Comments for Round one: school boards at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.theind.com Thu, 23 May 2013 08:52:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1380 I think the State Superintendents of Louisiana, in recent history, are much like past State Insurance commisioners. Not on the up and up, just harder to put in jail. But hey, let's do what we usually do with education - let's give everyone involved another big raise! - Myrick6 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:27:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1337 Bottom line, the School Board members should not be required to spend the time that they do now. Pay them for the meetings that they attend, just like BESE does. That's not the problem. Realignment of interests and a clear definition of responsibilities should be the goal. If we do this, we will enlarge the pool of potential candidates for School Board. You never have too many good people running for an office. The public only benefits. As for the call for research based statistics to prove that these reform issues will enhance classroom performance, great. But let's extend that demand to all aspects of our educational system. It wasn't done with block scheduling before it was implemented at considerable cost. It wasn't done with our class size policy. That was proven when the Chamber brought Dr. Charles Achilles to town and he enlightened us to the fact that the only large scale study on the impact of class size was limited to its effects when implemented in the first year of education. Did we follow that advise? No. We implemented it wholesale because we were told that "a good teacher can teach in a tent". What happened? We went from an $8 million annual capital budget to $600,000 per year while increasing our facilities by 800,000 square feet. That same proponent of lower class size later complained of the deplorable conditions in our schools. One last point. This is not a power grab by the State Superintendent. It's an attempt to empower the local Superintendent. We're supposed to do that with site based management of our schools by empowering the Principals. Why not be consistent? - Gary McGoffin Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:33:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1336 Let me start by thanking the Lafayette Parish School System for educating me, my brothers and my three sons. My mother and my wife both taught in the System. And, for the past nine years I have been involved in the System primarily through the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. In 2005, the Lafayette Chamber met with then state Superintendent Cecil Picard, his staff and CABL to discuss our five year experience with the Lafayette public school system. We had worked with our peers in the school system to evaluate technology, human resources, facilities, transportation and finance. What we found was a disconnect between the education professionals and the School Board members. The culture of the School Board was that it rather than the Lafayette parish Superintendent and his staff run things. And they were not particularly keen on a bunch of business men and women trying to tell them how to do things. As one noted School Board member often repeated "we are not a business". But they are. One of the largest in this region in terms of number of employees, employee benefit administration, a transportation system comparable in size to the New Orleans Transit Authority before Katrina, 3.8 million square feet of facilities under roof, the third largest utility consumer in the parish and host of the largest computer network in the parish. The list goes on and on. What we realized then and remains true today is that the focus of our school system is on the adults rather than the students. Particularly the adults on the School Board. Now let's distinguish that from the classroom. Our teachers are focused on their students. But once we leave the classroom that dynamic changes. And why is that? It's because we have not made the fundamental distinction in the role of the professional educators and the role of the public through its elected representatives to the School Board. This is the system that we have inherited. Heck, it's the system that the School Board inherited. It's just always been that way. The School Board should establish the goals that are important to our community. It should hire the Superintendent to meet those goals AND it should hold that Superintendent accountable. That's it. Why were the micromanagement, hire/fire, and compensation bills in this past legislative session important? Because it's important that our School Board hire the person best capable of delivering on the goals. How do they best achieve that? By reaching a solid consensus on what those goals are and the person best qualified to achieve them. Why would we want someone as Superintendent if almost half the board voted against hiring them in the first place. That Superintendent starts out in a hole and if one of the majority gets upset for whatever reason, that Superintendent is out. No wonder we hire a new Superintendent every few years. How are we to build consistency and achieve progress when we don't have those qualities built in to our own governance process? And how do we hold a Superintendent accountable when every decision must be approved by the School Board instead of the education professionals. Why is cutting School Board compensation appropriate? Because it should not be a job and it should not take the time that it does now because of the degree of involvement our School Board has in the day to day operations. But the salary isn't the big deal. Insurance benefits are. The Chamber reached the same conclusions in 2005 and Cecil Picard confirmed our findings. In fact, he said that was one of the biggest problems particularly in the rural parishes where so many ran for School Board for the insurance benefits they could not otherwise obtain. Imagine how it could impact your vote if your family's continued health care coverage could be affected by an unpopular but prudent position on an issue. (CONTINUED BELOW) - Gary McGoffin Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:32:14 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1319 Re-read the article! He said a lot of retired board members, educators and superintendents were for it. The next sentence questions why superintendents didn't speak up, inferring to serving superintendents. Of course, any sitting superintendent would in fact be lunch meat if they voiced support. - justwandering Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:22:07 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1317 Rachel, you're correct about Paul Pastorek's positions. He has never explained how putting term limits or pay caps on school board members is going to result in Louisiana's children getting a "world class education," although he's implied time and time again that this would be the result. Take that idea apart to examine it, and you'll see that it's just gobbledygook. It's astonishing that "good citizen" groups like PAR and CABL jumped on the bandwagon, accepting Pastorek'a assertion without question. Never mind that Pastorek has no education degrees or classroom experience. He's a lawyer. If we want our public school children to get a better education, we need to focus on issues such as class size, curriculum, the culture of our schools, testing, social issues affecting students, early childhood education and school funding. I've heard a whole lot of smart and experienced education people talk about what's needed for our schools to excel; not one of them ever mentioned capping the pay of school board members or the need for a supermajority vote to fire a superintendent. - Amused Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:55:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1316 It's curious that this and, unfortunately, other articles from the Independent on this topic display a complete lack of willingness to attribute the failure of the school board "reforms" to anything other than (implicity unfair) special interest pleading from the school boards. There is a very revealing quote in this article: ââ?¬Å?For whatever reason many House members chose to listen to their local school board members rather than a diverse group of citizens and business groups who are extremely concerned about the education of children.ââ?¬Â Really? What diverse group? A narrow slice of organizations that represent business interests are cited. And that's really all that there were, aside from Pastorek himself. Educators ARE, lock,stock, and barrel, dismissive. Maybe there's a reason for that? Oddly enough there are many good reasons citizens or legistlators might think educators and the people they elected to run their own schools might be the better people to trust than a Paul Pastorek and a pack of business interests. That sounds pretty sensible to me. Fact is there is NO reason to think that changing the school boards will make one iota of difference in school achievementââ?¬â?and the proponents never managed to show any evidence to think so. Educators are damn tired of "reforms" and reformers that want to do everything to "fix" the schools except to address the real problems (which might just cost money and involve the grassroot commitment of local communities). What this is, yet again, is the state reaching down and deciding that it should "fix" the mistakes local people make. The condescension is palpable. Baton Rouge does not know how to run the schools better than the locals who pay for them and bear the consequences of their decisions. The whole thing stank to high heaven. And THAT'S why it failed. - Just Curious Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:29:44 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1314 Retired superintendents and and some former school board members did speak up. Read the article carefully. The question was ââ?¬Ë?How come superintendents didnââ?¬â?¢t speak up?ââ?¬â?¢ It wasn't 'How come retired superintendents didn't speak up?' The important point is that the public discussion of reform has started. Change is always unsettling but it is coming. It has to. - Gary McGoffin Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:13:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/9-indnews/4514#comment-1312 Hmmm. i'm a little confused. Pastorek says retired superintendents were in favor of it. he says they don't speak up because they will be lunch meat. how so? if they are retired, how so? I think this is another example of why legislators don't trust or like pastorek. the man talks a good game, but when you put it down in black and white and start to dissect it, it's all smoke. or something worse. - rachel Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:48:48 +0100