The Illinois School Board Journal May/June 2012
-
Upload
iasb-communications -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The Illinois School Board Journal May/June 2012
M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 2 Vol. 80, No. 3
READING • WRITING • ARITHMETIC • BEANS • BALLS • BUSES
This issue, which focuses on
math, is the third in our year-
long series to examine the three Rs
and the three Bs of board work. For
those of us who work with words, the
Rs of reading and writing come eas-
ily. And then there is math …
What’s apparent from these first
three cover stories is that students
are being asked to achieve at high-
er levels than ever before. As a con-
sequence, school boards that do not
ask questions about the rigor of their
curriculum may be dooming their
students to problems for a lifetime.
The Center for Public Education
(CPE) released a report in March 2012
that asked the following question: Is
the high school curriculum tough
enough? The report focuses on strate-
gies that are “capable of toughen-
ing up the high school curriculum.”
One of the biggest challenges
comes from defining “rigor.” As Glenn
“Max” McGee, current president of
the Illinois Mathematics and Science
Academy in Aurora, says in this issue’s
cover story: “‘Algebra I’ looks differ-
ent in different parts of the state.”
And what one district may define
as “rigorous” is not what passes for
rigor in another, whether it’s with Illi-
nois State Learning Standards or
Common Core State Standards.
Even more troubling in the CPE
report, which is based on informa-
tion from the U.S. Department of Edu-
cation’s Office for Civil Rights, is that
3,000 high schools serving nearly
500,000 students do not offer any
classes in Algebra II, a key subject on
the SAT and for other indicators of
college readiness. Four times that
many students never have access to
a calculus class in high school, accord-
ing to the report.
In his 1999 study “Answers in
the Toolbox: Academic Intensity,
Attendance Patterns and Bache-
lor’s Degree Attainment” and again
in a 2006 study “The Toolbox Revis-
ited: Paths to Degree Completion
From High School Through College,”
Clifford Adelman found that “taking
a math course beyond the level of
Algebra II (such as trigonometry or
pre-calculus) doubled the odds that
a student entering college would com-
plete a bachelor’s degree.”
However, a study from the Nation-
al Center for Education Statistics
completed in 2007 found that only
one-third of students from disad-
vantaged families take math beyond
Algebra II, compared with 72 percent
of affluent students. Even more trou-
bling is that those who do have access
to those courses may not be getting
the same rigor. According to the Nation-
al Center for Educational Account-
ability, even though certain groups
of Texas students had Algebra II and
geometry on their high school tran-
scripts, more than two-thirds of African
American students and 60 percent
of low-income students failed to pass
their state math assessments that
only cover Algebra I concepts.
The CPE report offered six prac-
tical suggestions for school board
members who wish to ensure that
district students are presented class-
es with the correct rigor to achieve
their lifetime goals:
Access: Address the issues of
class offerings first, particularly to
note whether the district offers Alge-
bra II.
Equity: Exposure to higher lev-
el courses can translate into long-
term gains for minority and low income
students. Whatever the strategy,
increasing rigor in classes should be
across the board and available to
all students.
Funding: Look to state and fed-
eral sources to help fund initiatives
like the AP Incentive Program or dual
enrollment opportunities with local
community colleges and universities.
Advocacy: Monitor trends as the
Common Core State Standards are
being implemented or provide direct
input about development of the new
assessments.
K-12/college links: Ask to see
data on how the district’s gradu-
ates perform in their first year of col-
lege to determine if the district’s
curriculum is providing the proper
preparation.
Data: Cooperate with national
efforts to collect data on programs
such as Advanced Placement, Inter-
national Baccalaureate, dual enroll-
ment and early college programs to
help identify if resources are being
well-spent for the results.
“No matter the precise defini-
tion, the academic rigor of a student’s
high school coursework has a long-
lasting impact on future careers and
earnings,” the CPE report stated. By
asking the right questions, like those
above and those included with this
issue’s cover story on math, board
members have the opportunity and
the responsibility to help ensure that
students are prepared for their lives
beyond high school.
Vol. 80, No. 3
M A Y / J U N H E 2 0 1 2
ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL(ISSN-0019-221X) is published every other month by the Illinois Associationof School Boards, 2921 Baker Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703-5929, telephone217/528-9688. The IASB regional officeis located at One Imperial Place, 1 East22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120, telephone 630/629-3776.
The JOURNAL is supported by the duesof school boards holding active member-ship in the Illinois Association of SchoolBoards. Copies are mailed to all schoolboard members and the superintendentin each IASB member school district.
Non-member subscription rate: Domes-tic $18.00 per year. Foreign (includingCanada and Mexico) $21.00 per year.
PUBLICATION POLICYIASB believes that the domestic processfunctions best through frank and opendiscussion. Material published in the JOUR-NAL, therefore, often presents divergentand controversial points of view which donot necessarily represent the views orpolicies of IASB.
James Russell, Associate Executive Director
Linda Dawson, EditorGary Adkins, Contributing EditorDiane M. Cape, Design and
Production ManagerDana Heckrodt, Advertising Manager
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Cover by Corbin Design, PetersburgJuly/August First B: Beans (Finance)September/October Second B: Balls (Extracurriculars)
COVER STORY
12 Figuring out a way to make math ‘cool’Those who love math keep looking for ways to keep math achievement from dipping once many students reach middle school.
Linda Dawson
14 Sidebar: Questions for board members to ask about math instruction15 Sidebar: Recognizing mathematics proficiency
FEATURE STORIES
4 | A parting viewIASB heads forward with a clear visionIASB’s mission will remain the same even as the executive director changes in July.
Michael D. Johnson
8 | Speaking of board membersHow responsibilities relate to graduation ceremoniesThe role of a board member has at least five similarities with being a graduation speaker.
Linda Dawson
21 | Academic game changerImplementing Common Core State Standards in IllinoisThe first in a four-part series detailing what board members should know about the neweducational standards.
Donna McCaw, Stuart Yager, Carol Webb and Rene Noppe
23 Sidebar: FAQs about the Common Core State Standards
24 | After nearly a year What we’ve learned, how to deal with SB7 evaluation mandatesThe Illinois Education Reform Act means board members will need to be more familiarwith teacher evaluations.
David J. Braun
26 Sidebar: RIF/evaluation checklist
30 | Seven tips toward making evaluations more effectiveThese practices can assist in the transition to new evaluation systems.
Adam Cobb
32 | Typical costs can help boards budgetKnowing how much it will cost can help boards budget for professional development.
Linda Dawson
36 | IASB helps to answer governance questionsNational readership gets good advice from IASB staff members.
Angie Peifer and John J. Cassel
T O P I C S F O R U P C O M I N G I S S U E S
REGULAR FEATURES
Boiler Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Practical PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Ask the staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover
2 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
Here at Eastside, we’re all kin-
da proud of our eighth-grade
boys’ basketball team. It’s not ’cause
they’re the best team in the league
… far from it. It’s really ’cause our
hoopsters really put their heart and
soul into the game.
Last winter, however, Mr. Keck
began to notice some problems con-
nected with our home games. So, he
had a meeting after school with all the
adults who are in any way connected
to these Friday night events … and I
mean everybody. I generally work late
when we have a home game, just to
help the night shift clean up the gym,
so I was at the meeting, too.
Mr. Keck began by addressing
the concession stand volunteers.
“I understand that we had more
than 100 hot dogs left over from the
last game. That’s very wasteful. How
come there were so many?”
“That’s because we expected a
whole bunch of folks to show up, but
they didn’t,” replied Mrs. Gustafson.
“When we expect a whole bunch of
folks, we precook the hot dogs and
keep them in the warmer oven so
we’ll be ready for the mad rush about
half-way through the game. It turned
out, though, that quite a few attend-
ed the game, but not a whole bunch.”
“What happened to the leftover
hot dogs?” Keck asked.
“Well, the ladies and I sold quite
a few after the game by marking them
down to 50 cents. When we figured
everybody bought as many as they
were going to, we gave a whole bunch
away to the players and the cheer-
leaders and their parents.”
“Wait a minute,” interjected Keck.
“How many, exactly, is a whole
bunch?”
“More than quite a few,” replied
Mrs. Gustafson.
Keck now turned his attention
to the volunteer ticket sellers.
“How many tickets did you peo-
ple sell that night?”
“I agree with Helen … quite a few
… not a whole bunch,” replied Mar-
garet Bookman.
“You mean you don’t have an
accurate count?”
“Don’t you remember, Mr. Keck?
We bought those cut-rate tickets that
don’t have sequential numbers. And
there’s no time, believe me, to keep
tabs when you’ve got tons of people
standing in line!”
“Tons of people? What did you
do? Weigh them?”
“You know what I mean, Mr. Keck
… TONS of people.”
“Uh-huh.”
Coach Parker now entered the
conversation …
“I can shed some light on this,
Mr. Keck. We tend to have the largest
turnout when the teams are evenly
matched. Then, all the fans know it
will be an exciting game, with a nar-
row point spread. When we’re ranked
better than another school’s team …
like Roberts Junior High, for exam-
ple … the fan turn out is low ’cause
everybody knows what the result will
be and nobody likes watching a team
that’s not so hot get humiliated ... like
last time, when we beat Roberts by
62 points.”
Gus, the custodi-
an at Eastside
Grammar, is the
creation of
Richard W.
Smelter, a retired
school principal,
now a Chicago-
based college
instructor and
author.
Impractical estimationslead to math confusion
by “Gus”
B O I L E R R O O M
“Wait a minute,”
interjected Keck.
“How many, exactly,
is a whole bunch?”
“More than quite
a few,” replied
Mrs. Gustafson.
PresidentCarolyne Brooks
Vice PresidentKaren Fisher
ImmediatePast PresidentJoseph Alesandrini
IASB is a voluntary association of local boards ofeducation and is not affiliated with any branch ofgovernment.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Abe LincolnRoger Edgecombe
BlackhawkJackie Mickley
Central Illinois ValleyThomas Neeley
Cook NorthPhil Pritzker
Cook SouthTom Cunningham
Cook WestJoanne Zendol
Corn BeltMark Harms
DuPageRosemary Swanson
EgyptianJohn Metzger
IlliniMichelle Skinlo
KaskaskiaLinda Eades
KishwaukeeMary Stith
Lake CountyJoanne Osmond
NorthwestBen Andersen
ShawneeRoger Pfister
SouthwesternJohn Coers
Starved RockSimon Kampwerth Jr.
Three Rivers / TreasurerDale Hansen
Two RiversDavid Barton
Wabash ValleyTim Blair
WesternSue McCance
Chicago BoardJesse Ruiz
Services AssociatesSteve Larson
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 3
“What about that team from
Carlisle?” asked Keck.
“Same kinda thing, Mr. Keck …
small turnout … this time ’cause the
fans know we haven’t got a prayer.
Carlisle’s the top-ranked team in the
county. Eastside fans feel even more
uncomfortable about seeing our boys
get humiliated. Now, when the teams
are evenly matched, we get a humun-
go turnout, like we did two games ago.”
“How many is humungo?” asked
Keck.
“Well, that’s way more than a
whole bunch,” the coach replied.
“So, let me see if I have this right.
Humungo is way more than a whole
bunch, but a whole bunch is way
more than quite a few.”
“Now you’ve got it, Mr. Keck!”
exclaimed Mrs. Gustafson.
“Well, what’s beneath those terms,
Ethel?”
“Well, just under quite a few is
sorta average, under that is not so
many, and under that is bummer.”
“Wow … new math,” Keck mum-
bled under his breath.
“What did you say, Mr. Keck?”
“Never mind, Ethel.”
The meeting adjourned, and I
walked Mr. Keck back to his office.
He looked kinda confused.
“Say, Gus,” he began. “I heard
some parents had their cars ticket-
ed by the police while they were in
the school watching a game a few
weeks ago.”
“Yeah,” I responded. “That was
one of those evenly matched games
Coach was talking about. The lot was
overflowing, so quite a lot of parents
parked their cars in illegal parking
places. Not really a whole bunch …
but a ton of them.”
“Don’t start with me, Gus.”
“Oh, sorry. Say, boss … nice
meeting.”
“Do you think we learned any-
thing, Gus? I mean, other than peo-
ple seem to have thrown accurate
mathematics out the window?”
“Yeah, Mr. Keck! Humungo!”
“Wow! This was not anticipated.”
4 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
Editor’s note: In August 2000,
Michael D. Johnson became
just the fifth full-time executive direc-
tor in the 98-year history of the Illi-
nois Association of School Boards.
He retired from that role in May 2007
and returned in July 2007 as exec-
utive director emeritus to focus on
the transition to a new executive and
to help with fundraising for the Asso-
ciation. He will relinquish that role
and end 12 years of service with IASB
in June 2012.
This is the fifth of five articles
Johnson will write for The Jour-
nal, outlining what he and the Asso-
ciation have done and where he
believes both are heading. In this
issue, Johnson reviews the transi-
tion of executive directors and his
personal plans.
What does one do for an encore
to a career in public education that
began in 1973 and is close to ending
39 years later?
I may be older and maybe a bit
slower, but I have definite plans. Those
include spending more time with fam-
ily, especially our two grandchildren
(and another on the way), and more
time on fundraising and scholarship
activities for Ronald McDonald House
Charities.
But before I go, I would like to
review where we’ve been in my 12-
year tenure as executive director and
executive director emeritus of the
Illinois Association of School Boards,
and where I think IASB and public
education is heading.
As of July 1, the Association will
have a new executive director. But
the mission will remain the same:
excellence in local school governance
in support of quality public educa-
tion. I know that your new executive
director — Roger Eddy — will be com-
mitted to serving the Association and
its members with that mission firm-
ly in place.
Roger and I have spent the past
two months helping him to become
better acquainted with IASB board
of directors, staff, members, partners
and other associations. It’s been a
good opportunity for Roger to devel-
op new relationships and to re-affirm
those that I can pass on to him.
Fortunately, Roger’s own expe-
rience as a superintendent and state
lawmaker gives him a tremendous
advantage; he knows how things
get done and who to go to. And he
knows the issues, many of which don’t
change much over the years.
But there are some challenges
on the horizon that the Associa-
tion and local school boards face that
increase the stakes: education reform,
teacher and administrator perfor-
mance evaluation, pension reform,
mandatory training, calls for con-
solidation, and greater financial pres-
sures as the state continues to
withdraw from its commitment to
adequately support public educa-
tion.
These challenges will be demand-
ing. There will be hardships and hur-
dles. Even the most prudent districts
and those with the greatest revenue
Michael D. John-
son is executive
director emeritus
of the Illinois
Association of
School Boards.
This is part five of
a five-part series.
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
A parting view …IASB heads forwardwith a clear mission
by Michael D. Johnson
One of the things
that makes IASB so
successful and its
programs so
valuable is that
we try very hard
to anticipate
member needs.
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 5
sources will be pressed. IASB will feel
the same pressures; yet it will be
ready to serve as more districts turn
to the Association for more services
to help them contend with these
issues.
One of the things that makes
IASB so successful and its programs
so valuable is that we try very hard
to anticipate member needs.
The latest example is our new
partnership with Performance Mat-
ters. This K-12 data management and
assessment service is designed to
merge leading and lagging indicators
as well as student information sys-
tems, so that teaching staff and admin-
istrators can quickly and accurately
analyze student performance data
against state standards in order to
differentiate instruction and meet
student learning needs.
New education reform measures
will impose more accountability
requirements on school boards and
school districts. Do districts know
that they need this service or some-
thing like it? Maybe not yet. But we
will be ready when they do.
Services like this did not exist
or were not needed when I became
executive director in August 2000.
A lot has happened since — from No
Child Left Behind to Senate Bill 7.
Our training has evolved too, from
a regional delivery model to one that
emphasizes local, in-district train-
ing, working with whole boards and
not just on individual board mem-
ber skills.
One reason we have been able
to keep up with these new demands
is the makeup of the IASB staff.
Our professional and support
staff have a diverse and broad back-
ground. We have educators, princi-
pals, superintendents, attorneys,
board members and practitioners
from other fields, who bring their
experience and expertise to the table.
In fact, IASB staff is viewed as a nation-
al leader, and has worked extensive-
ly with 32 other state associations
and the National School Boards Asso-
ciation on many projects and initia-
tives.
The size of the Association staff
has nearly doubled in the past 12
years, and I am very proud of the
people and programs we have put
STAFFOFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORMichael L. Bartlett, Deputy Executive Director
Meetings ManagementPatricia Culler, Assistant to the Executive DirectorSandy Boston, Assistant Director
Office of General CounselMelinda Selbee, General CounselKimberly Small, Assistant General Counsel
Executive SearchesDonna Johnson, DirectorDoug Blair, ConsultantDawn Miller, ConsultantThomas Leahy, Consultant
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESJennifer Feld, Associate ExecutiveDirector/Chief Financial Officer
Production ServicesDiane M. Cape, Senior Director
ADVOCACY/GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSBenjamin S. Schwarm, Associate Executive DirectorDeanna L. Sullivan, DirectorSusan Hilton, Director
AdvocacyCynthia Woods, Director
BOARD DEVELOPMENT/TARGETING ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH GOVERNANCEAngie Peifer, Associate Executive Director
Board DevelopmentSandra Kwasa, DirectorNesa Brauer, Consultant
Targeting Achievement through GovernanceDebra Walden, ConsultantSteve Clark, Consultant
COMMUNICATIONSJames Russell, Associate Executive DirectorGary W. Adkins, Director/EditorialLinda Dawson, Director/EditorialJennifer Nelson, Director, Information ServicesGerald R. Glaub, Consultant
FIELD SERVICES/POLICY SERVICESCathy A. Talbert, Associate Executive Director
Field ServicesLarry Dirks, DirectorDean Langdon, DirectorPatrick Rice, DirectorJeff Cohn, DirectorBarbara B. Toney, DirectorLaurel DiPrima, Director
Policy ServicesAnna Lovern, DirectorNancy Bohl, ConsultantAndrea Dolgin, ConsultantJackie Griffith, ConsultantWayne Savageau, ConsultantBrian Zumpf, Consultant
IASB OFFICES
2921 Baker DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62703-5929217/528-9688 Fax 217/528-2831
One Imperial Place1 East 22nd Street, Suite 20Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120630/629-3776 Fax 630/629-3940
www.iasb.com
6 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
into place. I also hope that my role
as an entrepreneur has helped to
make the Association financially fit
to develop and deliver the services
our members want and need. With-
out money, good ideas just remain
dreams. I’ve always liked to dream
big.
I’ve reached the point where I’ve
become the unofficial historian for
our state school management asso-
ciations. By preserving that per-
spective, I believe it has helped to
keep the Association relevant in pub-
lic policy debate. We’ve always strived
to balance the political rhetoric with
practical hindsight and reliable facts
in order to influence outcomes with
minimal negative impact on local
school districts.
There are many people I should
thank for the freedom I enjoyed to
do the things I was able to do through
the Association: the IASB board of
directors and its leadership, my deputy
executive director (Mike Bartlett)
and administrative assistant (Carla
Bolt), our administrative team and
our staff.
And most importantly, I need
to thank my family. I missed events
and people whenever I was away,
but I appreciate that the board always
gave me the option to put family
first whenever the occasion required
it.
I look forward to my own retire-
ment and the chance to watch IASB
from the sidelines. It’s been a great
12 years. I know the Association is
heading toward its next century of
service — not with mission accom-
plished, but with mission clearly
defined.
Best wishes to IASB, Roger and
to all of you.
SHAPEUP(Your policy
manual, that is)
Is your policy manual tiredand out of shape?
No matter what shape andcondition the manual is in,Policy Services can help.
It’s time to consider a
Policy ManualCustomization
with IASB.An IASB policy consultant will work with your district to develop a new and
up-to-date local school board policy manual.
Individual policies will be
✓ clear and concise.✓ legally referenced.✓ cross-referenced to related policies.✓ identified with adoption dates.
In addition, you will receive a 6-month com-plimentary PRESS Plus Service when yournew manual is adopted to keep it current.
If your district has completed a Policy Manual Customization with a representative from IASB within the past 5 years, you
may be eligible for a Streamlined Policy Manual Customization. Thisservice provides all the benefits of a full customization with a streamlinedprocess for efficient use of school board staff and resources.
NEW
Anna LovernPhone: 217-528-9688,
ext. 1125Email: [email protected]
Brian ZumpfPhone: 630-629-3776,
ext. 1214Email: [email protected]
For more information:
8 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
Over the course of the next few
weeks, hundreds of thousands
of people will head to auditoriums,
gymnasiums and outdoor arenas to
attend graduation ceremonies for
high school and college students. One
of the event’s staples is usually a grad-
uation speaker.
You may not have thought of it
like this before, but in a number of
ways, board members are like speak-
ers at graduation ceremonies. Here
are the similarities:
It’s an honor
Colleges often invite “big name”
speakers to talk
about the future
that awaits grad-
uates. Many
school districts
choose members
of the graduating
class to do the
honors. People
consider it an
honor to be cho-
sen to speak
before such a
gathering.
No matter
whether you’re a
“well known”
name or just one
in your “class” of
community resi-
dents, it’s also an
honor to be elect-
ed to a school
board. It makes
you one of a select few.
In Illinois, just more than 6,000
residents can say they are current
school board members. That may
sound like a lot, but when you con-
sider Illinois has a population of
12,830,632, according to the 2010
U.S. Census, school board members
make up less than one-half of 1 per-
cent on any given day.
That number also pales in com-
parison with the Illinois school pop-
ulation, which is about 18 percent of
all residents, according to the most
recent census.
A position of responsibility
A graduation speaker is only one
person, and yet the speaker sits on
stage as a part of a small group with
certain responsibilities. The speak-
er is responsible for the remarks, but
someone else does the greeting, anoth-
er presents the class and yet anoth-
er may actually hand out diplomas.
Collectively, everyone functions to
make the ceremony run smoothly
and efficiently.
The same is true in your role
as a school board member. You are
just one of seven members of the com-
munity elected to your position on
Linda Dawson is
IASB director/
editorial services
and editor of The
Illinois School
Board Journal.
Speaking of board members …
How responsibilities relateto graduation ceremonies
by Linda Dawson
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 9
the “stage” of school governance.
Each board member has a role to play,
but you have no actual authority as
an individual to make decisions. It is
only as a collective board of seven,
working with your superintendent,
that you come to agreements and lead
the district.
Representative or trustee role
When speakers are selected for
graduation, especially if they are stu-
dents, those who make the selection
want someone who will represent the
graduating class well. They put their
trust in that speaker to make remarks
that are appropriate for the audience.
Many student speakers are
required to submit their remarks to
someone in authority before the cer-
emony. Straying very far from those
submitted remarks can result in sanc-
tions that usually are spelled out ahead
of time.
Voters elected you to be their
representative and be their “voice”
on the board. But they also invested
their trust in you. They trust you to
be fiscally responsible with tax dol-
lars. They trust you to make deci-
sions that are in the best interest of
their children.
A difference, although sometimes
subtle, exists between being a rep-
resentative and being a trustee. Rep-
resentative government implies that
the person serving listens to his or
her constituents and then makes deci-
sions based on what the majority of
those speaking have said. A trustee,
on the other hand, takes the welfare
of the entire group into considera-
tion before making a decision.
While you were elected in a rep-
resentative form of government,
sometimes you need to sit in trust
and make decisions that, while not
popular with some or even most of
the community, are essential for the
best interest of the district as a whole.
Consider the district that has an
older building that has outlived its
maintenance life. Repairs are cost-
ing more and more each year, but
the community has strong, nostal-
gic ties and wants to keep the build-
ing open.
A new building not only would
be more cost-effective but allow stu-
dents more opportunities for enriched
curriculum because of technology.
What do you do?
Your representative side might
want to hold out and keep that build-
ing open as long as possible, because
that’s what your constituents want.
But your trustee side would argue
that millions of tax dollars are being
thrown at a situation that will not
improve the basic problem (an old
building) and students are missing
out on new opportunities.
The decision will never be easy
or popular with everyone, but some-
times you’ll be called on to make those
tough decisions because you do sit
as a trustee for the district’s finances
and their children.
Just like students who stray from
the script, you may face sanctions at
the polls for voting your conscience.
But at least you can do so knowing
that you did your best for your dis-
trict … and that really was what you
were elected to do.
Balcony perspective
Sitting up on the stage, a grad-
uation speaker has a much different
view of the ceremony than the grad-
uates or the audience. The speaker
is close to the action, and yet not
always a part of it. The speaker comes
to the dais when called for, but main-
tains a distance from the rest of the
proceedings.
The same is true in your role
as a board member. You need to have
a different perspective, one that was
explained by Richard Broholm and
Douglas Johnson in A Balcony Per-
spective: Clarifying the Trustee Role.
Board members need to main-
tain their “balcony perspective” in
order to stay above the day-to-day
business of the district. As a board
member, you may set a policy regard-
ing student decorum during gradua-
tion, but you are not in charge of the
front-line discipline.
A balcony perspective, like sit-
ting on the stage at a graduation cer-
emony, allows you to observe the big
picture of how the district functions.
Board members need to maintain their “balcony perspective” in
order to stay above the day-to-day business of the district. As a
board member, you may set a policy regarding student decorum
during graduation, but you are not in charge of the front-line
discipline.
10 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
Just as the speaker is not the one to
go out into the sea of graduates to
confiscate the beach ball, you don’t
need to be involved in what goes on
“down on the floor,” other than to
observe and note whether the poli-
cies that you have put in place are
being carried out reasonably, effi-
ciently and effectively.
Opportunity and legacy
Graduation speakers are given
an opportunity to make their state-
ment and leave their mark on a par-
ticular occasion. Their speeches
usually convey hope for the future
and confidence in the new graduates
to go forth and live productive lives.
Some may utter phrases that stick
with graduates for years, just because
this was a special time and a spe-
cial moment.
Board members also have an
opportunity to leave their mark and
create a legacy for the district that
will endure.
According to IASB’s most recent
member survey, conducted in 2008,
59 percent of board member respon-
dents said they have achieved or made
progress toward the goals they had
when they were elected to the board.
When asked what they would
most like to accomplish, board mem-
bers were able to choose from:
• Improve achievement levels of all
students of the district
• Improve the way in which the school
board and superintendent operate
• Engage the community more effec-
tively in pursuing a vision for the
district
• Improve the district’s financial
condition
• Leave schools in the same good
condition as when I came on the
board
The top two responses were
improving achievement and engag-
ing the community.
You may have your own idea of
what you want your legacy to be, and
it may not be reflected in any of the
above choices. But whatever your
legacy, your time on this school board
is special — not only for you but for
your district.
No two graduation ceremonies
are ever the same. No two school
boards are ever the same either. Look
to your future on the board and gov-
ern as if you were the best gradua-
tion speaker ever to take the stage.
ciation (IPA) and the Illinois Associ-
ation of School Business Officials (Illi-
nois ASBO). IASB staff writes the
legislative report that then is dis-
tributed to school board members,
superintendents, business officials
and principals.
The report is sent out weekly,
via e-mail, and includes the latest
news from the Capitol regarding
school-related legislation. By read-
ing the legislative report, school board
members will have the information
necessary to determine when a call
to a legislator might be needed. Any-
one can receive the report simply by
sending an e-mail to bschwarm
@iasb.com and requesting it.
Here are a few tips in reaching
out to your local legislators:
• If you have not yet met your state
representative or senator, make a
call to the district office, introduce
yourself as a school board mem-
ber and offer to be a resource on
school-related legislation.
• When the legislators are home in
the district office, set up a meet-
ing with a couple of school board
members, the superintendent and
a principal to discuss education
matters.
• Since the legislator is not always
available in the district, especial-
ly during the legislative session,
get acquainted with the adminis-
trative assistant or legislative aide
in the district office. These key
staff people are valuable resources.
• Visit, call, e-mail or write a letter
to legislators on key legislation
relating to your school district. Get
to the point, use local data and stay
out of “attack mode.”
• Feel free to contact IASB legisla-
tive team members if you have a
question, comment or wish to relay
feedback from your legislators
Ask the staff continued from inside back cover
IASB Service Associates provide quality products and services for schools. Membership is by invitation only. A list of Service Associate firms is on the IASB website and in this Journal.
The best ofeverything for schools
S
IASB SERVICE
ASSOCIATES
12 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
C O V E R S T O R Y
Don Porzio has a collection of
Games magazines that he’s
collected for 18 years. He keeps them
as a ready resource when he needs a
new math challenge. As an instruc-
tor at the Illinois Mathematics and
Science Academy (IMSA) in Aurora,
he likes to use the puzzles with his
students … as well as with their par-
ents.
“On preview day, we have thou-
sands of people on campus,” Porzio
said. “Every day I start them off with
a puzzle.”
One of his favorites is this:
Move one and only one dig-
it in the following equation
to make it correct:
62 - 63 = 1
(I’ll give you time to pon-
der the question and reveal the
answer at the end of the article
— no fair peeking. In the mean-
time, let’s move on …)
In a recent independent study
commissioned by Raytheon Com-
pany, a leading U.S. Aerospace and
defense contractor, 70 percent of mid-
dle school students said they liked
math. In fact, they like it enough that
15 percent ranked it as their third
favorite subject in school, right behind
physical education (18 percent) and
art (16 percent).
The students surveyed also found
that 58 percent acknowledge that
math will be important to them in
their future, especially in the role it
will play for careers in technology.
So, why is it that math achieve-
ment posts a noticeable drop off
between fourth and eighth grades?
The National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress (NAEP) rates students
tested as “basic,” “proficient” and
“advanced.” In 2009, according to
the U.S. Department of Education,
20 percent of fourth graders scored
below the “basic” math level, but 27
percent of eighth graders scored below
“basic.”
According to Illinois Standard
Achievement Test results from 2011,
statewide percentages were not as
dire: just 11 percent of fourth-graders
Linda Dawson is
IASB director/
editorial services
and editor of The
Illinois School
Board Journal.
Figuring out a wayto make math ‘cool’
by Linda Dawson
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 13
failed to score in the “meets” or
“exceeds” categories in math, while
13 percent scored below “meets”
or “exceeds” in eighth-grade math.
The failure of some students to
increase math achievement and to
grasp the importance that math may
play in careers other than technolo-
gy can be disheartening for instruc-
tors like Porzio, even though he sees
the best of the best in his classes.
Many everyday jobs require math
skills, from running a cash register
and counting out change to tap-
ping numbers into a calculator to
come up with an estimate of how
much new windows will cost for an
entire house. Yes, these jobs allow
the use of technology, but somewhere
along the line, that person had to
learn the functions behind the tech-
nology in order to be able to make
sense of the numbers.
High achievers
IMSA, where Porzio has taught
for the past 14 years, attracts top-
notch students who want to be chal-
lenged, especially in their math and
science classes. The residential-style
high school features a well-rounded,
typical high school curriculum but
the emphasis is on rigorous study and
high student achievement. Almost
all IMSA graduates go on to college,
many to Ivy League and selective uni-
versities.
Even though there is no mini-
mum grade point average or SAT score
(needed for admission), the GPA aver-
age for incoming students (10th-
graders) was 3.9/4.0 for the class of
2013. Their SAT scores averaged 607
on critical reading and 679 on math,
out of a possible 800 points for each
category.
Of the 600 to 950 students who
apply each year as eighth- or ninth-
graders, only 230 to 250 are accept-
ed as entering 10th-grade students
for the following year. And even then,
maybe 40 or 50 students a year require
a “bridge program” to address acad-
emic deficiencies in their background,
according to Glenn W. “Max” McGee,
IMSA president.
“We do well because the kids who
come here had excellent teachers at
the local level,” McGee said. “We’d
like all teachers to be that good.”
Unfortunately, Algebra I looks
different in different parts of the state,
and the newly adopted Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) won’t change
that, he said.
McGee, who served as Illinois
state superintendent of schools from
January 1999 to December 2001,
came to IMSA five years ago. He also
serves on the group developing assess-
ments for the CCSS that will be used
for school year 2014-15 testing in Illi-
nois.
Their biggest challenge is com-
ing up with assessments that will
be easy to score but at the same time
require students “to produce rather
than circle and solve.”
“There are lots of wrong ways to
get a right answer,” Porzio said. “The
answer is not enough. Show me your
thinking.
“With assessments, we’re not
talking about just designing good ques-
tions. The difficulty comes in find-
ing a way to look at extended response
questions to score with a machine,”
he added.
Porzio knows all the mistakes
that students can make trying to get
to a right answer. He’s also aware that
with multiple choice questions,
whether in class or on standardized
tests, you have to have a legitimate
distractor for students who might just
be guessing at the answers.
Leading up to CCSS
From his tenure in math educa-
tion, Porzio can recall a number of
different periods in math education
now leading up to the switch to Com-
mon Core standards.
“The ‘new math’ in the 1960s
was overrun by college and acade-
mia and was very theoretical,” he
said. In the late 1980s, the first stan-
dards were developed by the Nation-
al Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM), “and that was when we had
‘fuzzy math,’ where it seemed like
Many everyday jobs require math skills, from running a cash regis-
ter and counting out change to tapping numbers into a calculator to
come up with an estimate of how much new windows will cost for
an entire house. Yes, these jobs allow the use of technology, but some-
where along the line, that person had to learn the functions behind
the technology in order to be able to make sense of the numbers.
14 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
the answers didn’t matter.”
In A Winning Formula for Math-
ematics Instruction: Converting
Research into Results, Judith Jacobs
describes the differences between
“traditional” and “standards-based”
math. After a career in mathematics
education professional development,
Jacobs retired in 2008 from a posi-
tion as math professor at California
State Polytechnic University in
Pomona.
She states that traditional math
instruction has three components:
• Checking homework
• A teaching segment
• Practice by students on solving
textbook problems
The first, she says, “can take half
the time allotted” for the lesson. The
second, while constituting the direct
teaching portion of the class time,
usually places the emphasis “on the
teacher’s demonstration of how to
solve problems of a particular type.”
The third element of practice is self-
explanatory, and then there is the
homework that will be turned in the
following day and the cycle begins
again.
Other researchers, including Bri-
an Rowan, Delena M. Harrison and
Andrew Hayes in their 2004 article
“Using instructional logs to study
mathematics teaching in the early
grades,” call this the “explain, prac-
tice, memorize” approach. Jacobs
quoted the National Research Coun-
cil as calling it “mindless mimicry
mathematics” in 1989.
Could this be why some students
lose their “love” for math after the
elementary grades? These students
see little connection to their every-
day lives, even though many of those
early story problems involve every-
day items, like apples and oranges
and how far it is to the store.
Standards-based math programs,
however, “start from a clearly defined
set of mathematics objectives usual-
ly organized by grade level …,” Jacobs
states. Her list of standards-based
program characteristics, drawn from
research, include:
• Use good questioning to prod learn-
ing without telling students how
to do the problems or providing
answers;
• Have both teacher demonstration
and guided opportunities for
practice;
• Use challenging, interesting and
complex questions and tasks that
draw on prior knowledge;
• Promote student reflection on their
mathematical experiences to explain
their reasoning; and
• Create a positive classroom envi-
ronment toward mathematics and
students’ ability to do mathemat-
ics.
In a traditional math classroom,
content knowledge moves through
the teacher to the student and there
is little other interaction. It’s often
described as the teacher being “the
sage on the stage.” With standards-
based math, content flow has all three
entities interacting: students with
the teacher, the teacher with the con-
tent, and the students with the con-
tent and each other.
Standards, although a good move
forward, cannot be the sole answer,
according to Porzio, because if they
are implemented poorly, the system
will still fall apart. And that’s where
he saw things in the early 1990s.
Questions for boardmembers to ask aboutmath instruction
School board members should maintain their “balcony perspective”
when it comes to district programs. However, board members also need to
ask the proper question of administration to make certain that what is being
implemented follows the direction that the board has set for the district.
The following questions from “Linking Research & Practice, The Nation-
al Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Research Agenda Confer-
ence Report” are appropriate for board members to ask:
• Do we have a curriculum that prepares our students to be functional in
today’s society?
• Do our math assessments improve student learning?
• How has high-stakes testing affected the way our teachers teach math?
• Are our teachers using strategies that are specifically designed to close
the achievement gap in math?
• How has technology been integrated into our math curriculum?
And one overriding question always exists: How much money have we
budgeted for professional development for our math teachers?
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 15
The first NCTM standards from
the late 1980s were distributed, but
there was no training with teachers
on how to use them and teach to them.
“They just said, ‘here, teach to these,’”
he said.
The same thing happened when
calculators, smart boards and now
laptops and iPads started being more
common in classrooms. Without prop-
er training, many teachers are not
“modeling” proper use of technolo-
gy for students, Porzio said.
“School boards need to recog-
nize the appropriate use of technol-
ogy,” he added, and they need to
provide money for professional devel-
opment in its use. “If teachers don’t
understand how to help students
understand when technology is appro-
priate, you get into trouble.”
Pencils vs. calculators
In Porzio’s classes, students are
more likely to use a pencil and paper
or write on a whiteboard … not a
Promethean board but a plain white-
board … to show him their answers.
At the beginning of each year, he
tells his students that they may not
ever need a particular math skill that
he is teaching them, but they will
need to learn how to think in a par-
ticular way.
“My job is to make them better
critical thinkers and problem solvers,”
he said, “and I just happen to be using
math to do it. They may not remem-
ber a particular formula, but what
Recognizing mathematics proficiencyIllinois is one of the governing states in a 24-state
partnership developing Common Cores State Standards
assessments, according to Glenn W. “Max” McGee, who
serves on the committee developing elementary math
assessments.
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (PARCC) has developed an eight-
point definition of what it means to be mathematically
proficient.
Mathematically proficient students:
1. Start by explaining to themselves the meaning of a
problem and looking for entry points to its solution.
They analyze givens, constraints, relationships and
goals. They make conjectures about the form and
meaning of the solution and plan a solution pathway
rather than simply jumping into a solution attempt.
2. Bring two complementary abilities to bear on prob-
lems involving quantitative relationships: the ability
to decontextualize (to abstract a given situation and
represent it symbolically and manipulate the repre-
senting symbols as if they have a life of their own,
without necessarily attending to their referents) and
the ability to contextualize (to pause as needed
during the manipulation process in order to probe
into the referents for the symbols involved).
3. Understand and use stated assumptions, definitions
and previously established results in constructing
arguments. They make conjectures and build a log-
ical progression of statements to explore the truth of
their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations
by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and
use counter examples.
4. Apply the mathematics they know to solve problems
arising in everyday life, society and the workplace.
In the early grades, this might be as simple as writ-
ing an addition equation to describe a situation.
5. Consider the available tools when solving a mathe-
matical problem. These tools might include pencil
and paper, concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a
calculator, a spreadsheet, a computer algebra system,
a statistical package or dynamic geometry software.
They are sufficiently familiar with the tools to make
sound decisions about when each might be helpful,
recognizing both the insight to be gained and their
limitations.
6. Try to communicate precisely to others. They try
to use clear definitions, state the meaning of the sym-
bols they choose and calculate accurately and efficiently.
7. Look closely to discern a pattern or structure. They
can see complicated things, such as some algebraic
expressions, as single objects or as being composed
of several objects.
8. Notice if calculations are repeated and look both for
general methods and for shortcuts. They continual-
ly evaluate the reasonableness of their intermedi-
ate results.
16 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
they did to solve the problem may
help them think.”
As students file in for one of
Porzio’s math classes at IMSA, they
look like students at any other high
school. They tote heavy backpacks.
Some have pants that they’re tugging
up. Some are in hoodies.
They take their seats at vari-
ous tables around the room. Most
of IMSA’s classrooms are arranged
with tables that seat four or five, not
with rows of desks.
Porzio asks if his students have
“gifts” for him, and they all dutifully
hand in their homework from the day
before. Once the preliminaries are
over for the 75-minute class period,
students number off, then gather into
new groups and write a solution to
one of last night’s problems on the
board. One member from each group
explains how the answer was reached.
Porzio said before the class began
that these students had been work-
ing with probabilities and how to pre-
dict election results. That day, students
were working with Pascal’s triangle,
talking about Pascal’s “hockey sticks”
and working with binomial coeffi-
cients. Each problem, while illustra-
tive of the concept, was slightly
different and Porzio kept prompting
the students for more information
until everyone seemed to grasp the
lesson and could make suggestions
to the group.
IMSA president McGee said stu-
dents talk a lot about working togeth-
er in teams, and this illustrates how
math needs to be a collective effort.
“There isn’t as much interaction
when students are using iPads and
laptops as when they are working in
groups with paper and pencil,” McGee
said.
As the IMSA students worked in
groups, no heads were down on the
desk. No one was staring into space.
Everyone’s attention was on the board
and whoever was talking at the time.
These students were engaged and
enjoying complicated math theories.
Where’s the dis-connect?
So where and how do some stu-
dents lose interest in math? While
acknowledging the many great math
teachers in the state, Porzio par-
tially attributes it to the way teach-
ers are certified in Illinois.
Annual board self-evaluation ____
Clear mission, vision and goals ____
Solid community connection ____
Productive meetings ____
Strong board-superintendent relationship ____
Does your score add up? ____
Contact yourIASB field services director today!
100%
Springfield217/528-9688
Lombard630/629-3776
A system of EVALUATION starts at
the TOPwith theSchoolBoard!
How do you score?
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 17
Developing a mind for math actu-
ally begins in elementary school and
it’s about a way of thinking rather
than just the problems themselves,
he said.
However, “at institutions that
train and certify teachers, math is
required for all elementary educa-
tion majors,” Porzio explained. “Some-
one who hated math doesn’t learn
much more in college than they need
to pass.”
That teacher, especially in the
elementary classroom, does just what’s
necessary to teach math and prob-
ably not with the passion that a cer-
tified math instructor would have.
The problem can continue in high
school, McGee said, because “about
one-fourth of teachers in high school
math aren’t certified to do so.”
“Now we have a new group of kids
who hate math,” Porzio said. “It’s a
vicious cycle. Why can’t we have math
specialists like we have reading spe-
cialists?”
In addition, teachers in Illinois
are certified to teach grades K-8, but
algebra is being pushed down into
middle school. “We’ll have kids tell
us that when they got to certain chap-
ters, their teacher skipped those,” he
said. So even some of the best and
brightest in math haven’t always
received all the lessons they might
need.
As early as 1973, Morris Kline,
in Why Johnny Can’t Add: The fail-
ure of the new math, criticized the
way algebra was being taught. Kline,
who was a math professor, said stu-
dents were merely repeating a “bewil-
dering variety of processes” by rote
in order to master them. “They are
like pages torn from a hundred dif-
ferent books, no one of which con-
veys the life, meaning and spirit of
mathematics,” he wrote.
William McCallum, head of the
math department at the University
of Arizona and an author of the Com-
mon Core State Standards on math,
believes it’s time to convey “the life,
meaning and spirit” of algebra to stu-
dents. In a 2008 speech he titled
“Restoring and Balancing,” McCal-
lum said that “traditional curriculum
often left students unable to answer
the simplest conceptual questions
about functions” in algebra.
He advocates introducing the
concept of a function — the central,
unifying idea — rather than rote mem-
orization. This approach, he said,
motivates students by using realistic
contexts and by helping them grasp
abstract ideas and make them real.
The reality of math is what seems
to be the point of disconnect for some
students. Teachers stumped for lessons
that are more reality based can go to
various websites to find lessons regard-
ing specific math concepts.
That might be fine, but there’s
no way to know if those lessons are
good or not, Porzio said. That’s why,
as current president of the Illinois
Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
he and others are working to devel-
continued on page 20
18 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
principal in Olympia
CUSD 16, later return-
ing to the family farm
in Piatt County from
1979 until 2001. Helm
then returned to teach-
ing in 2004 in Panhandle CUSD 2 in
Raymond, and served as the FFA advi-
sor.
Clifton T. Holmes, 79, Alton, died
February 17, 2012. In 1975 he was elect-
ed to the Alton CUSD 11 school board,
serving for six years. He was president
of the board for the last two years. An
accountant, Holmes joined SM Wilson
and Co. in 1963 and spent many years
as their executive vice president/CFO
before retiring in 1998. He also served
10 years on the Alton Memorial Health
Systems Foundation Board of Direc-
tors.
Kermit Hustedt, 88, rural Paxton,
died March 26, 2012. He served 25 years
on the former Ford County School
Board. A lifetime farmer, he had been
a board member and past president of
the Elliot Farmers Grain and a board
member of Dix Patton Fire Protec-
tion District.
Maralee M. John-
son, 61, Springfield,
died March 21, 2012.
She had been a mem-
ber of the Pleasant
Plains CUSD 8 board,
including serving as president. She
worked for the Illinois Beef Association
for 23 years, the last 13 as executive
vice president. She also served on the
ACES Alumni Association Board for
the University of Illinois.
John R. Kammerer, 83, Lake For-
est, died February 5, 2012. He was a
former president of the Lake Forest
CHSD 115 school board. He founded a
food brokerage business, and later
bought a seat on the Chicago Mercan-
tile Exchange and operated as a trad-
er. He also sat on the boards for Boy
Scout Troops 46 and 49.
Edward Kapraun,
80, Benson, died March
12, 2012. He served on
Roanoke-Benson CUSD
60’s school board from
1965 to 1972. He was a
lifetime farmer and carpenter in the
Benson area, retiring in 1994. He also
had worked for Kent Lumber and Coal
of Benson for many years. He was a
member of the Knights of Columbus,
where he had served as Grand Knight
and treasurer.
Joseph J. Kubik,
76, Riverside, died
March 2, 2012. He
served two terms as a
member and president
of the Riverside-Brook-
field THSD 208 school board. After a
career in management with AT&T and
Lucent, he retired in 1989. As a young
man, he served as a medic in the U.S.
Army, and also served two terms as a
trustee for the village of Riverside.
Richard R. Lopez,
79, Sterling, died March
16, 2012. He served on
the Chadwick school
board for 14 years. He
worked at Northwest-
ern Steel and Wire in Sterling as an
overhead crane operator for 31 years,
retiring in 1995. Lopez coached Little
League baseball for many years.
Harry S. Morgan,
97, a 60-year resident
of Glenview, died Jan-
uary 20, 2012. He
served as a school board
member for nine years
in Glenview CCSD 34. An engineer, he
is known for designing the former Meigs
Field Terminal building, and the air-
plane bridge crossing over the entrance
road to O’Hare Airport. The founder of
Consoer, Morgan Architects, he also
designed both of the Thornton Frac-
tional high schools.
Hillard D. Morris, 90, Altamont,
died March 15, 2012. He served 12 years
on the Altamont CUSD 10 school board.
He owned and operated a 768-acre farm
in rural Mason. He served in the U.S.
Army during World War II in the Bat-
tle of the Bulge and earned a silver star
and two bronze stars. He had been chair-
man of the Effingham County Soil &
Water Conservation District for 34 years.
William B. Murry,
89, Sesser, died March
4, 2012. He formerly
served on the Franklin
County school board.
He worked at the Sess-
er Post Office for 32 years as a clerk.
Murry served in the U.S. Army in World
War II and was the last surviving for-
mer POW in Franklin County. He was
superintendent of the Du Quoin State
Fair for 56 years.
Norman H. Nelson,
87, Bloomington, died
February 12, 2012. He
once served as presi-
dent of the Park Forest
school board. He retired
in 1989 from Country Companies after
43 years as an insurance executive.
Nelson also served as the general chair-
man and co-chairman of the McLean
County United Way in 1978, was a for-
mer PTA chairman, and a former board
member of the Association of Com-
merce and Industry of McLean Coun-
ty.
Greg Novak, 61, Champaign, died
March 7, 2012. He was a current mem-
Milestones continued from page 40
ber for Champaign
CUSD 4 school board,
and a retired Unit 4 staff
member. Novak was
elected to the board in
2007 and he served as
parliamentarian. He retired from Cham-
paign schools in 2006 after having served
as librarian at Edison Middle School
from 1975 to 1991 and as librarian at
Jefferson Middle School from 1991 to
2006. He also served as president of the
Champaign Federation of Teachers from
2001 to 2006.
Gretchen (Goodall)
Parkhurst, 73, Spring-
field, died February 9,
2012. She served two
terms as the first woman
elected to the Athens
CUSD 213 school board. She retired
from the Illinois Department of Rev-
enue after 37 years, and was also a for-
mer member of Illinois Women in
Government and the National Associ-
ation of Female Executives.
Charles A. “Pete”
Peterson, 82, Chrisman,
died March 14, 2012.
He served on the
Hoopeston Area CUSD
11 school board and
was a past United Way chairman. He
was retired from John Deere and Ver-
milion Iron Works. Peterson operat-
ed the family farm until his retirement
and was very involved in Special
Olympics.
Glenn Petty, 80, Herrick, died
March 26, 2012. He had served on
the Herrick and Cowden school boards
for 11 years. He was a self-employed
tractor mechanic and the owner/oper-
ator of Petty Repair service for more
than 50 years. A member of Herrick
American Legion Post 839 for 40 years,
he also was instrumental in the design
and building of the veteran’s memori-
al in Herrick.
James E. Pickens,
74, Watseka, died March
12, 2012. He was past
president of the Iroquois
County CUSD 9 school
board. He owned and
operated Pickens Pharmacy and Wat-
seka Variety and News for more than
30 years. Pickens was also a member
of the Watseka Lions Club, Watseka
Elks Lodge and Shewami Country Club.
He previously served on the board of
directors of United Savings and Loan.
Frances Coleman
Powell, 102, Kenilworth,
died February 24, 2012.
She had served on the
Kenilworth SD 38 school
board. She was also a
Girl Scout and Brownie leader, and a
member of the Kenilworth Home and
Garden Club. A Northwestern Univer-
sity graduate, she traveled widely dur-
ing her long life, bringing back fond
memories of places that remain well
off the beaten path.
William F. “Bill”
Purcell, Jr., 48,
LaGrange, died Febru-
ary 27, 2012. He was in
his second four-year
term as a member of the
Lyons THSD 204 school board. As chair
of the facilities committee, he was instru-
mental in a district bond issue and
improvements in the swimming pool,
field house and performing arts center.
Purcell was a real estate developer, a
fundraiser for the American Cancer
Society and was a founding member of
the Relay Race for Hungry Children
Charity Run.
Daniel R. Romito,
76, Norridge, died March
2, 2012. He was a mem-
ber of the Ridgewood
High School Board for
more than 40 years,
serving as board president for 30 years.
At board meetings he was famous for
asking questions that called for care-
ful thought. But fellow school leaders
say he was also a great listener. In 2011
he was honored with a Those Who Excel
award from the Illinois State Board of
Education for outstanding service to
schools.
Stanley E. Rosen-
gren, 89, Serena Town-
ship, died March 20,
2012. A lifelong farmer
in the Serena area, he
had served on the Ser-
ena Grade School board
of education. He held memberships in
the Serena Lions Club, LaSalle Coun-
ty Farm Bureau and was a past trustee
for the Serena Fire District.
John C. Sefton, 87,
Brownstown, died Feb-
ruary 13, 2012. He was
a former school board
member in Brownstown
CUSD 201. He worked
for Grady Marchman before starting
his own business, Sefton & Sons Con-
struction of Brownstown. Sefton was
one of the original six members of VFW
Post 9770, and was a member of the
WWII Liberators.
Orvan D. Speer, 87, Mattoon, for-
merly of Macomb and Bushnell, died
March 3, 2012. He was a former mem-
ber of the Bushnell-Prairie City CUSD
170 school board. He was a lifelong busi-
nessman in Bushnell, serving as co-
owner of Parker-Speer Dodge Chrysler
Inc. and P & S Mobile Home Sales. He
was also a 50-year member of the Bush-
nell Odd Fellows.
Frank Stewart, 66,
Joliet, died February 9,
2012. He served on the
Joliet Grade School
board from 1987 to
2005. He was a long-
time Will County Board member and
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 19
20 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
community advocate. Stewart, the coun-
ty board’s minority whip, and a mem-
ber since 1996, was a diabetic and was
on a waiting list for a kidney transplant
at the time of his death. He was a mem-
ber of the National Association of Coun-
ties’ health committee.
The Illinois School Board Journal
welcomes news about or from Illinois
school leaders. News may include but
need not be limited to accomplishments,
changes in position or duties, retirement,
death and other milestones related to
board/district duties. For more infor-
mation about submitting news items,
phone the Communications Department
at 217/528-9688, ext. 1138, or e-mail gad-
kins@iasb. com.
op their website as a “members-only
go-to” place for teachers.
A drop-off in school funding has
meant fewer dollars dedicated for
teachers to belong to professional
associations such as ICTM, he said.
Membership in Illinois, which had
been about 3,000, has dropped by
two-thirds over the past few years.
“We have to do things to make
organizations like ICTM worthwhile,”
Porzio said. “We need to say what the
research base is with metrics and evi-
dence to show that it works with stu-
dents.”
Sometimes a little nudge from
popular culture can help as well.
On the CBS drama, “Numb3rs,”
Charlie Eppes was a mathematical
genius who helped his brother Don,
an FBI agent, solve crimes. Watching
Charlie at the blackboard using sophis-
ticated equations to show probabil-
ities was fascinating.
If NBC’s “Bill Nye The Science
Guy,” and Jamie Hyneman and Adam
Savage on the Discovery Channel’s
“Mythbusters” are enough to help
spur kids to want to pursue science
as a career, maybe seeing Charlie
Eppes “model” math as fun and excit-
ing will help mend the disconnect for
teens and math … and make it seem
like the “cool” thing to do.
And that in turn will make CEOs
like Eric Spiegel of Siemens Corpo-
ration very happy. In an op-ed piece
for the Atlanta Journal Constitution
last December, Spiegel wrote, “… we
need to instill the value of science,
math and technology in our kids in
their earliest years. It doesn’t matter
if they are going to be engineers or
not. It doesn’t even matter if they
plan to go to college or not. Their
future — and ours — depends on their
ability to master a skill set they’ll need
in the jobs of the future.”
Oh, and the answer to the puz-
zle is 26– 63 = 1. Two to the sixth pow-
er is 64, minus 63, equals one.
ReferencesIllinois Council of Teachers of Math-
ematics website, http://www.ictm.org/
Judith Jacobs, A Winning Formula
for Mathematics Instruction: Con-
verting Research into Results, Educa-
tional Research Service, Alexandria,
Virginia, 2011
Morris Kline, Why Johnny Can’t
Add: The failure of the new math, St
Martin’s Press, 1973
William McCallum, “Restoring and
Balancing,” speech, June 2008
Erik Robelen, “Middle-Schoolers
Like Math, But P.E. More Popular, Sur-
vey Finds,” Education Week,
www.blogs.edweek.org/edweek/cur-
riculum2012/12/03/middle_school-
ers_like_math_but.html
Eric Spiegel, “Get over your math-
science aversion,” Atlanta Journal
Constitution, December 5, 2011
Figuring out a way continued from page 17
Whether you call it SettingDistrict Goals and Direction,
strategic planning, or values and beliefs/
mission/vision/goals work,school boards are responsible
for clarifying the district’s purpose.
An IASB Field Services Director brings expertise about the school board’s role in this work.
For more information, contact your Field Services Director today!
Setting DistrictGoals and Direction
Springfield 217/528-9688 • Lombard 630/629-3776
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
The 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution placed the respon-
sibility for public education under
each state’s jurisdiction. Since 1975
when Public Law 94-142 (the orig-
inal special education law) went into
effect, the federal government has
increasingly influenced public edu-
cation. Through federal legislation
and funding, mandates for testing and
accountability have increased.
It was increasingly apparent to
progressive state leaders that regain-
ing state-level control over education
means states would have to work
together and create mutually agreed
upon common standards. The Coun-
cil of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) and the National Gover-
nors Association Center for Best Prac-
tices (NGA Center) organized the
work.
On June 10, 2011, the K-12 Com-
mon Core State Standards were
released. Illinois was an early adopter
and has influential positions within
the governing bodies of CCSS and its
assessment consortium, Partnership
for Assessment of Readiness for Col-
lege and Careers (PARCC).
The CCSS are based on current
educational research. They focus on
preparing all students to be college
and career ready. They are reported
as being fewer and more clearly writ-
ten than most state standards, and
they reflect the work that states with
standards had already accomplished,
as well as the knowledge and skills
required for international academic
and career success.
The standards are written for
grades K-12. English Language Arts
(ELA) and mathematic standards
have been released. Work is currently
being done on science and social stud-
ies standards. The ELA standards
include K-5 foundational reading
skills, informational text, literature,
writing, speaking and listening, lan-
guage, and literacy across the con-
tent areas (history/social studies,
science and technical subjects).
Although all areas of ELA will be
important, the shift in information-
al texts and writing will be notable.
Math standards include math
practices and math content. Math
practices require students to make
sense of problems and persevere in
solving them, reason quantitatively
and abstractly, construct viable argu-
ments, and critique the reasoning of
others. It is worth noting that in some
districts the change in academic
expectations for math will come two
grade levels lower. In other words,
sixth-grade math content will now
be taught in fourth grade. This will
not be universally true, nor does it
include all math content. But there
is definitely a shift in rigor and expec-
tations.
As of early April, five states had
not as yet officially adopted Common
Donna McCaw
recently retired
from WIU and
currently works
with the Com-
mon Core Insti-
tute. Stuart Yager
is an associate
professor educa-
tional leadership
at Western Illi-
nois University in
Macomb. Rene
Noppe and Carol
Webb are assis-
tant professors in
educational lead-
ership at WIU.
Academic game changer …Implementing Common CoreState Standards in Illinois
by Donna McCaw , Stuart Yager, Carol Webb and Rene Noppe,
Part I: Common Core 101School reform movements are not new to policy and decision
makers. Each decade seems to have brought at least one new idea
or program that would “fix” a system that many believed to be bro-
ken. This is the first in a four-part series giving school board mem-
bers background knowledge on the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), the potential impact these new standards will have on
teaching and learning, things for boards to look for and district
implementation issues.
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 21
22 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
Core standards: Alaska, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Texas and Virginia. A map
showing states and when they adopt-
ed CCSS can be found at http://
www.corestandards.org/in-the-
states.
The federal government’s involve-
ment has been focused on funding
the creation of new state student tests.
The inability for many of the state
common core consortia members to
fund the creation of a new assess-
ment to accompany the new stan-
dards resulted in two federal
grant-funded state assessments to be
created. CCSS states were given the
option of joining SMARTER Balanced
Consortium (SBAC) or PARCC. Illi-
nois selected PARCC.
The new third- through 11th-
grade student state tests will begin in
2014-2015. Descriptions of the Com-
mon Core State Standards can be
found at http://www.corestandards.
org and PARCC assessment infor-
mation can found at http://www.
parcconline.org/. Additionally, the
National Parent Teacher Association
has information on its website regard-
ing the standards at http://www.
pta.org/common_core_state_stan-
dards.asp.
What do the standards look like?
To get a sense of how much dif-
ferent the new standards are, let’s
look at the youngest learners’ expec-
tations: kindergarten math and writ-
ing. By the end of kindergarten,
students will be expected to do the
following in math:
• Count objects to tell how many
there are.
• Compare two groups of objects
to tell which group, if either, has
more; compare two written num-
bers to tell which is greater.
• Act out addition and subtraction
word problems and draw diagrams.
to represent them.
• Add with a sum of 10 or fewer; sub-
tract from a number 10 or fewer;
and solve addition and subtraction
word problems
• Add and subtract very small num-
bers quickly and accurately (e.g.,
3 + 1).
• Name shapes regardless of orien-
tation or size (e.g., a square ori-
ented as a “diamond” is still a
square) (National Association of
Parent Teachers’ Association, 2012,
p. 3).
At the end of kindergarten, stu-
dents will be expected to do the fol-
lowing in writing:
• Use a combination of drawing, dic-
tating and writing to compose opin-
ion pieces in which they tell a reader
the topic or the name of the book
they are writing about and state
an opinion or preference about the
topic or book (e.g., My favorite book
is …).
• Use a combination of drawing, dic-
tating and writing to compose infor-
mative/explanatory texts in which
they name what they are writing
about and supply some informa-
tion about the topic.
• Use a combination of drawing, dic-
tating, and writing to narrate a sin-
gle event or several loosely linked
events, tell about the events in the
order in which they occurred, and
provide a reaction to what hap-
pened.
Most significant about these
requirements is that kindergarten is
currently not required in the Illinois
School Code. Current Illinois Learn-
ing Standards (ILS) are written for
kindergarten through third grade,
but no ILS standards were written
just for kindergarten.
One current ILS in math reads:
Compare the numbers of objects in
groups.
In the new CCSS for kindergarten,
the standard will read: Identify whether
the number of objects in one group
is greater than, less than or equal to
the number of objects in another
group, e.g., by using matching and
counting strategies. (Include groups
with up to 10 objects.)
The differences in expectations
are self-explanatory.
What do the new
assessments look like?
The requirements set by the U.S.
Department of Education necessi-
tated student performance to be reflect-
ed in a new generation of assessments
reflective of real-world applications.
And they needed to challenge stu-
dents to use higher levels of reason-
ing and thinking skills.
As the world around has become
more complex and more competi-
One current ILS in math reads: Com -
pare the numbers of objects in groups.
In the new CCSS for kindergarten, the
standard will read: Identify whether
the number of objects in one group is
greater than, less than or equal to the
number of objects in another group,
e.g., by using matching and counting
strategies. (Include groups with up to
10 objects.)
tive, the National Governors Associ-
ation and the CCSSO determined
that U.S. students needed to go deep-
er into content, “master” skills pre-
viously only “covered,” and develop
critical thinking skills. Samples of
the assessment questions are sched-
uled by PARCC to be released late
this summer. Some ROEs and private
professional development providers
are giving us glimpses into what they
might look like.
“Improving middle school stu-
dents’ achievement by just two score
points in each subject area would
have a cascading effect over the suc-
ceeding levels of education,” said
Kevin Baird, executive director of
College and Career Readiness, a not-
for-profit organization that provides
up-to-date information on imple-
mentation processes and planning.
“The 13-point increase in the per-
centage of high school graduates ready
for college-level mathematics should
later produce about 25,000 additional
degree completers at two- and four-
year colleges (and about 25,000 few-
er college dropouts) each year in the
United States.
“Extrapolating from U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimates (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2007), these
new degree completers would enjoy
an increase of close to $500 million
per year in their combined average
salary (i.e., about $20,000 per per-
son) and a drop in their average unem-
ployment rate of 2 percentage points.”
Schools now find themselves
in an exciting and yet unchartered
academic position. No change, since
the inception of special education
into public schools, has required the
types of instructional and curricular
movements that this opportunity will
afford. With limited time and limit-
ed resources, informed decisions are
more needed than ever.
The next three articles will exam-
ine in greater detail: the major shifts
that will have to take place within
most classrooms, what exactly this
means to policy, more specific infor-
mation about the assessments, how
to shape public information sessions
and possible next steps.
Part II: July/August — Shifting
the focus
Part III: September/October —
What to look for
Part IV: November/December —
Eating the elephant
FAQs about the Common Core State Standards
Aren’t these really federal standards? No. The stan-
dards allow for the development of consistent skills and
knowledge across adopted state educational systems but
are not mandated by the federal government. The fed-
eral government is funding the creation of the state assess-
ments, for which there are two choices. The state-level
options to adopt the CCSS and the option to use either
of the two testing consortia place the emphasis of
these new standards at the constitutionally supported
state decision-making level.
Will we now have a federal curriculum? No. We
will have greater uniformity of standards but uniquely
individualized methods of teaching and assessing the
next generation of students.
Did anyone dissent regarding the CCSS? Yes. Some
individuals, groups and organizations do not agree with
implementing CCSS. Examples of their concerns range
from not viewing this as good for all children and as a
movement toward a national curriculum and away from
local control.
Will this cost our district money? Probably. Depend-
ing on how 21st century your current curriculum and
instructional practices are, your teachers and admin-
istrators may need professional development in areas
related to curriculum alignment, research-based instruc-
tional and assessment practices, and new instructional
materials. Questions also exist related to managing the
immense amounts of data and monitoring that will go
with properly implementing the new standards. There
is a sincere hope that the ultimate return on your invest-
ment will be found in better-prepared college students
and a strengthened workforce.
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 23
24 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
Teacher evaluations are the key
to success under the Illinois
Education Reform Act (SB7) — and
there is simply no substitute for prop-
er and thorough evaluation. While
evaluation used to be a purely admin-
istrative function that rarely came
before the board except during dis-
cipline or dismissal proceedings, eval-
uations have now become a necessary
part of the operation of a school dis-
trict for a board of education.
It is likely that the board will sud-
denly become much more familiar
with evaluations, both because the
law requires board input in changes
to the evaluation tool, and also because
the evaluation will now become crit-
ical to many more of the staffing deci-
sions administration must make. If
evaluation is not thoroughly com-
pleted and reviewed at the beginning
of the year, the board may be pow-
erless to RIF (to cut costs) at the end
of the year.
Review of new RIF rules
In addition to many other
changes, SB7 changes the way reduc-
tions in force (RIFs) are conducted.
RIFs (otherwise known as lay-offs, or
a reduction in the number of total
employees or programs) are no longer
done in reverse-seniority order, where
the least senior employees would be
RIF’d first. Under SB7, teachers with
lower evaluation scores will be placed
into a grouping that will require them
to be RIF’d before better performing
teachers. The groupings have default
requirements defined by law:
Grouping 1: Each teacher not in
contractual continued service who
has not received a performance eval-
uation rating.
Grouping 2: Each teacher with
a Needs Improvement or Unsatis-
factory performance evaluation rat-
ing on either of the teacher’s last two
performance evaluations.
Grouping 3: Each teacher with
a performance evaluation rating of
at least Satisfactory or Proficient on
both of the teacher’s last two perfor-
mance evaluation ratings, if two rat-
ings are available, or on the teacher’s
last performance evaluation rating,
if only one rating is available, unless
the teacher qualifies for placement
into Grouping 4.
Grouping 4: Each teacher whose
last two performance evaluation rat-
ings are Excellent and each teacher
with two Excellent performance eval-
uation ratings out of the teacher’s last
three performance evaluation ratings
with a third rating of Satisfactory
or Proficient.
Grouping 2 teachers must be
removed before Grouping 3 teach-
ers, and Grouping 3 teachers before
Grouping 4. Grouping 1 teachers are
honorably reduced (RIF’d) at the
board’s discretion. Unfortunately, the
law does not necessarily contemplate
what happens when the district does
not have “perfect” evaluations already
in place.
Missing or defective evaluations
Typically a board member only
reviews evaluations in either a dis-
ciplinary or dismissal outcome for
an employee. However, the new law
imposes stiff penalties on districts
where evaluations are not carefully
and fully documented. When a dis-
trict has evaluations that do not clear-
ly direct how an employee must
perform to get better, the district will
have a great deal of difficulty RIFing
employees.
Notice and an opportunity to “get
better” are important to be fair to
employees. While the law does not
require any particular type of notice,
the most reliable way of avoiding the
cost and risk of a lawsuit is to give an
employee ample warning that he or
David J. Braun is
an attorney with
Miller, Tracy,
Braun, Funk &
Miller, Ltd. in
Champaign and
has presented at
IASB meetings
on numerous
legal topics.
After nearly a year …What we’ve learned, how to deal with SB7 evaluation mandates
by David J. Braun
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 25
she is likely to be out of a job if per-
formance is not improved.
While boards do not often get
involved in the evaluation itself, the
law now requires the board to appoint
members to a committee to change
the evaluation. Moreover, the board
will not be able to cost-effectively lay
people off if it suffers litigation because
employees feel it is “unfair” that they
do not know why they ended up in
one grouping instead of another.
For this reason, it is critical that
the board clearly communicates ear-
ly in the year what it expects to have
the power to do at the end of the year
so that administration may assure
that evaluations are being thoroughly
conducted to meet those goals.
But what if the district already
lacks evaluations? Many questions
have come up, such as:
• What happens when an employee
is missing an evaluation?
• What if there are no evaluations?
• What if there are only a handful of
evaluations?
• What if there are just a few employ-
ees missing some (but not all) eval-
uations?
The question is further compli-
cated when the majority of employ-
ees have a particular evaluation rating
(such as Satisfactory which might
land them into Grouping 3, which
will cause them to be reduced in
seniority order) and just one employ-
ee missing evaluation ratings is rat-
ed outside the majority (by a rating
such as Excellent or Needs Improve-
ment).
An employee who is RIF’d may
argue he or she was not treated fair-
ly, or worse, was discriminated against
because of age, gender, religion, race
or other protected class.
The board must ensure evalua-
tions are being performed thoroughly
during the year, or the board will be
powerless even to conduct RIFs at
the end of the year. Creative solu-
tions, unfortunately, are all fraught
with significant danger:
Re-defining Grouping 1
The law defines Grouping 1 as
consisting of non-tenured teachers
who have no performance evaluation
ratings, and then gives districts dis-
cretion in dismissal of those teach-
ers. But what if a district chooses not
to evaluate teachers in Grouping 1
so that they may have the discretion
to dismiss them?
Placement of a teacher into
Grouping 1 may subject the district
to the argument that it did not com-
ply with the law requiring annual eval-
uation for non-tenured teachers.
Further, the proposed solution does
not address the open issue of what to
do with tenured teachers missing
evaluations.
Only proper and well-supported
evaluations will allow the district to
comply with the law and reduce the
likelihood of a lawsuit by providing
the employees with the fairness they
seek. Every level of district operation
must ensure such evaluations are
being conducted if the board wants
to have the ability to RIF at the end
of the year.
Re-defining Grouping 4
Grouping 4 includes teachers
with evaluation ratings of Excellent
on two of their last three evaluations.
The law permits a district to change
the definition of Grouping 4. In fact,
the law requires joint committee dis-
cussion of the definition of Grouping
4.
But even though the law requires
this discussion, pre-determining the
outcome of an evaluation to “avoid
litigation” (that is, dishonestly eval-
uating employees) likely subjects the
district to process challenge, because
the district’s process does not com-
ply with the law’s requirements of
honest and thorough evaluation. More-
over, employees who are RIF’d under
the system will argue it is not only
illegal, but unfair because they were
not offered the opportunity to “out-
perform” their peers.
Re-defining Grouping 3
Grouping 3 is defined by inclu-
sion of each teacher with a Satisfac-
tory or Proficient on their last
performance evaluation or last two
performance evaluations. [105 ILCS
5/24-12(b)]. It appears that Grouping
3 is the “default” grouping if there is
a rating, but what if the district’s eval-
uation plan establishes a maximum
evaluation (ill advised) frequency?
In other words, what if the dis-
trict’s contract or evaluation plan pre-
vents the district from evaluating a
teacher more frequently than the
legal minimum of once every other
Only proper and well-supported eval-
uations will allow the district to com-
ply with the law and reduce the likeli-
hood of a lawsuit by providing the
employees with the fairness they seek.
Every level of district operation must
ensure such evaluations are being con-
ducted if the board wants to have the
ability to RIF at the end of the year.
26 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
year for tenured teachers? If the dis-
trict’s procedures and policies make
more frequent evaluation against the
rules, then only a discussion with the
union and the joint committee can
fix that issue of whether or not the
district is “grandfathered.”
(A “grandfathered” district is one
that has a collective bargaining agree-
ment currently in effect that is in con-
flict with the law and was signed before
January 1, 2011. “Grandfathering”
is very limited and complicated under
SB7, so specific advice should be
sought on the extent to which a dis-
trict is grandfathered.)
Moreover, pre-determining the
outcome of evaluations to place
employees into this grouping will
likely expose the district to a lawsuit
for failure to strictly comply with
evaluation law.
The only legal and fair solution
A district with evaluation defects
such as those described above must
discuss the issue with the union and
an SB7-required joint committee made
up of an equal representation of board-
selected members and union- or
RIF/evaluation checklistEmployers must make sure they address the following issues by the appropriate deadlines. The follow-
ing list is a summary of the major duties and deadlines. A district should always check its own contracts and
policies for additional practices and deadlines, and should consult its own attorney for fact-specific advice.
Duty Deadline
Meet with RIF joint committee Before December 1, 2011, and, if necessary, in sub-
sequent years by dates in contract
Reach agreements with joint committee to change
RIF procedure
Before February 1 of any year in which there will
be a RIF
Create and provide sequence of honorable reduc-
tion list to union
Before 75 calendar days prior to the end of the
school year
Change teachers falling into Grouping 1 to another
Grouping by completing an evaluation
Before 45 calendar days prior to the end of the
school year
Create and provide qualifications list to union Before May 10
Conduct necessary RIFs Before 45 calendar days prior to the end of the
school year unless contract or policy provides a
different time-frame
Alter evaluation with four categories: Excellent,
Proficient, Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory
Before September 1, 2012
Change evaluation plan to one that incorporates
student growth data by meeting with PERA joint
committee
Within 180 days of first meeting of Evaluation Joint
Committee and before PERA deadline
September 1
2012 – At least 300 Chicago schools and any
school receiving a Federal School Improvement
Grant
2013 – All remaining Chicago schools
2015 – Lowest performing 20% of schools
2016 – All other schools
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 27
teacher-selected members. Be aware
that these are not the same entity.
The joint committee must reach
agreement on RIF process changes
by February 1 of any year to impact
RIFs for that year. This actually should
be done as early as possible.
Even after February 1 of any giv-
en year, the joint committee may
have to be an ongoing part of the dis-
cussion regarding RIFs. It is critical
that the district have agreement from
both the union and the joint com-
mittee for purpose of avoiding polit-
ical fall-out and toxic distrust in
bargaining.
However, the district should not
be deluded into believing that agree-
ment with the union or joint com-
mittee will “cure” the defect and
prevent legal challenge. Without case
law to interpret what is required when
a defect has occurred prior to imple-
mentation of the law, the district is
at the mercy of the courts when a
challenge is brought, potentially by
anyone who is reduced, regardless of
the grouping definition or rules.
Evaluations completed —
now what?
You have done the work, you have
agreed with your joint committee,
and you are ready to begin your RIFs.
The law requires that, not lat-
er than 75 calendar days prior to the
conclusion of any school year, the
district produce a sequence of hon-
orable dismissal list. The list is a
sort of “groupings” list, which defines
employees by grouping depending
on their evaluations. A teacher with
two evaluation ratings of Needs
Improvement may end up in Group-
ing 2, but a teacher with two Satis-
factory evaluation ratings and an
Excellent evaluation rating will be
placed into Grouping 3.
This list is critical to conducting
RIFs, because Grouping 2 teachers
will be the first teachers reduced
(unless the board has Grouping 1
teachers it elects to reduce), before
reducing Grouping 3 teachers and
finally Grouping 4 teachers.
Because the list is likely to cause
some discomfort for employees who
ExecutiveSearchES
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS
The Gold Standard of Executive Searches
Three Reasons to Choose IASB1. Boards are our priority — We approach the entire process from your point of view, with your
needs in mind. We offer a personal approach that’s tailored to your district and its particular needs.
2. Resources and Experience — Tap into the resources of your entire association. We havedecades of experience conducting searches and we advise you in every facet of the selectionprocess, including reaching consensus on the many decisions that must be made during an effec-tive superintendent search.
3. Value — When you choose IASB, you put the entire strength of your dues dollars to work. IASBoffers a complete service with cost below most firms. Let us do the paperwork and the legwork –while you make the decision!
For information contact:
2921 Baker Drive One Imperial Place
Springfield, IL 62703 1 East 22nd Street, Suite 20
217/528-9688, ext. 1217 Lombard, IL 60148
630/629-3776, ext. 1217
www.iasb.com/executive
28 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
are not accustomed to being ranked
based on their evaluations, and because
it is possible that not everyone will
be placed appropriately, it is advis-
able to send the list to the union as
early as possible.
After the list has been confirmed,
the next step is for the district to
assess what reductions in force will
be necessary, if it has not already
done so. After determining what pro-
grams may be reduced or what staffing
requirements must be met, the dis-
trict should review the list to deter-
mine which employees in the
qualification category to be reduced
are located in the grouping to be
reduced. Notices must be delivered
by or before 45 calendar days before
the end of the year, although earlier
notice may be required by contract
or policy.
But what if the district is “grand-
fathered”? The law does not exempt
a district from producing a groupings
list, even if it is still permitted to RIF
under the old “seniority” laws. The
district should produce a groupings
list, even if the list will not be used
this year.
After the list is produced but
before the board takes action on RIFs,
the union must be notified of the RIFs.
Under SB7, the joint committee
must reach agreement on process
changes by February 1 of any year of
RIFs for the change to affect that year’s
RIFs. However, nothing in SB7 has
removed or changed the requirement
to bargain. The question, therefore,
is whether or not the union, which
is not the same as the joint com-
mittee, may make a change that affects
the RIF process after February 1.
Because the law is not clear, the safest
way to handle these questions is to
have the bargaining meetings when
the union requests them, but to be
exceedingly careful, avoiding changes
to the process agreed to by the joint
committee.
Recall option
Recall questions are already
becoming an issue. “Recall” happens
when a position becomes available
after a RIF, and the employee who
was RIF’d has a right to that position.
Recall is a right of a RIF’d employee.
Prior to SB7, there was no right
to recall for a non-tenured teacher.
In fact, under old law, there was only
a “nonrenewal” for a non-tenured
teacher, meaning that there was no
distinction between a “dismissal
for cause” and a RIF.
Under new law, all teachers must
be grouped, including non-tenured
teachers. Therefore, there are now
two methods to remove a non-tenured
teacher: by dismissing the teacher
based on performance (although no
cause must be shown in the notice
dismissing a non-tenured teacher not
in his or her final year of non-tenured
service), or by dismissing the teacher
“honorably,” also known as a RIF.
At this time, it remains an open
question whether or not a district
with unclear or nonexistent con-
tractual language defining recall will
be considered “grandfathered.”
Because contractual language is a fact
question, we are without any court
cases to explain how the court will
Showcase your talented students at Joint Annual Conference!
It’s easy ...Upload a video of 10 minutes or
less to YouTube and send thelink to: Linda Dawson [email protected]. Onemiddle school and one high
school will be selected. Selectedvideos will be shown prior tothe First and Second GeneralSessions
Deadline to enter:
Friday, June 15, 2012For complete submission
criteria, go to http://www.iasb.com/jac12/selectioncriteria.pdf
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 29
apply the law. However, it is always
safest, if a district wants to ensure a
non-tenured teacher may not return,
to evaluate that teacher specifically
addressing his or her weaknesses,
and then dismiss the employee.
Conclusion: diligence
As we near the year mark fol-
lowing the signing of the Illinois Edu-
cation Reform Act (SB7) on June 13,
2011, we are beginning to get a sense
of the effects of the new SB7 require-
ments.
Even though school districts have
new mandates from law (which tell
us “what” to do), we have yet to see
regulations (the rules that tell us
“how” to do it) or case law (telling us
what it all “means”).
Because the law was created
by many different interested groups,
effective and legal solutions require
careful analysis and cooperation —
working with unions, statewide orga-
nizations and interested bodies, such
as members of the Illinois Statewide
School Management Alliance part-
ners and the Illinois State Board of
Education, as well as lawyers and
advisors is critical to the successful,
and cost effective, compliance with
the law. Only by working together
will we all be able to assure that we
understand the results of our actions
before we take them.
Ultimately, every teacher, staff
member, board member, school ser-
vice member and property tax payer
in Illinois is directly affected by the
changes in SB7. With so much of the
state directly impacted by this leg-
islation, answers will come with time.
In the meantime, safety exists
in slow progress, careful considera-
tion, forthright communication and
honest evaluation.
Using technology toenhance your
board effectiveness through online
services, such as ...
PRESS, the IASB sample policy and procedure service —
A calendar year subscription to PRESS provides easy Internetaccess 24/7 to sample board policies and administrative procedures, links to legal references and cross references, and an excellent search engine.
School Board Policies Online — IASB will publish your board policy manual online for easyInternet access by the board, staff, students, parents and thecommunity. This online manual will have all of the featuresessential for effectively communicating your board policy,including links to legal references, jumps to cross references,and the same excellent search engine used for PRESS online.
BoardBook® — IASB’s newest online service provides for electronic boardmeetings and board packet preparation and distribution.
Contact IASB Policy Services today for information:630/629-3776 or 217/528-9688Ext. 1214 or [email protected] or [email protected]
IASBPolicyServices
30 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
Teacher and staff evaluations
can be a thorny issue. While
almost everyone agrees that, in the-
ory, they can be excellent tools for
supporting staff development and
performance, and for increasing stu-
dent achievement, evaluations remain
problematic.
We all know stories of evalua-
tions that were too subjective or that
served to demoralize rather than sup-
port and develop, and of processes
that are time and paper intensive,
providing little real benefit to any-
one. As every school district in Illi-
nois wrestles with the technical issues
in the Illinois Education Reform Act
(SB7), we should not forget that an
effective teacher evaluation process
should increase teachers’ abilities to
affect student achievement.
So how can board members influ-
ence and help optimize a district’s
performance management or evalu-
ation process to make it more effec-
tive?
Here are seven tried and true
practices to guide your efforts:
Identify goals for the process.
Before beginning any change process,
be clear about the goals for the teacher
and staff evaluations. Ask questions
like: What are we trying to accom-
plish? What data needs to be gath-
ered? Who needs to be involved?
What do we want to change as a result
of conducting these evaluations?
District goals should always direct
all district efforts. Primarily, an eval-
uation process is to ensure that the
district’s teachers and staff are meet-
ing the high standards set by the board
of education and working to improve
student achievement. Your district
goal may be to improve knowledge,
skills or performance in particular
areas of the curriculum. But as board
members you also may be trying to
increase accountability or alignment
to board and district goals.
Being clear about goals at the
onset will help direct all efforts and
help to measure the effectiveness
of the evaluation process down the
road.
Carefully optimize the process
and forms. Encourage those in charge
of the actual process to keep things
as simple as possible but to adhere
to the selected process in every detail.
Forms should use clear, consis-
tent and appropriate rating scales
within the proscribed rubric. Boards
should receive decision support data
wherever needed. Evaluators should
have easy access to as much infor-
mation about staff members, evalu-
ation criteria and support resources
as possible so that they can quickly
and effectively complete their eval-
uations.
Teachers and staff should receive
high-quality feedback, direction and
the development they need to improve
and succeed. The easier it is for staff
to complete the forms and process,
the more likely they’ll participate and
gain benefit from that process.
While it can be helpful to look at
what other boards and districts are
doing, processes and forms should
meet the district’s specific needs (as
well as the intent of the new statute),
use “language” that is familiar to the
staff, and address specific goals and
requirements.
Provide resources and require
Adam Cobb is
regional manager
with Halogen
Software. He
focuses on help-
ing K-12 schools,
boards and dis-
tricts optimize
teacher and staff
evaluation
processes and
overall talent
management
practices. He can
be reached at
acobb@halo
gensoftware.com.
Seven tips toward makingevaluations more effective
by Adam Cobb
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 31
training for everyone necessary on
how to use the forms and follow the
process. This means how to use the
evaluation forms, the evaluation cri-
teria, the performance rating scale
and what each rating means, and
everyone’s role in the process. They
should understand what steps the
process may include (e.g., walk-
throughs, self-reporting, etc.) so that
they know what to expect.
Using new language and process
will require resources of time and
money both for initial and ongoing
or refresher training. Everyone involved
should know what is expected of them,
and when and how they can get help
if they need it.
Communicate the benefits of
effective performance management.
One of the things we often forget to
do is tell people what’s in it for them.
Effective performance management
can provide numerous benefits to the
individual and the school board,
including: better educator perfor-
mance; increased ability to identify
and address development needs;
improved ability to attract top teach-
ers and staff; and, ultimately, improved
student achievement.
To engage staff in the performance
management process and help them
see its value, district leadership must
communicate long-term career and
student performance benefits on
an ongoing basis.
Provide resources of both time
and money so that evaluators are
trained on performance management
best practices. This is perhaps one
of the most important items. Man-
aging employee performance is not
an easy skill. Most people don’t innate-
ly know how to give helpful feedback,
how to coach, how to write effective
goals, even how to identify appro-
priate and effective professional devel-
opment activities.
Those who manage and evaluate
the performance of others can also
greatly benefit from training in per-
sonality types, communication styles,
learning styles, etc., to help increase
their interpersonal effectiveness. Here
again, introductory as well as ongo-
ing/refresher training is important,
so those items should be part of the
goals and a budget priority.
Due dates and expectations for
the process should be clearly com-
municated. Because the process and
requirements are clear and impor-
tant to superintendents and princi-
pals, it’s easy to forget that they’re
not always clear to the board. Boards
should ask for regular status reports
on the implementation of the evalu-
ation plan, including questions like:
Who has been trained? How have we
communicated our efforts with the
staff? What is our plan for conduct-
ing the various activities required by
the plan? While the board won’t be
involved in the details of evaluating
teachers, understanding the process
will help the board to monitor progress
and will build trust if and when the
board is expected to make important
personnel decisions.
Ask for feedback on how the
process went and encourage incre-
mental improvements. Every year,
the evaluation process itself also needs
to be evaluated. Administrators should
convey information to the board that
answers the following questions:
• What worked well and what didn’t?
• Where and how could the process
be simplified?
• Did everyone involved get the infor-
mation needed?
• Were enough resources of time and
money allotted?
• Has the district met state and/or
district requirements?
• Is the evaluation process helping
the board achieve its goals?
• Is the process helping to support
staff performance and development?
• Are participation rates on target?
By continuously monitoring
teacher/staff evaluation processes
from the board’s perspective, and
then by providing the needed resources
of both time and money to implement
improvements, everyone can be
assured that the plan is being imple-
mented properly and is meeting the
board expectations.
Boards should ask for regular status reports on the implementation
of the evaluation plan, including questions like: Who has been
trained? How have we communicated our efforts with the staff?
What is our plan for conducting the various activities required by
the plan?
32 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
This is the time of the year that
school boards and superin-
tendents begin seriously thinking
about budget figures for the coming
school year. Part of any of those
budget decisions should be how
much to allot for board members to
attend professional development
events.
Because of changes in state statute
adding mandatory training for school
board members in education and
labor law, financial oversight and
accountability, and fiduciary respon-
sibilities, plus a new statewide man-
date for all elected officials to have
training in the Open Meetings Act,
some of these professional develop-
ment costs are not just at the board’s
discretion. They are costs that will
have to be incurred.
The costs listed here will not be
the same for every school board or
for every location. Costs will vary
depending on the number of board
members who need to attend as well
as how far away the event will be.
To help project outlays for your
board’s upcoming budget year, here
are some typical costs for various
types of programs gleaned from mem-
bers of IASB staff and current regis-
tration materials:
Mandatory training
Board members elected or
appointed after June 13, 2011, must
complete the legal and financial train-
ing referenced above within the first
year of their board service. Beginning
April 9, 2013, during this coming bud-
get year, anyone — new or incum-
bent — elected to the board on or
after that date, will need to complete
that training.
IASB has developed an online
course that will fulfill this require-
ment. Cost for the four-hour module
is $50 for members. By completing
the requirement online, the district
saves money on transportation to a
different location to take the train-
ing.
The mandated Open Meetings
Act (OMA) training is for all public
officials in Illinois, including school
board members. While an online
course is offered through the Illinois
Attorney General’s website, IASB
also offers options that are designed
with school board members in mind.
OMA training will again be offered
at this year’s Joint Annual Confer-
ence in Chicago. An additional one-
time charge of $25 covers the
paperwork and certification. IASB’s
“The Basics of Law on Board Meet-
ings and Practices” workshop also
contains everything needed for OMA
certification, in addition to more in-
depth training. Cost of that work-
shop is $125.
An additional requirement for
mandatory training around Illinois’
Performance Evaluation Reform Act
(PERA) will be phased in over the
next five years. Most districts will
not be required to participate in the
teacher evaluation piece until the
2016-17 school year. This Act will
require that board members who will
vote on dismissal of teachers based
on performance evaluations will have
to be “PERA trained” in order to
do so.
Once the Illinois State Board of
Education has developed the imple-
mentation rules, IASB will develop
training — most likely online — that
will allow board members to fulfill
this mandated requirement.
Division meetings
For the semi-annual dinner meet-
ings held each spring and fall, costs
will differ depending on whether the
event is scheduled at a school (which
is typical for most divisions outside
of the Chicago metropolitan area) or
at a restaurant. Registration normally
Linda Dawson is
IASB director/
editorial services
and editor of The
Illinois School
Board Journal.
Typical costs canhelp boards budget
by Linda Dawson
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 33
includes dinner as well as meeting
programming.
Division meetings held at restau-
rants will run about $40 per per-
son. Those held at a school will be
about $23 per person.
If your district pays the state rate
of 55½ cents per mile, the cost of dri-
ving round trip to a meeting 50 miles
away would add another $55.50.
That would make the dinner meet-
ing a total of $78.50 to $95.50 per
board member traveling alone. If
board members share transportation
… a driver with three passengers …
then total district cost for the meet-
ing would run $147.50 to $175.50.
Some divisions schedule sum-
mer and winter governing meetings,
where board members can help divi-
sion officers and IASB field services
staff determine programming needs
for the fall and spring meetings, as
well as get updates on other Associ-
ation events. Cost to attend these
meetings, which are usually smaller
and held at a restaurant, will be sim-
ilar to those for a fall or spring meet-
ing or less.
This spring, division meetings
also included an option for manda-
tory OMA training. The special pro-
gramming added $25 to the cost of
attendance, but allowed board mem-
bers to attend two function at once
instead of separately, which would
save on mileage reimbursement and
travel time.
Workshops
Cost of stand-alone workshops
can vary widely, depending on the
topic and the speakers, but gener-
ally cost between $125 and $185 per
person for most registrations. Mileage
to and from the event will also need
to be calculated at 55½ cents per mile.
If the workshop plus driving time
runs several hours, it may require
an overnight stay the night before to
make an early-morning meeting.
With meals, add about $200 for stay-
ing overnight in a small city, or $300
in a large metropolitan area. Typical
total: from $200 for a drive-in work-
shop and up to $450 for an
overnighter.
The Association often discounts
registration if more than one session
is being held at the same time. Even
though the cost may be more initially,
it might make more sense to attend
both workshops at a discounted price
and only pay one mileage and/or
overnight stay with extra meals.
IASB also offers a number of
in-district workshops to help boards
save on travel and registration costs.
Having an in-district workshop brought
to your board allows all board mem-
bers to hear the same message at once
for one cost.
Information about board mem-
ber training and programs such as
the LeaderShop Academy are avail-
able on IASB’s website at http://iasb.
com/training/events.cfm. IASB also
has developed a board training cal-
endar available at http://iasb.com/train-
ing/bdcal.cfm
Joint Annual Conference
Costs associated with Novem-
ber’s conference in Chicago will vary
differently for districts, depending
on how far they are from the “big
city.” The district will need to bud-
get at least $360 per person for reg-
istration, plus about $225 or more
per day for lodging and meals. Hotel
rates have been negotiated years in
advance and are much lower than
most discounted rates charged for
staying in downtown Chicago.
What the district authorizes
for meals per day can range from $40
to covering actual expenses. The
amount should be established by pol-
icy at a board meeting prior to con-
ference registration and attendance,
not when the receipts are being turned
in for payment.
Travel options also vary because
board members may elect to take the
train instead of driving into the city.
As a guide, an Amtrak ticket from
Springfield to Chicago costs about
$50 round trip. Board members trav-
eling from a city that does not have
an Amtrak station would have to fig-
ure in mileage to get to the station
and back home as well.
Board members traveling by train
also will need to take a taxi to the
hotel, which will add another $15 to
$20.
In addition to mileage, board
members who drive will need to add
about $30 to $50 or more per night
for parking.
Other add-ons for annual con-
ference might include attending a
The Association often discounts regis-
tration if more than one session is
being held at the same time. Even
though the cost may be more initially,
it might make more sense to attend
both workshops at a discounted price
and only pay one mileage and/or
overnight stay with extra meals.
34 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
5th Biennial LeaderShopSymposium
June 16, 2012Lombard, IL
How You as a LeaderCan Thrivein Adversity
Presenter
Diane Reed, Ed.D.Co-Director and Associate Professor
in Educational Leadership, former superintendent and author of
Resilient Leadership for Turbulent Times
S A V E T H E D A T E
“I believeresilience is
the single mostimportant quality in a leader.”
Warren Bennis
By InvitationONLY!
Resilience is absolutely necessary for successful
leadership, and for a balancedand satisfying life. Plan now to
attend this exciting learningopportunity designed
exclusively for School BoardLeaderShop Academy members
and their superintendents.
Additional information and registration details will follow in early spring.
preconference workshop ($220, which
includes breakfast and lunch for all-
day workshops) or taking the Chica-
go Schools Tour ($85, which includes
breakfast).
The average bill for one board
member attending typically ranges
from $1,150 to $1,400, with addi-
tional costs for those board members
traveling from southern Illinois.
National conventions
Some districts also choose to
send representatives to the Nation-
al School Boards Association Con-
ference or NSBA’s Federal Relations
Network lobbying conference. Some
costs will be similar, but others will
be much more.
Plan to spend $900 for the annu-
al conference and $685 for the FRN
conference just in registration fees.
As with Illinois’ annual conference,
board members can choose to add
a pre-conference workshop at an addi-
tional cost of $195 for a half-day and
$320 for a full day. NSBA also offers
various site visits on each day of the
conference for $105 to $160, depend-
ing on the site.
Obviously travel expense will be
more as the locations are out of state.
Airline tickets vary in price depend-
ing on the location and whether your
board members are leaving from major
hub airports like O’Hare in Chicago
or Lambert in St. Louis, or from a
regional airport, such as Blooming-
ton or Springfield. Budget at least
$250 to $350 for airline tickets and
remember to allow extra for mileage
to and from the airport.
FRN is always held in Wash-
ington, D.C. NSBA’s annual confer-
ence for 2013 will be in San Diego;
2014 is scheduled for New Orleans.
Cost of hotel rooms for those con-
ferences can run anywhere from $190
to $250 per night, depending on the
location. Meal costs for national con-
ference should also be part of your
board policy that covers meals at the
JAC.
As you can see from the above,
professional development for board
members is an added expense for a
district. Creating a line item in the
budget is a good way to ensure that
board members get mandated train-
ing, as well as allowing for expenses
for other training opportunities.
The board may want the super-
intendent to provide figures on how
much the district spends on profes-
sional development for teachers and
staff and then look at the line item
for both that training and board mem-
ber training as a percentage of the
district budget.
Remember, however, that the
cost of not having board members
who are well-trained and well-
informed on the current issue affect-
ing education may be even more
costly.
P R A C T I C A L P R
With demands of increased
accountability and trans-
parency from school districts, it is
imperative that school board mem-
bers understand the importance of
strategic communication.
A planned and systematic com-
munication program helps improve
the programs and services of a school
district. And, that adds up to under-
standing of the role and needs of the
school district, better understanding
of public attitudes, shaping of poli-
cies in the public interest, and imple-
menting involvement and information
activities that earn public support.
Local community members need
to understand the school district’s
successes and challenges and how
they can support the education of
every student.
The National School Public Rela-
tions Association (NSPRA) and its
Illinois chapter, INSPRA, are designed
to help school board members, admin-
istrators and school communication
professionals strategically prob-
lem-solve to gain community under-
standing and support, and ultimately
student success.
School board members should
rely on a trained professional to man-
age communication strategies that
are proactive and that allow the board
and district to be active players in
the community.
A great way to learn about strate-
gic communication is to attend the
National School Public Relations Asso-
ciation Conference that will be held
July 8-11, 2012, in Chicago. At this
59th annual seminar, school board
members, superintendents, princi-
pals and school communication pro-
fessionals from throughout the United
States will gather to share the best,
latest and most effective practices in
school communication. And this con-
ference will be cost-effective since
it’s being held in Illinois!
At the seminar, participants will
come face-to-face with outstanding
experts and practitioners in school
communication and leadership. They
will share their best new ideas, pro-
vide seasoned insights and offer the
tools needed to help schools. More
than 70 sessions will be focused on
developing effective, budget-savvy
and targeted communication pro-
grams, including social media strate-
gies, crisis communication, com -
muni cating budget/finance issues,
building trust and support, commu-
nity engagement and improving media
relations. Tracks are even designed
specifically for superintendents and
principals. Complete details can be
found at www.nspra.org.
The learning possibilities are infi-
nite when school board members join
or encourage personnel in charge of
school communication to join the
Illinois Chapter of NSPRA.
Membership benefits for an orga-
nization that connects communica-
tion professionals across the state
are:
• Participation in an award-winning
professional organization that pro-
vides public relations training,
counseling, information and
inspiration;
• A “Member Needs Help” program,
which allows any INSPRA mem-
ber to seek advice and examples
from members across the state,
and ensures that all members can
benefit from the answers through
an online forum;
• Access to the INSPRA document
library, featuring examples and
templates of forms, brochures and
other resources frequently used
by school PR professionals;
• The opportunity to register for Fri-
day morning seminars (six per year)
featuring experts with practical
strategies for media relations, social
Carla Erdey is
director of
communications
for Consolidated
High School
District 230 in
Orland Park,
Illinois, and
president of the
Illinois Chapter
of the National
School Public
Relations
Association.
Communication networksoffer benefits for districts
by Carla Erdey
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 35
Columns aresubmitted bymembers of
continued on page 39
36 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
Editor’s note: John J Cassel and
Angie Peifer have been among
a select few Association personnel
who answered monthly questions
for the American School Board Jour-
nal. These questions and their
answers are representative of the
knowledge of board issues and cul-
ture that have been shared, and they
are used with that publication’s per-
mission.
The question: A longtime school
board member had suffered from a
debilitating illness and requested that
he be able to participate in school
board meetings remotely, by tele-
phone. His board colleagues gladly
gave him the opportunity. When he
recovered, he began attending meet-
ings in person. Another board mem-
ber wanted the same privilege, but
for a different reason: she lived about
20 miles from the board meeting office.
She was asking for this to be a per-
manent arrangement. What should
the board do?
Angie’s answer: New technolo-
gies have caused many board and
state legislative bodies to reconsider
their definitions of “meeting atten-
dance.” This board should first check
its policy, which should reflect the
board’s thinking about meeting atten-
dance as well as any current state
statutes defining a legally convened
meeting. In Illinois, a quorum of the
board must be physically present
at the meeting and participation by
telephone or audio conferencing is
restricted to 1) personal illness or
disability, 2) employment or district
business, or 3) a family or other emer-
gency. Absent policy or state legal
guidance, this board needs to have a
policy-level conversation about its
expectations for meeting attendance
and participation and then adopt
those expectations as board policy.
The question: A longtime var-
sity basketball coach at an urban high
school had a reputation as an inspir-
ing teacher and a great guy. In the
past five years, however, his team had
a losing record. Some parents and
community members were pressur-
ing the superintendent and the school
board to fire this coach and replace
him with someone who could pro-
duce a winning season. Parents com-
plained that their students were
missing out on scholarship opportu-
nities because of the team’s poor per-
formance. Some school board
members thought this attitude of “win
at any cost” was misguided, and that
the coach put teaching above com-
petition. Other members agreed with
the parents. What should the board
do?
John’s answer: I strongly support
the idea of “the board has one employ-
ee — the superintendent.” That is,
everyone else in the system works
for the superintendent. A wise board
will not want to interject itself into
the relations between the superin-
tendent and his or her staff — in this
instance, the principal and basket-
ball coach.
At the same time, how does the
superintendent know if he or she has
the right employee for this important
part of the school’s athletic program?
Angie Peifer is
IASB associate
executive direc-
tor for board
development
and Targeting
Achievement
through Gover-
nance. John J.
Cassel served as
an IASB field
services director
for 18 years
before retiring in
August 2011.
IASB helps to answergovernance questions
by Angie Peifer and John J. Cassel
This board should
first check its policy,
which should reflect
the board’s thinking
about meeting atten-
dance as well as any
current state statutes
defining a legally
convened meeting.
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 37
It depends on what benefits the school
expects to receive from its invest-
ment in basketball. This is the key
board question: What does our com-
munity want from our sports pro-
gram?
The board serves the superin-
tendent — as well as the staff, stu-
dents and community — by providing
an answer to this foundational ques-
tion. The answer is likely some mix
of school reputation, team building
and cooperative learning, charac-
ter development, co-curricular oppor-
tunities and nurturing excellence.
How the board weighs these and oth-
er values can be expected to shape
the work of the coach. Is he the right
person? That’s a superintendent ques-
tion. Is the program working? That’s
a board question, which can only be
answered with helpful policy in place.
The question: A school board in
a small town had a contentious elec-
tion that resulted in a new slate of
board members serving alongside
longtime members. Board relations
started out strained and went down-
hill from there. The board president
decided a board retreat could help
rebuild frayed relationships. The oth-
er board members had one stipula-
tion: They wanted to meet in private,
where they could feel safe to discuss
their conflicts. Retreats in private
clearly violate Sunshine Laws. What
should the board do?
Angie’s answer: The board has
no choice but to work within the
boundaries of their state’s Sunshine
Laws. Although a private retreat might
help repair member relationships, it
would seriously damage the board’s
relationship with the press and its
community. As a possible compro-
mise, the board president might con-
sider contacting the local media outlets
to explain the purpose of the retreat,
providing any relevant information
about the retreat (who will be facil-
itating, etc.), and asking if they would
cooperate by not covering this par-
ticular session. The board might pro-
vide the media with copies of any
board agreements that came out of
this session.
The question: A school board in
a Midwestern town had a great rela-
tionship with its state legislators, one
of whom had previously served on
the board before being elected to state
office. Board members prided them-
selves on being good advocates for
their district and public education
by regularly meeting with state reps
to discuss district and statewide issues.
One new board member, however,
didn’t value the connections to the
state legislature. She believed that
school board members should be
focused only on their districts, and
not get mixed up with politics. Her
insistence was causing friction on the
board, and community members
began to question it, too. What should
the board do?
John’s answer: I like to think
about school board members as com-
munity (not just district) leaders. So,
a board that does not attempt to engage
the wider issues — especially the
state legislature, since they have the
key responsibility for education —
may be defaulting on an important
board function. Of course this is tough
and exasperating stuff — it would be
easier to just focus on local district
issues. Perhaps this particular board
might agree that some of its mem-
bers will be focused internally while
others invest energy externally. In
practice, the two may not be easily
separated. Bottom line: Public schools,
by definition, are “mixed up in pol-
itics” and those who provide board
leadership need to engage the larger
community as this context is part of
the very meaning of public educa-
tion.
The question: A district super-
intendent and administration were
putting an anti-bullying program/cur-
riculum in place for the schools, with
a different program for each age lev-
el: elementary, middle and high school.
The superintendent brought to the
board a proposal that it get involved
in the initiative by leading by exam-
ple. He asked that the board revamp
and reemphasize its civility code and
ethics code, and mention specifical-
ly that bullying behavior among adults
would not be tolerated. Some board
members thought it was a great idea.
A few members, however, were offend-
ed. They thought that being part of
the initiative would suggest that they
were having difficulties getting along.
What should the board do?
John’s answer: The example of
the board always sets the pace for the
district. The board’s influence by
example is often subtle, operating at
the level of culture and expectations.
So, it seems to me the superinten-
dent is appropriately concerned about
alignment — is the whole district,
including the board, on the same
page? Do we have a clear focus and
a commitment toward our common
goals? Boards are wise to make explic-
it the connection between their val-
ues and hopes for the district and the
various programs and activities of the
district, In this instance, the board
should actively and explicitly explore
the connection between its anti-bul-
lying program and its stated values
and goals. Then it should discuss how
its own behavior and modeling sup-
port those same values and goals.
38 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
A Directory of your
IASB ServiceAssociates
IASB Service Associates are businesses whichoffer school-related products and services andwhich have earned favorable repu tations for qual-ity and integrity. Only after screening by theService Associates Executive Committee is abusiness firm invited by the IASB Board ofDirectors to become a Service Associate.
Appraisal ServicesINDUSTRIAL APPRAISAL COMPANY — Insurance
appraisals, property control reports. OakwoodTerrace - 630/827-0280
Architects/EngineersALLIED DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. —
Architectural programming, site planning & design,architectural and interior design, and constructionadministration. Springfield - 217/522-3355
ARCON ASSOCIATES, INC. — Architectural, con-struction management and roof consulting. Lombard- 630/495-1900; website: http://www.arconassoc.com; e-mail: [email protected]
BAYSINGER DESIGN GROUP, INC. — Architecturaldesign services. Marion - 618/998-8015
BERG ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. —Consulting engineers. Schaumburg - 847/352-4500;website: http://www.berg-eng.com
BLDD ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architectural and engineering services for schools. Decatur - 217/429-5105; Champaign - 217/356-9606; Bloomington -309/828-5025; Chicago - 312/829-1987; website:http://www.bldd.com; e-mail: [email protected]
BRADLEY & BRADLEY — Architects, engineers andasbestos consultants. Rockford - 815/968-9631; web-site: http://www.bradleyandbradley.net/
CANNON DESIGN — Architects. Chicago - 312/960-8034; website: www.cannondesign.com; e-mail:[email protected]
CM ENGINEERING, INC. — Specializing in ultra effi-cient geo-exchange HVAC engineering solutions forschools, universities and commercial facilities.Columbia, MO - 573/874-9455; website: www.cmeng.com
CORDOGAN CLARK & ASSOCIATES — Architectsand engineers; Aurora - 630/896-4678; website:www.cordoganclark.com; e-mail: [email protected]
DAHLQUIST AND LUTZOW ARCHITECTS, LTD. —Architects and engineers. Elgin - 847/742-4063;Hinsdale - 630/230-0420; website: http://www.dla-ltd.com; e-mail: [email protected]
DESIGN ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architecture, engi-neering, planning and interior design. Hillsboro -217/532-5600; East St. Louis - 618/398-0890; Marion- 618/998-0075; Springfield - 217/787-1199; e-mail:[email protected]
DLR GROUP, INC. — Educational facility design andmaster planning. Chicago - 312/382-9980; website:www.dlrgroup.com; e-mail: [email protected]
ERIKSSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LTD. —Consulting civil engineers and planners. Grayslake -847/223-4804
FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES, INC. — Schoolplanning and design, with a focus on K-12 schools.Park Ridge - 847/292-1039
FGM ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. — Architects.Oak Brook - 630/574-8300; Peoria - 309/669-0012;Mt. Vernon - 618/242-5620; O’Fallon - 618/624-3364;website: http://www.fgm-inc.com
GRAHAM & HYDE ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architec -tural services. Springfield - 217/787-9380
GREENASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture/construc-tion services. Deerfield - 847/317-0852, Pewaukee,WI - 262/746-1254; website: www.greenassociates.com; e-mail: [email protected]
GRP MECHANICAL, INC. - Mechanical service andperformance contracting. Bethalto - 618/779-0050
HEALY, BENDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Archi -tects/Planners. Naperville, 630/904-4300; website:www.healybender.com; e-mail: [email protected]
HUFF ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. — Architects,engineers, construction managers and school con-sultants. Springfield - 217/698-8250; Champaign -217/352-5887
IMAGE ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architects. Carbondale- 618/457-2128
JH2B ARCHITECTS — Architects. Kankakee - 815/933-5529
KENYON & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS —Complete architectural services for education. Peoria- 309/674-7121
KJWW ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS — Facilityassessments, infrastructure master planning,acoustical engineering, architectural lighting, con-struction administration, systems commissioning.Naperville - 630/753-8500
LEGAT ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architects. Chicago -312/258-1555; Oak Brook - 630/990-3535; Wauke -gan - 847/263-3535; Crystal Lake - 815/477-4545
LZT ASSOCIATES, INC./LARSON & DARBY GROUPArchitecture, planning, engineering. Peoria - 309/673-3100; Rockford - 815/484/0739; St. Charles, MO -630/444-2112; webite: www.larsondarby.com; e-mail:[email protected]
MECHANICAL SERVICES ASSOCIATES CORP. —HVAC, plumbing and electrical design. Crystal Lake -815/788-8901
MELOTTE-MORSE-LEONATTI, LTD — Architectural,industrial, hygiene and environmental service.Springfield - 217/789-9515
PCM+D — Provide a full range of architectural ser-vices including facility and feasibility studies, architec-tural design construction, consulting and related ser-vices. East Peoria - 309/694-5012
PERKINS+WILL — Architects; Chicago - 312/755-0770; website: www.perkinswill.com; e-mail: [email protected]
PSA-DEWBERRY — Architects, planners, landscapearchitecture and engineers. Peoria - 309/282-8000;Chicago - 312/660-8800; Elgin - 847/695-5480; web-site: www.dewberry.com
RICHARD L. JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. —Architecture, educational planning. Rockford -815/398-1231
RUCKPATE ARCHITECTURE — Architects, engi-neers, interior design. Barrington - 847/381-2946;website: http://www.ruckpate.com; e-mail: [email protected]
SARTI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. —Architecture, engineering, life safety consulting, inte-rior design and asbestos consultants. Springfield -217/585-9111; e-mail: [email protected]
WIGHT & COMPANY — An integrated services firmwith solutions for the built environment. Darien -630/696-7000; website: http://www.wightco.com; e-mail: [email protected]
WM. B. ITTNER, INC. — Full service architectural firmserving the educational community since 1899;.Fairview Heights - 618/624-2080; website: http://www.ittnerarchitects.com; e-mail: [email protected]
WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture andconstruction management. Metamora - 309/367-2924
Building ConstructionBOVIS LEND LEASE — Construction Man -
agement/Program Management. Contact JohnDoherty. Chicago - 312/245-1393; website: www.bovislendlease.com; e-mail: [email protected]
CORE CONSTRUCTION — Professional constructionmanagement, design-build and general contractingservices. Morton - 309/266-9768; website: www.COREconstruct.com
FREDERICK QUINN CORPORATION — Constructionmanagement and general contracting. Addison -630/628-8500; webite: www.fquinncorp.com
HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. — Fullservice Construction Management and GeneralContracting firm specializing in education facilities.Swansea - 618/277-8870
MANGIERI COMPANIES, INC. — Construction man-agement and general contractor capabilities. Peoria -309/688-6845
POETTKER CONSTRUCTION — Construction man-agement, design/build and general contracting ser-vices. Hillsboro - 217/532-2507
PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,INC. — Construction management. Mundelein - 847/382-3680
S.M. WILSON & CO. — Provides construction man-agement and general construction services to educa-tion, healthcare, commercial, retail and industrialclients. St. Louis, MO - 314/645-9595
THE GEORGE SOLLITT CONSTRUCTION COM - PANY — Full-service construction managementgeneral contractor with a primary focus on educa-tional facilities. Wood Dale - 630/860-7333; website:www.sollitt.com; e-mail: [email protected]
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY —Referendum assistance, conceptual and masterplanning, budget assistance or verification, partici-pant in panels, construction management and con-sulting. Chicago - 312/327-2860; website: http://www.turnerconstruction.com; e-mail: [email protected]
Practical PR continued from page 35
Computer SoftwareSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. — Administrative
Software. Tremont - 888/776-3897; website: http://www.sti-k12.com; e-mail: [email protected]
Environmental ServicesALPHA CONTROLS & SERVICES, LLC — Facility
Management Systems, Automatic Temperature Con- -trols, Access Control Systems, Energy Saving Solu -tions; Sales, Engineering, Installation, Commis -sioning and Service. Rockford - 815-227-4000; Peoria- 309-688-7411; Springfield - 217-529-3111; Toll-Free- 866-ALPHA-01
CTS-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY & SOLUTIONS —Performance contracting, facility improvements and energy conservation projects. St. Louis, MO -636/ 230-0843; Chicago - 773/633-0691; website:www.thectsgroup.com; e-mail: [email protected]
ENERGY SYSTEMS GROUP — A comprehensiveenergy services and performance contracting com-pany providing energy, facility and financial solutions.Itasca - 630/773-7203
HONEYWELL, INC. — Controls, maintenance, energymanagement, performance contracting and security.St. Louis, Mo – 314/548-4136,Arlington Heights -847/797-4954; e-mail: [email protected]
IDEAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, INC. —Asbestos and environmental services. Bloomington -309/828-4259
MECHANICAL INCORPORATED — New construc-tion, renovation, comprehensive and basic preventa-tive maintenance service contracts. Freeport - 815/235-1955; Hillside - 708/449-8080; Rockford - 815/398-1973; Fox Lake - 847/973-1123; website: www.mechinc.com; e-mail: [email protected]
OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHSOLUTIONS, INC. (OEHS) — Industrial hygiene,microbiological evaluations and ergonomics.Chatham - 217/483-9296
RADON DETECTION SPECIALISTS — Commercialradon surveys. Burr Ridge - 800/244-4242; website:www.radondetection.net; e-mail: [email protected]
RCM LABORATORIES, INC. — Environmental, healthand safety services. Countryside - 708/485-8600
SECURITY ALARM SYSTEMS — Burglar and firealarms, video camera systems, door access systems,door locking systems, and alarm monitoring. Salem -618/548-5768
Financial ServicesBERNARDI SECURITIES, INC. — Public finance con-
sulting, bond issue services and referendum support.Fairview Heights - 618/206-4180; Chicago - 800/367-8757
BMO CAPITAL MARKETS/GKST, Inc. — Full servicebroker/dealer specializing in debt securities, includingmunicipal bonds, U.S. Treasury debt, agencies, andmortgage-backed securities. Chicago - 312/441-2601; website: www.bmo.com/industry/uspublicfi-nance/default.aspx; e-mail: [email protected]
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES — School bond issues; ref-erendum help; financial and enrollment studies. Lisle- 630/271-3330; website: http://www.ehlers-inc.com;e-mail: [email protected]
FIRST MIDSTATE, INC. — Bond issue consultants.Bloomington - 309/829-3311; e-mail: [email protected]
GORENZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. — Auditing andfinancial consulting. Peoria - 309/685-7621; website:http://www.gorenzcpa.com; e-mail: [email protected]
HUTCHINSON, SHOCKEY, ERLEY & COMPANY —Debt issuance, referendum planning, financial assis-tance. Chicago - 312/443-1566; website: www.hse-muni.com; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Full ser-vice Investment Banking firm. Chicago - 312/612-7814
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC. — Financial consult-ing; debt issuance specialist; bond underwriting; ref-erendum assistance. St. Charles - 630-584-4994;website: www.rwbaird.com; e-mail: [email protected]
SPEER FINANCIAL, INC. — Financial planning andbond issue services. Chicago - 312/346-3700; website: http://www.speerfinancial.com; e-mail:[email protected]
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC. — Full ser-vice securities firm providing investment banking andadvisory services including strategic financial plan-ning; bond underwriting; and referendum and legisla-tive assistance - Edwardsville - 800/230-5151; e-mail:[email protected]
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY — Bond issuance,financial advisory services. Chicago - 312/364-8955; e-mail: [email protected]
Human Resource ConsultingBUSHUE HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. — Human
resource, safety and risk management, insurance consulting. Effingham - 217/342-3042; website: http://www.bushuehr.com; e-mail: [email protected]
InsuranceHINZ CLAIM MANAGEMENT, INC. — Third party
administrator for workers comp and insurance claims.Chicago - 800/654-9504
Superintendent SearchesHAZARD, YOUNG, ATTEA & ASSOCIATES, LTD —
Superintendent searches, board and superintendentworkshops. Glenview - 847/724-8465
media, community outreach, cri-
sis communications, publication
design, strategic planning, staff and
labor issues, referenda, business
partnerships and other “hot topics”;
• Networking with top school PR pro-
fessionals, including the opportu-
nity for professionals relatively
new to school PR to be mentored
by a more veteran professional;
• Proactive insight into emerging
education issues and trends;
• Expert feedback and special recog-
nition for education publications
and programs through the annual
Communications Contest and Gold-
en Achievement Awards;
• Opportunities to provide state-lev-
el special recognition of staff, board
and community members who go
the extra mile for your district,
through the annual Distinguished
Service Awards;
• Linkage with NSPRA and insight
into national trends and issues.
School board members can also
follow INSPRA on Facebook, Twitter
and LinkedIn to learn about trends
in school communication and gath-
er the latest INSPRA news. Get con-
nected at www.inspra.org.
Both NSPRA and INSPRA can
help a school board member under-
stand the important role of com-
munication and then support the per-
sonnel charged with this manage-
ment function. Most districts have
trained personnel to manage the teach-
ing and learning, human resources
and business functions. It only makes
sense to have someone specialized
in managing the strategic communi-
cation function of the organization.
It could be said that the ultimate
equation for a school district is:
Teaching + Learning + Highly
Qualified Personnel + Financial
Resources = Student Success with a
common denominator of an informed
and supportive community through
strategic communication.
MAY-JUNE 2012 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 39
Constance R.
Collins, superintendent
of Round Lake CUSD
116, and Sheila Harri-
son-Williams, superin-
tendent of Hazel Crest
SD 152.5, were hon-
ored with the 2012 Dr.
Effie H. Jones Human-
itarian Award during
the American Associa-
tion of School Admin-
istrators (AASA)
National Conference
on Education in Hous-
ton. Harrison-Williams and Collins won
the award for jointly creating programs
to support aspiring superintendents.
They developed and for eight years have
voluntarily convened an annual one-
day workshop to address the barriers
women and minorities face in seeking
the superintendency, identifying strate-
gies to overcome the barriers. In 2011,
Harrison-Williams and Collins also
received corporate funding and coor-
dinated a three-day Aspiring Superin-
tendents Summer Institute designed
to provide in-depth leadership prepa-
ration for women and minorities.
Mary Ann Manos
is among 22 finalists
nationwide for the
AASA’s Outstanding
Women in School Lead-
ership Award for 2012.
The award pays tribute to the talent,
creativity and vision of outstanding
female administrators in the nation’s
public schools. Candidates are judged
on: leadership for learning; communi-
cation; professionalism; and commu-
nity involvement. Manos was recog-
nized for her exceptional leadership of
Hartsburg-Emden CUSD 21.
In memoriamPaul E. Bertsche,
83, Flanagan, died Feb-
ruary 7, 2012. He served
on the former Flanagan
CUSD 4 board of edu-
cation for more than 14
years. He also served on the McLean,
Livingston and DeWitt Regional School
Board. He was a lifelong farmer in the
Flanagan area and a director of the State
Bank of Graymont from 1971 to 2008.
Kenneth Brown,
89, Aledo, died Febru-
ary 3, 2012. He had
served on the school
board for the former
Aledo CUSD 201. Brown
farmed his entire life in the Sunbeam
area in Mercer County. He also served
on the Mer-Roc Farm Service board,
was an Ohio Grove Township supervi-
sor and an active member of the Aledo
Rotary Club.
Kenneth J. Duna-
hee, 81, Lexington, died
February 25, 2012. He
was a past member of
the Lexington CUSD 7
school board. A lifelong
farmer in the Colfax, Lexington and
Chenoa areas, Dunahee was a gradu-
ate of Chenoa High School, later serv-
ing in the U.S. Army in Germany in the
1950s. He was a member of the Lex-
ington American Legion.
Donald Eaton, 73, Bethalto, died
March 10, 2012. He had served on
the Bethalto CUSD 8 school board for
10 years. He graduated from Bethalto’s
Civic Memorial High School, where he
still holds several CM sports records.
He retired in March 2000 from the Olin
Corporation, where he had worked as
a stock supervisor for 31 years.
Gale M. Gallagher,
54, Homewood, died
March 7, 2012. She was
a long-standing school
board member for
Homewood SD 153 and
a board member on the Homewood-
Flossmoor High School Foundation. A
homemaker and mother of four, she was
an active volunteer and an advocate for
public schools in general, and early
childhood education in particular.
Eddis E. Hassel-
man, 99, Pekin, died
March 14, 2012. She
was a member of the
Pekin SD 108 school
board for nine years.
She was a 60-year member of Tazewell
County Homemakers Extension Asso-
ciation and served on its county board.
Hasselman also served as an election
judge in Pekin for many years, and was
a former leader of 4-H clubs, Girl Scouts
and Cub Scouts.
Walter L. Helm, 67, Springfield,
died February 6, 2012. He served on
the Cerro Gordo CUSD 100 board from
1979 to 1991. He was a teacher and
Milestones
40 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MAY-JUNE 2012
Milestones
continued on page 18
Collins
Harrison-Williams
Question: Why is it important
for me as a school board mem-
ber to pay attention to legislation and
contact my legislator?
Answer: In the current two-year
legislative cycle, more than 10,000
bills were introduced in the Illinois
legislature. Typically, anywhere from
one quarter to a third of all legisla-
tion will either directly or indirectly
affect a local school district. Of course,
not all of these bills pass and become
law, but in the first year of the cur-
rent General Assembly, 680 bills have
been enacted into law. Again, a sig-
nificant percentage of these new laws
will require changes to how a local
school district operates.
Some changes will be relatively
minor, requiring a school board to
adopt a policy on student athlete con-
cussions or to post personnel salary
information on the district’s website.
Other requirements may be more
substantial, such as overhauling the
system for dismissing and RIFing
teachers or requiring school board
members to receive four hours of
training in education labor law and
financial oversight.
For better or for worse, the state
legislature has become much more
involved in the day-to-day activities
of the local school district, and school
board members should become more
aware of the process.
Advocacy by IASB can make a
difference at the Capitol. With 10,000
bills being considered in the legis-
lature, lawmakers cannot and do not
know the effects of all of the pro-
posals. Simply sharing with legisla-
tors what the result would be for
your school district if a bill would
be enacted can change the vote of a
senator or representative. It’s not
arm-twisting, it is merely providing
honest information on the reper-
cussions of a legislative proposal. No
one is more qualified to reach out
to that local legislator than a school
board member who: 1) knows inti-
mately how a proposal would affect
the school district, and 2) has been
elected by the same voters as has
the legislator.
IASB has legislative specialists
who are in the Capitol on every ses-
sion day. These professionals have
analyzed the legislation, have tak-
en a position on the bills as directed
by Association members through the
resolutions and delegate assembly
process, and have relayed those posi-
tions to the lawmakers — again by
providing honest information and
data on the issue. The IASB legisla-
tive team is respected and trusted in
the Capitol, and legislators know that
they are receiving reliable informa-
tion. But when legislators receive
information from their local area,
from their school districts, from their
peers and constituents, that message
is reinforced exponentially!
Last year when the governor pro-
posed the forced consolidation of
school districts based on arbitrary
enrollment and population numbers,
IASB came out in strong opposition.
But it was not IASB staff lobbyists
who killed the proposal. It was the
hundreds of phone calls legislators
received from volunteer, elected school
board members.
Involvement by school board
members in the legislative process
can, and does, make a difference.
IASB legislative staff, with the help
of grassroots support from locally
elected school board members, derail
or amend dozens of bills each year
that could have had a detrimental
effect on local school districts.
All of the information necessary
to keep abreast of the current goings-
on at the Capitol can be found in the
Alliance Legislative Report. The Illi-
nois Statewide School Management
Alliance is the organized legislative
efforts of the Illinois Association of
School Boards (IASB), the Illinois
Association of School Administrators
(IASA), the Illinois Principals’ Asso-
Ben Schwarm,
IASB associate
executive direc-
tor for govern-
mental relations,
answers the
question for this
issue.
Board member advocacycan make a big difference
by Ben Schwarm
A S K T H E S T A F F
continued on page 10
2921 Baker DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62703-5929
Address Service Requested
NON-PROFITPRST STANDARD
US POSTAGE PAIDILLINOIS
ASSOCIATION OFSCHOOL BOARDS
www.iasb.com
“Arithmetic is where the answer
is right and everything is nice and
you can look out of the window and
see the blue sky — or the answer is
wrong and you have to start over and
try again and see how it comes out
this time.”Carl Sandburg, American writer and editor, 1878-1967
“A teacher’s day is half bureau-
cracy, half crisis, half monotony and
one-eighth epiphany. Never mind the
arithmetic.”Susan Ohanian, teacher and freelance writer
“A leader has to be one of two
things: he either has to be a brilliant
visionary himself, a truly creative
strategist, in which case he can do
what he likes and get away with it;
or else he has to be a true empow-
erer who can bring out the best in
others.”Henry Mintzberg, Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
“Better public support for pub-
lic schools is possible, but it requires
courageous leadership and a strate-
gic approach that views communi-
cations as a never-ending campaign.”Nora Carr, “Positive Impressions,” Ameri-can School Board Journal, January 2012
“When all men think alike, no
one thinks very much.”Walter Lippmann, American writer,reporter and political commentator, 1889-1974
“We contribute best to the process
of governing when we avoid assum-
ing the mantle of the expert, refrain
from disregarding expert advice
because it is expert advice, and stop
trying to manage the public organi-
zation and functions we have been
asked to govern or advise.”Phil Boyle and Del Burns, Preserving the Public in Public Schools, 2012
“The old standby, ‘you have to
know how to do this or you won’t
be able to get on in life’ is no longer
convincing, because students see
technology as a way of getting on in
life without the mental operations it
replaces.”William G. McCallum, “Thinking out of the Box,” April 30, 2001
“My meteoric rise was due to hard work, dedication and yeast.”