Raise Your Hand

if you knew it was only a matter of time before Mr. Burleson was a superintendent in Forsyth County!


From the Winston-Salem Journal:

By Journal Staff
Published: January 27, 2010

WINSTON-SALEM -- School officials have promoted Principal David Burleson of North Forsyth High School to serve as an assistant superintendent of high schools.

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education unanimously approved Burleson's promotion during its meeting Tuesday night. Burleson will serve as principal at North Forsyth through the end of the school year before taking over as assistant superintendent.

My hand is raised!

Congratulations Mr. Burleson! Onward and upward!

BOE Meeting 1-25-10

The audit for school year 08-09 was released last night with the admonition from Mr. Lowdermilk, the auditor, that BCPS must rebuild the fund balance. In spite of all of the jabs that fly back and forth between folks on different sides of the issue, the fact remains that we must move forward. I’d like to clarify what I learned, and what I tried to say last night.

Preface: There are folks in the county who have been suspicious of the financial workings of the Central Office for years. It is natural to be suspicious of financial decisions that are made in the rarefied atmosphere of the school district: we see tax payer money spent on things we don’t always agree with, and we get the idea that it is easy for the finance folks and administrators to spend other people’s money (taxpayer money) with impunity. Sometimes suspicion is warranted, sometimes it isn’t. Either way, it is a phenomenon that all finance directors and central office administrators who work for school systems must endure. It is not unique to Burke County.

That said – I think it is evident from the testimony and the judge’s remarks in the Board of Ed /Board of Commissioners lawsuit that the school system did not do an adequate job budgeting for the expenses for the two new high schools (Patton and Draughn) in the last two school years. In testimony at that trial, we learned that the budget had not been built from the “ground up,” because the school system was relying on prior agreements between the Board and Commissioners to build the budget. I guess the Board of Ed historically saw the receipt of local money from the commissioners as an “allowance” rather than an “entitlement”. *

Anyway – back to last night. It was also pointed out that the school system had revenues under expenditures of $2,092,868 in 2008. (The spending in 2008 was appropriately approved by that 2007-2008 board with the proper budget amendments submitted by the finance officer at the time). This audit revealed that the revenues under expenditures were $1,613,087 for 2008-09. With the combination of state reversions, the sagging economy and the expense of the two new schools, it is no leap to conclude that these things had the most impact on the depleting fund balance in the last two years.

I do not want to get into the arguments about “who” caused the depletion of the fund balance. My concerns are more about why the board was not aware of the depletion of the fund balance when they were making significant monetary decisions last year. I know that members of the board asked publicly if the fund balance was adequate to handle the expenditures during this time. The answer was always “yes.” That is the question I tried to ask (rather clumsily) last night - “why didn’t they know?”

We can all agree to disagree about the wisdom behind the board spending last summer. To be sure, the board did know that the fund balance was lower than it had ever been when they made decisions. But, they were told there was a fund balance. I don’t think it helps anyone to continue to blame past board members for their actions or their impact on the final depletion of the fund balance. The fund balance is what it is, and we have to move forward.

Moving forward, I think it is imperative that this board has a handle on what money the system has, where money is being spent and making sure that money saving opportunities are not adversely affecting students. We know, according to the audit, that the board has been “blindsided” in the past year regarding finances, so I think we must insist on seeing a “state of the budget” at every meeting. The central office will have to be prepared to follow spending procedures to the letter, and to have the public and the board scrutinize spending.

When the administration “builds” the budget for next year, they must have adequate information and take into consideration the needs of the schools, the certified staff, the classified staff and the expectations of the public. I think we will be better prepared this coming year. The commissioners are on notice that the school system is probably underfunded, we have a third party reviewing the needs of the schools and we have a county-wide awareness that things have to change. (Of course we cannot change the economy or the amount of funds the county has access to, so whether an increase in funding can be secured remains to be seen.) When the time comes to set the budget, though, hopefully the citizens of Burke will let the officials in the county know what is important to them, so difficult decisions can be made with citizen input.

I welcome your thoughts about the audit. However, I would prefer this remain a conversation rather than a forum to discuss past decisions of the board - any board. What ideas do you have moving forward? What problems do you see moving forward? What concerns you about the audit findings?


*Having read some of the opinions random NC county commish/BOE lawsuits, it is clear to me that the school board/ commissioner relationship is pretty complex. Ideally, neither entity is supposed to be “above” the other. However, the fact that the school board has to play the “mother may I” game to secure local funding naturally leads to an imbalance of power. (This imbalance of power is one of the reasons that many feel that school boards should have taxing authority.)

Technology Plan

I am not as dead-set against the technology expenditure request as some may assume. I am concerned that we are allowing the “perfect” to be the enemy of the “good.” It is a given that we would like to restore pay to teachers but it is clear to me that we can’t do that with our capital money.

I have spent the last couple of weeks researching technology, smart boards, etc.

Regarding Smartboards: A timely article was published in EdWeek this week: “Whiteboards Impact on Teaching seen as Uneven.” It has been suggested that at least 70 hours of professional development is required before a teacher can utilize Smartboards to their maximum. So – whether a teacher uses a Smartboard like a projector or with all of the bells and whistles that it is capable of, is dependent on the teacher’s desire to use the Smartboard and the training that the teacher has experienced. Since Smartboards are such a small part of the technology request, I don’t have a problem with the Smartboard expenditure.

Regarding Hardware: There are a multitude of opinions as to whether laptops, desktops, netbooks are the best option. It does seem to be best that the site administrator (principal with input from teachers and other stakeholders) make the decision as to what form he/she would like available computers to take. (This is my biggest problem with the request.) I think that the argument for the computer purchases as presented is that all schools need basic computer access now, and we can accomplish this most economically by purchasing the computers all at once. That is reasonable, so long as once basic tech needs have been met at each school, principals are given tech funds in the future to enhance their hardware as they see fit.

Regarding Software: As a parent of a student learning to write complex papers, I am all for the “MyAccess” Program. Teaching writing to young folks is tough, tough, tough. My kids had wonderful writing teachers in elementary and high school, but I can't help but think that more exposure to prompts, writing evaluations and such would improve their writing. I am not as enthusiastic about Study Island, but again, economy of scale seems to be reasonable.

Below are some of my thoughts about the request:

Cons

1. Usurpation of principal’s decision-making authority (Guidelines for Standards for School Executives, State of North Carolina Board of Education, 9-6-07)
2. Centralization of decision-making
3. Top- down decision – limited input from principals, teachers and other stakeholders
4. Huge expenditure/huge risk
5. Other capital needs (facilities) seem to be more urgent (Oak Hill, George Hildebrand Cafeteria)
6. Will not be a “huge morale boost” to teachers
7. Skeptical that the tech staff is large enough to deal with installation and infrastructure upgrade
8. Disturbed about rumor that principals told not to talk to board members
9. Approval may reinforce notion of centralized decision making – we need to discourage that as much as possible

Pros

1. Understand desire to have uniform tech at every school – this eases the burden on our tech folks and allows economic advantages
2. My experience is in centralized decision making, so I am sympathetic to the rationale
3. Even with a weighted formula, I don’t think that schools with lower ADM can achieve technological parity with larger schools, or schools with more wealthy population
4. Superintendent’s request seems to fall within Guidelines for Standards for Superintendents (State of North Carolina Board of Education, 9-6-07)
5. We have been told Principals are “on board” (however, see # 8 above)
6. Appears to be significant funding for professional development in the budget
7. The corporate world demands computer literacy from its workers
8. Important to support the new superintendent in his first major project in this school system
9. It is important that every child in Burke County have access to basic technology
10. Standing still is falling behind.

So, that is where I am. I haven't made a final decision.

See you tonight.

Another survey question:

Regarding hardware: Assuming all agree that all students should have equal access to technology: how does the system accomplish this? How should capital funds for technology be used? (Pick all that apply):

To fill in the gaps at schools that currently have inadequate technology. 57.5%
To enhance the technology available based on principal's stated needs. 43.8%
Capital funds should not be used on expanding technology at this time. 12.5%
Capital funds should only be used for maintaining technology at this time. 6.3%
Only a portion of the funds requested should be spent on technology at this time. 33.8%
Other:

1. And only at the schools that need technology the most AND the technology that they identify as needed

2. We have stupid rules that limit children from bringing their iPods to school. Rather than ISSing or OSSing them for using "personal electronics" at school we need to be passing out iPods with appropriate teaching content on them. Embrace the technology and manage it, don't drive kids away from then make them gag on a lacks integration of "too little" technology.

3. Face it; at the average BCPS school at least half the faculty are techno-challenged; fix that. I told a testing coordinator to just give me the Audible version of her presentation and she just looked at me like I was crazy or something. We really got to get over this hurdle!!

4. The school system needs technology now.

5. The Smartboards should be as much a part of every classroom as a whiteboard. An interactive display is a proven teaching tool. We don't ask principals whether they need black (or white) boards. And, as a former systems manager myself, it doesn't make sense to allow each facility to have its own individual loadout; the economies of scale (and the costs of maintenance and support) make it much better to buy the same hardware/software package for similar facilities; i.e., a package for elementaries, a package for middle schools, a package for high schools.

6. All schools in Burke County appear to have inadequate technology. Two million dollars is a small price to pay for a system that appears to have neglected technology for so many, many years. Where have Mr. Armour and Mr. Wilkinson been during all these years? As a result of the consent agreement and a law that was passed specific to Burke County that was tied to the consent agreement with the county commissioners that has since been declared null and void, doesn't the county commissioners get 50% of any new money coming to the Burke County Public Schools? Doesn't this mean that are getting the equivalent of half of the lottery funds that should go to technology? Wasn't this agreement the result of some of Mr. Armour's previous leadership?

7. Schools need some discretionary capital money that can be used for a variety of things in their buildings which may or may not include technology.

8. I am all for standardization, but Stellar has to understand that we are not the Beverly Hillbillies, we are intelligent and know our schools and communities. First of all the gaps are created because some principals are not as savvy in predicting or recognizing their needs, which is where the compromise comes in to play. Set some minimum standards across the district. Purchase Smart technologies, computers, document cameras, projectors, etc. However, ADM allocation is the most equitable way of distributing monies. Larger schools need a larger computer lab or two, while smaller schools may only need 15-20 maximum computers in a lab. Look at the class sizes of the grade levels in the schools. Again, come talk to the principals.

9. If we have to make hard choices because of inadequate funding, we need to put priority at the high school and middle school levels. These students will suffer the most if technology lags behind that available at the college level and most workplaces.

10. Principals know what their school needs....they requested and received what they asked for the past years.....did some not do their jobs???

11. The Central Office has no clue what the schools needs are. The specific needs in technology varies depending on the grade level of the student... a lot of talk of "labs" but technology in individual classrooms would better serve certain grade levels.

12. The community college is always replacing computers could we work out something with them?

13. Again, if the principal and staff appear weak - train them-if they do not meet standards, then deal with it immediately. You can place the finest technology out there but if no training occurs, then the students will not be properly instructed. Also, please note that old buildings need wiring to accept the new technologies therefore this could take more than a year to complete. Please watch the expense of this too.

14. We have been given equipment but no wires came with it so there is another BIG added expense for what seems so simple. It sounds as though several schools have maintenance issues that need to be dealt with.

15. We are not good stewards of money if we pour in money for computers and smart boards only to place them in leaky drafty rooms.

16. I think gaps can be filled and then updates can be made. As stated above, there needs to be some $$ set aside for training. Plus, the principal should help decide what is best for their own schools versus a one plan fits all approach.

Survey says!

I will post the results of the online technology survey as I can -
Please note, only 83 folks took the survey - the participants included:

36 teachers
3 principals
4 staff people
1 student
38 tax payers
1 person who just likes to take surveys.

Brace yourself, there is a lot to read - and this is just one question!

Q: Suppose the system cannot use capital funds to restore pay. The current technology appropriation request asks for ~ $2 million for technology expenditures. The current plan is to supply all schools with enough desktop computers to have two (2) labs. Some schools will have enough for three labs. The plan also reallocates SMART boards among the schools. (Pick all that apply):

It's a great plan! 3.7%
It is a great plan if it has the support of the teachers. 16%
This is a huge expenditure for the system - go slow! 42%
This is a necessary expense and we must invest now! 6%
Each school should decide what kind of technology they need. 63%
I want to be sure every student has access to technology. 30.5
Other:

1. Schools should have a say in the technology that is placed in their school -- especially since in the process of gaining unwanted hardware, school-based purchases are being removed.

2. Use more TA's like the medical industry uses CNA-II's. A nurse typically supervises 4 to 8 CNA-I's and II's, so a teacher can supervise up to a similar number of TA's and student activities. Seek legislation changes that make this possible. Look at outsourcing testing to maintain testing integrity. Support TA's that want higher education, i.e. to become teachers with full pay and benefits and develop a program to work them into the system as teachers when they complete their program.

3. This is Dr. Stellar's plan. Drill and Kill software is not researched based instructional technology. We should be investing in Smartboards, slates and teacher training and support.

4. Most schools don't have enough room for all of the children they currently hold, why add labs when we need classrooms?

5. The smart boards are a waste of money that is needed elsewhere.

6. I'm not convinced that computer labs are the best path to the future. What's ahead, and what I see at more and more school systems (check out Surry County Schools, a district about Burke County's size, for a recent example), are programs that provide computers for each student. Does the school district's technology plan show an evolution toward that ultimate goal? I'm concerned that investing in computer labs now will consume funds that will be needed later, and that the labs themselves won't fit into the schools' future needs. Right now, $2 million would buy laptops for half the children in BCPS. Despite those concerns, I still believe we must make the capital investment in computers. Burke County is woefully behind other districts in providing adequate technology to support computer-aided instruction. We do our students a disservice when we don't equip them with the tools and skills for the time when they're adults and pursuing careers and other involvement in the community.

7. It appears the only board members concerned with the technology needs of our students are Mr. Buff and Ms. Sain. Are the rest of you trying to use technology funds to fulfill campaign promises?

8. Standardization and purchasing in bulk are all great ideas and purchasing in bulk can still be accomplished while giving principals and teachers some say in what is purchased.

9. The instructional supply budget was cut by 60% this year. Every budget and program across this county has been cut. We spent a total of $1 million dollars on the capital budget last year which included technology and building. If anything you should be cutting back in this area also. Pay the attorneys and bank it, or restore the instructional supply budget. We have done fine for years in technology and provided better scores ever year. Mr. Buff is the reason the technology program got cut in the first place. Specifically his agenda toward the previous technology director. Not until Mr. Sherill came did we have the urgency to purchase SMART technologies, which is not a bad thing in theory, but it is part of the previous boards agenda to keep the employees of this county suppressed. Just like investing in the "Energy" conservation program. $24 K a month or $1 million dollars. Don't you get it? Don't you get it? Stellar is loyal to those that hired him. If you have learned anything over the last two years is that the previous board is not for students, capital building, or technology....just for themselves. They tied up all the monies in contracts. Compromise, huh! Count me out, I am for people and doing the right thing. Restore the supplements and hours. Attrition will happen and non-tenured staff may be let go. Sorry for the long rambling response, I am passionate about what I do. Come talk to the principals in person.

10. I teach at an elementary school and we do NOT need another computer lab. SMART boards are desired in all classrooms and therefore I feel technology funds to be spent should be a site based decision.

11. Take another look at this with input from the school level and prioritize so purchases can be made in stages if necessary. However, we need to recognize that the ultimate responsibility for recommendations on what to buy lies with the tech people who understand things such as system-wide compatibility, etc... Principals and school staff need to express what they think is practical and needed for their students, tech staff need to explain how that may actually translate into what best meets those needs and the overall technology goals for the school system. We can't afford to allow our students to be left behind, but we need to make wise decisions on spending our limited dollars.

12. Ask the teachers of each school what is necessary for each classroom. Would additional computers in each classroom (especially in the lower grades) be more beneficial than an additional lab? The lower grade students must wait turns to use class computers for AR tests and when time runs out, it is gone. I discourage rushing into throwing monies toward an idea without supportive data the end result is NEEDED.BTW: does the schools have enough system to support the proposed smart boards and computers?

13. It's not a very fair plan!

14. Happy Cows give more milk.....Well cared for Chickens lay more eggs.......high morale among teachers and school personnel produce better test scores and increases the learning of their students...typically, computer labs are a babysitting service to allow teachers to teach those who need extra help. No computer can take the place of a teacher. The teacher will remain around only if the administration DOES not "mess" with their time or money! Computers and smart boards will become obsolete unless you can ensure us the money will be there next year for upgrades. Laptops which are mobile can go to the students. It takes staff to operate a computer lab and they have been cut! Spending 2 mil. on technology at this time is absolutely ridiculous!

15. Teachers should be able to give input - not just the principals. We desperately need new technology at our school but the teachers should be asked what is effective and how could the money be used at our specific schools - everything is not the same county wise. We also need computers updated in the classrooms.

16. I think the needs of each school should be assessed individually. Put each school on similar budget (doesn't have to be exact) and ask them for proposals on what technology they would want to purchase. Then combine all proposals and see if buying in bulk still an option and cost savings there. You can give them options on what to purchase with cost of each item rather than leaving it open ended if you need to.

17. The problem with a lot of this technology is that we, as teachers, are not properly trained on how to use the technology appropriately. We need certified technology teachers to run these computer labs in the schools. At our elementary school, we have an assistant who is the computer teacher and the students' allotted time is spent playing games on the computer. These children need computer instruction! Also, we now have 2 smart boards and have had a 30 minute training session during one of our planning periods. NOT enough! We need appropriate training and appropriate people to use the equipment! More equipment does no good if it is not used effectively.

18. Principals and teachers should brainstorm what is best for their schools technology needs. X amount of dollars should be allocated-then decisions made without others included. If decisions can not be made, then "weeding" should occur. Apparently, that staff is not there for the betterment of the students. As you all should see now, the weak systems will come to the top-then deal with it. However, pay restoration (so we will then know that what we truly tried to do-keep teachers employed)vs buyout and paying for attorneys that took advantage of an already BAD situation-and classified staff hours should be the first priority.

19. More SMART Boards...less PCs. This will reach more students where they need it most...in the classroom.

20. We don't need a "one size fits all" plan.

21. Evaluate the technology needs, and consider alternative means for supplying the computer equipment. There are many sources of re certified/refurbished equipment which can be purchased at a fraction of the cost of brand new equipment and have plenty of life in them. This includes Desktops, laptop/notebooks, and monitors. Following this route may be enough to equip all the schools and still potentially have a few bucks left over.

22. Site-based decision with input from Director of Technology

23. We also need to make sure we have enough money to support the technology we fund. We need to do our RESEARCH and make sure we are getting what we need and what was can afford in several years. We have LCD projectors in high schools that when the bulbs burn out they cost $400.00 a piece to replace.... that makes the technology useless!!!!

24. Some schools are not as familiar with the technology available and how it can be used. Having them decide not to get technology should not be an option, but $$ needs to be set aside as part of this to do training

25. It is a given that students must have access to technology. It is a given that students must be able to use technology effectively. However, no one seems to mention problems that come with these givens. SMART boards are amazing--another given--but what happens when the technology doesn't work, or crashes, and the teacher's entire lesson plan in on it? What happens when a projector bulb blows and there are no replacements because they are so expensive? As we look at investing in new technology, we MUST make sure we have people/methods in place to support and maintain existing technology and thereby maintain strong instructional time for the students.

26. Each school needs to establish a technology committee that includes admins, teachers, parents, system technology experts, and outside technology experts. There are many businesses and industries in the county who have IT experts who can help guide the system on the purchase of appropriate technology. We need to address hardware, software, space issues, and electrical infrastructure issues at each school. If you do not provide adequate training for the teachers and teacher assistants, the equipment will sit idle and the money will have been wasted.

UPDATE

It was nice to have a cordial meeting between the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education the other night. I think we are all looking forward to seeing what Evergreen Solutions is able to discern from their review of the system. My guess is that there will be few surprises, and that they will confirm most suppositions that the Superintendent and citizens already have. Having glanced through their 200 page review of Wayne County, it is evident that they will do a thorough job.

It was also great to see that Representative Hugh Blackwell attended the meeting. I think we all appreciate our state elected officials' participation in local matters. I know Mr. Blackwell has his hands full in Raleigh, but I hope he returns to the meetings and doesn't hesitate to offer advice where he sees the need. I understand that Mr. Blackwell was an exemplary board member when he served (no, I am not being patronizing – he is a smart, thoughtful, person) and I am sure he has insight that newbies like me don't. (Actually, there are several former board members from waaaayback who have privately shared their concerns and advice, and I am grateful to them, too.)

I have been told that I ought to discontinue this blog so as not to expose myself to criticism for my opinions. I guess the thought is that if I make allegations or ruminations that turn out to be wrong, I would "lose face" with the public. The notion of "saving face" is probably really important to those who take themselves too seriously, or those who have bigger political aspirations than I do. It is not very important to me. I have been wrong many times before, and in my opinion, being "exposed" for being "wrong-headed" is just part of life.

Regarding those of you who have left comments on my blog in the past couple of days that I have not published: I do not disagree with you. There are bad apples in most organizations. However, I must be mindful of the position that I am in and the parameters that school board members must work in. In my opinion, I cannot criticize the previous board for micromanaging the school system and running people off if I turn around and do it myself. I cannot and will not "go after" people. That does not mean that I will not insist on holding people accountable for malfeasance or misfeasance.

I have been told that the Central Office is in a state of high tension because of decisions this board has made, and pressure that has been brought to bear by comments and criticisms that I have made. (No, I did not hear this from a mole. I was told this directly by an administrator.) To the good folks at the Central Office, I apologize for any undue stress I have caused. To the rest of you - this ain't no disco. Territoriality and fiefdom may be prevalent in school systems, but it has no place there. Get over yourselves. It is my fiduciary duty as a board member to review how money is spent – and I have crossed no line by requesting minimal information. This is part of my learning process. The fact that my queries about the Energy Contract would cause so much discomfort and panic speaks volumes.

And, to those of you trolls who have engaged in a campaign to harass me and my family: you lose your relevance when you become redundant and mean. You might have had some influence if you hadn't overplayed your weak hand (I do have a soft spot in my heart for the underdog – it can be my downfall). Regarding your constant communications, Shakespeare said it best in Macbeth:

"it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."