explained to legislators. “This data has been validated by the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission.”

“The result would have been slightly more than a 5 percentile increase in in-state college enrollment from 2004 to 2006, which would have meant 900 more West Virginia students enrolling in West Virginia colleges in 2006 alone. The difference in the two lines is those students who could have enrolled in college, but didn’t. The difference is that many of those young people are now relegated to dead end and low-paying jobs.”

Shillingburg also showed legislators a line chart depicting the impact on West Virginia if the rest of the state had followed Kanawha County’s trend.

“The result would have been slightly more than a 5 percentile increase in in-state college enrollment from 2004 to 2006, which would have meant 900 more West Virginia students enrolling in West Virginia colleges in 2006 alone,” he said. “The difference in the two lines is those students who could have enrolled in college, but didn’t. The difference is that many of those young people are now relegated to dead end and low-paying jobs.”

The West Virginia native explained the comprehensive approach College Summit brings to college access.

“College Summit is a nonprofit organization devoted to increasing college enrollment by strengthening schools’ guidance systems and building the capacity within public schools to send significantly more students to post-secondary education and training programs,” he said. “Our work consists of partnering with public schools to introduce a post-secondary planning curriculum of at least one hour a week, training teachers and counselors to deliver this curriculum, utilizing sophisticated online tools to manage the process, providing regular data reports to schools, training peer influencers to begin changing the college-going culture in their schools and providing ongoing support to participating schools.”

Shillingburg told legislators West Virginia has become a national leader in college access, as one-sixth of all seniors in the state are now being served through College Summit’s comprehensive approach.

“States across the country are now vying to become the first to take a comprehensive, statewide approach to increasing college enrollment. West Virginia is the closest to making this a reality,” he said.  “Numerous states are beginning to realize that increasing college enrollment is not just a quality of life issue for citizens, but also an economic development issue that impacts a state’s ability to compete in an increasingly global economy.” 

Shillingburg said College Summit’s work in West Virginia is beginning to attract attention across the nation and around the world.

 “The data I’m sharing with you today was shared with Senator Kennedy two weeks ago and with world leaders in late January at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland,” he said.  “In two weeks, I’ll be traveling to Washington to share this data with more Congressional leaders.”

“The data I’m sharing with you today was shared with Senator Kennedy two weeks ago and with world leaders in late January at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. In two weeks, I’ll be traveling to Washington to share this data with more Congressional leaders.”

Shillingburg also told legislators College Summit was recognized at the World Economic Forum as the United States’ 2008 Social Entrepreneur of the Year for 2008. He also said he will take on a new role Feb. 1 with College Summit and turn over the reins to the organization’s West Virginia operations to Craig Grooms, now program director.

Grooms, former admission director at Marshall University, have more than 20 years of higher education experience. He has directed College Summit’s implementation in West Virginia schools the past two years, ensuring the program’s success.

Shillingburg has been promoted to managing director of site operations effective Feb. 1. He will be managing and supporting College Summit regions across the country, including West Virginia, Miami, Indianapolis and Los Angeles, sharing the lessons learned in West Virginia to help other College Summit regions thrive. Shillingburg said he will maintain his home in West Virginia and an office at West Virginia State University.

“We’re approaching the summit of something great in West Virginia,” he commented during his closing remarks.  “We’re on the verge of proving a model of social change that moves people and places out of poverty, encourages vital economic development and propels West Virginia forward as a national leader in the effort to encourage education and training after high school for all students.
“I know this is your vision,” he told legislators. “This should be our vision for all of West Virginia.”

Source: WVSBA reporting, College Summit, Randy Shillingburg

 

McDonald's scholarships open to Eastern Panhandle students

High school students in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle are being invited to apply for $1,500 scholarships available through the McDonald’s Educates Scholarship program.

Last year, 45 students throughout the greater Washington, D.C., region, including the District of Columbia and portions of Maryland, Northern Virginia and West Virginia, each received scholarships totaling $67,500.

Current high school seniors who live in the greater Washington, D.C., or outlying areas and who demonstrate leadership skills, both academically and within their communities, are eligible to apply for the scholarships. In West Virginia, students in Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral and Morgan counties can apply.

Applications will be accepted until March 1. Applicants are asked to complete two short answer questions on cultural diversity and community service. Winners will be recognized in the spring at a special reception and will be featured in a publicity campaign.

Applications are available online at http://www.mcdonaldseducates.com/scholarship_01.html. Send completed applications to: McDonald's Family Restaurants of Greater Washington, D.C., c/o GolinHarris, 2200 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22201. Applications also can be sent by fax to (703) 741-7501.

More information is available by calling (703) 741-7500 or by contacting the West Virginia Department of Education’s Office of Communications at (304) 558-2699.

SOURCE: West Virginia Department of Education.

 

Commentary

Proposed school aid formula will affect some counties in positive way

By Jim Welton

Proposed changes to the state school aid formula will affect Berkeley County in a positive manner in several respects. Just as importantly, the impact should have a positive effect on the vast majority of counties.

Eliminating the adjusted enrollment calculation would be a very positive change for Berkeley County. For 2006-07, Berkeley County was funded on net enrollment with only 4.26 professionals over the funding limit. Because of a reduction in special education count the adjusted enrollment cap was used for 2007-08 funding and that resulted in being over formula by 41.38 professionals. Eliminating these wide swings in funding can only be a positive step for the state. Funding service personnel in the same manner only makes sense. However, low enrollment special education classes need to be considered for funding. Specifically, autism, Behavioral Disorder, Moderately Mentally Impaired, and pre-school handicapped programs are labor intensive and should receive special funding.

Eliminating these wide swings in funding can only be a positive step for the state. Funding service personnel in the same manner only makes sense. However, low enrollment special education classes need to be considered for funding. Specifically, autism, Behavioral Disorder, Moderately Mentally Impaired, and pre-school handicapped programs are labor intensive and should receive special funding.

The proposed change in transportation allowance also benefits Berkeley County. The county has exceeded the one third limit on average expenses primarily due to costs associated with providing transportation for the pre-school handicapped program. Eliminating this restriction will allow Berkeley to be funded for additional buses that are greatly needed to serve increased enrollments. It is difficult for any county to keep up with inflationary costs associated with transportation because of the two-year lag in funding for transportation. Improvements would be welcome by all counties.

Operation and maintenance allowance is another welcome change to the formula. These costs also are inflationary and the allowance does not come close to meeting needs.

The same can be said for changes to the alternative education allowance. Berkeley County has aggressively had an alternative education program since its inception in the state. We do not want disruptive students in our regular classroom settings. Funding from the state has not come close to matching our costs and this would be another positive change.

Berkeley County recognizes problems with density in our diverse state and does not have a problem with the proposals along these lines, but rather looks at those changes as a positive step for the state.

Jim Welton is Berkeley County Schools assistant superintendent.

ETC.

Meanwhile...in Baltimore – Good grades pay!

The Baltimore school system will pay high school students who improve their scores on the state graduation exams up to $110 each, a controversial plan that would be a first in Maryland. The system will spend $935,622 on the student incentives, part of a $6.3 million plan to help students struggling to pass Maryland's High School Assessments that administrators presented to the school board last night.

Maryland State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick approved the plan, but later in a letter to Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso, she expressed concern about the "lack of research" supporting student incentives and required the system to closely track student results.

Financial incentives for students are being used in New York City, According to accounts in The New York Time, the program has been controversial -- pitting educators who believe students should learn for the love of it against leaders eager to reverse the tide of low student achievement.

While the New York program uses private money for the student incentives, Baltimore is using public dollars. Alonso also said the programs are different because New York's is for younger students and is strictly about incentives. The incentives in Baltimore are part of a broader strategy to help older students pass high-stakes tests. There, students who have failed at least one exam will earn $25 for improving test performance by 5 percent from where they started, according to the proposal submitted to Grasmick. If they improve an additional 15 percent, they will get $35 more. And 20 percent more growth earns an added $50, for a maximum of $110.

Source: Baltimore Sun. Jan. 23, 2008.

 

Wisdom

 

“Those who want the fewest things are nearest to the gods.” -- Socrates

Soundbites

 

“It’s my ox that’s now being gored…It may kill my ox.” – Del. Roger Romine, R-Tyler, discussing proposed provisions in a Joint Committee on Education bill that would revise the state’s Public School Support Program. Tyler County would lose funds under the proposal.

“Are we leaving money laying on the table?” – House Education Committee member Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, questioning whether county boards were aggressive enough in pursuing Medicaid reimbursements. Brenda Isaacs, President of the West Virginia School Nurses Association, says her organization encourages school nurses to be accounting for Medicaid expenses for which county boards can receive some reimbursements.

“I don’t think it’s the proper place to have that type of business.” – Del. Sam Argento, D-Nicholas, discussing legislation that would allow county and city governments to control locations where sexually explicit materials could be sold. Argento was referring to such a shop which opened next to a grade school in Nicholas County.

“It’s a way to take this kind of education in the classroom and make it more convenient for young people…” – Sen. Billy Wayne Bailey, D-Wyoming, discussing his proposal to allow children to receive hunter safety training in public schools. While the measure is a legislative perennial, Bailey contends it will help boost the number of youngsters who may be interested in hunting which, he notes, is declining nationwide.

 

Last Word

Long term plan is the answer to solve teacher salary issues. Period.

By Sally Cann

West Virginia policymakers, including the governor and legislators, owe it to our state’s 281,733 school students and to future generations of students to make a long-term funding commitment to teacher salaries. Period.

It’s time we quit beating around the bush with what amounts to funding scheme shell games such as a requirement county boards of education use freed-up local share dollars for teachers’ salaries.

It’s time we quit beating around the bush with what amounts to funding scheme shell games such as a requirement county boards of education use freed-up local share dollars for teachers’ salaries .It has been done before. In the early 1990s, the Legislature and governor spurred by a massive teacher walkout, moved educator salaries to 30th in the nation over a three-year period.

It has been done before. In the early 1990s, the Legislature and governor spurred by a massive teacher walkout, moved educator salaries to 30th in the nation over a three-year period.

In designing a long-term funding commitment to teacher salaries, let’s consider these factors:

1.  Long-term salary needs can be accomplished without a teacher walkout.

2. Is there true state policymaker interest in getting teacher salaries where they should be? I’m not advocating first in the nation…second in the nation…or even third – but rather somewhere near the national average.

3. How do we do this? Actually, it’s simple. For this year, provide teachers a pay increase in line with the governor’s plans. I know teachers’ groups won’t like this, but I’m not finished.

4. After the legislative sessions ends, appoint a commission to study increasing teacher pay through a long-term strategy. Former Gov. Gaston Caperton took this approach through his broad-based “Committee on Education.”

Don’t load the commission with predictable types. Add lay people, including a few education critics. Add fresh-faced educators: Teachers who room three to a home in the Eastern Panhandle because they cannot afford their own residences. Add teachers who may have college loans to pay on a beginning average $28,587 salary. Add people who will provide new thinking – not dead-eyed status quo types. Include people who think outside the box. Of course, include persons representing the West Virginia Education Association, American Federation of Teachers/ West Virginia and state school service personnel. Just do not overload the commission with these folks. They are the monetary beneficiaries. Other possible members include a student, an economist, researcher, a taxpayer or two such as a senior citizen on a fixed income, and a business type or two – as long as those people are not the swell, well-connected types who are appointed to everything.

After the legislative sessions ends, appoint a commission to study increasing teacher pay through a long-term strategy. Former Gov. Gaston Caperton took this approach through his broad-based “Committee on Education.” Don’t load the commission with predictable types. Add lay people, including a few education critics. Add fresh-faced educators.

As for government types, they can form a parallel commission meeting during interim legislative sessions. That would include legislators, a state board of education representative, a school board member, a school superintendent, representatives from the governor’s office, a county commissioner or other county government representative, etc.

About October, the two groups would compare notes in preparation for final December reports.

5. Who should be chairperson for the group? Maybe I’m out of line, but what about  former governors Caperton, Underwood and Wise? One might also consider Kenneth M. “Kenny” Perdue and Michael “Mike” Basile, Co-leaders of West Virginia – A Vision Shared, although they are pretty involved in other endeavors. Finally, some persons might suggest  prominent members of the  Manchin Administration or even  the First Lady.  – as the First Lady. These names have been suggested by various persons discussing the concept.

6. In getting down to work, the commission would need to truly get a “feel” about the profession and how to develop a well-crafted salary plan so we won’t be faced with legislative session after legislative session with piecemeal plans and political grandstanding once a pay increase is doled out.

7. Once the commission starts work, review what needs changing to attract and retain teachers. While it is mostly pay (just ask kids who were teachers), there are other factors – student preparedness for school, paperwork, burdensome state board of education regulations, state laws, student discipline and the low regard some people have for teaching as a profession. Again, just ask kids who had gone into teaching or who might have gone into teaching.

8. Once the commission’s work is concluded – certainly by December – develop legislation to procure a long-term salary program. Before finishing the work, however, present it to the public as Governor Caperton did. Get input and buy-in and hear and expect criticism. Most of all develop a plan with a means to pay for its provisions. With no offense to teacher organizations, the need for additional pay is critical, but where is the funding? That question often gets lost when asking for pay increases while using a bullhorn. Let’s hit the matter head-on.

9. To receive the long-range salary plan teachers must be willing to commit to long-term goals, including serious review of laws governing the profession. I am not saying these should be deleted, but  do some provisions actually hinder teaching professionalism in West Virginia? Teacher organizations must be in the mix in seeking solutions – along with the commission and as informed by the public. Let’s be careful. The goal is to develop a long-term plan for increasing teacher pay, but within the context of the entirety of the profession. There’s enough time between March and December.

Once the commission’s work is concluded – certainly by December – develop legislation to procure a long-term salary program. Before finishing the work, however, present it to the public as Governor Caperton did. Get input and buy-in and hear and expect criticism. Most of all develop a plan with a means to pay for its provisions.

10. Finally, let’s be serious about teacher salaries. It takes a united effort. It’s more than applying a Band-Aid to teacher shortages -- grabbing persons to commit to alternative learning efforts that lead to certification or even using retirees to shore classrooms when other professionals aren’t available.

We must acknowledge the work and effort this administration has taken to address the state’s retirement system’s unfunded liability, efforts to engage in dialogue with teachers and efforts to provide a safer teaching environment.

Indeed, nothing I have written is criticism of the primary approach taken by the Manchin administration.

Let’s applaud the governor for his proactive stance and commitment to a better West Virginia – certainly in terms of many gubernatorial education plans.

These are 10 steps to getting teacher pay to where it should be based on a long-term commitment to salaries – not incremental pay increases, but to teacher salaries per se. Again, it is unrealistic for us to be number one or two in the nation – but let’s not strive to become Mississippi through default. 

 The association has begun working with both teacher organizations – WVEA, AFT-WV – and the state School Service Personnel Association to get this message out.

We can only be successful if all county board members are involved as you will learn at our Winter Conference Annual Business Meeting.
With the state department of education’s ubiquitous 21st Century Skills Initiative, we hear much about technology. Listen to these words from someone who “knows” technology: “Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important.” – Bill Gates as quoted in the London Independent, Sunday, Oct. 12, 1997.

Truly, salary, in terms of attracting and retaining teachers, is the most important consideration. Period.

Sally Cann is president of the West Virginia School Board Association.

*

 

The Legislature is published by the West Virginia School Board Association. It provides county board of education members, state policymakers, school administrators and the education community information and opinions regarding West Virginia legislative issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect official opinion or policies of the WVSBA, unless specifically stated.

West Virginia School Board Association
PO Box 1008
Charleston, WV 25324
Phone (304) 346-0571 • Fax (304) 346-0572 WVSBA.ORG

Sally Cann (Harrison), President

Vincit omnia veritas
“Truth conquers all”