Got Passion?

This year's winners of the Leadership Award
*John Cavallaro, Custodian - Jefferson ES
*Christopher Pacio - Head Custodian SHS

Recently I had the honor of addressing the district custodial maintenance team at the Annual Custodial Maintenance Kick Off Meeting for the 2012-2013 School Year.  With summer approaching, this the official start of the school year for district lead projects and initiatives aimed at achieving our goal of  'Providing an Environment that is Conducive to Learning'.

This goal while simple in terms is only acheivable through a shared vision that encompases environments well beyond the classroom itself as we survey the district's need in the area of facilities and grounds.  The men and women of the Summit Public Schools custodial maintenance team clearly demonstrate the value add that they bring to the district year round.  This ROI is critical in measuring the outcomes that provide the district with buildings that remain in a high state of readiness to foster better learning environments for student achievement.

Results like these are not possible in an outsourced setting as the accomplishments go unmatched in a system that calls for basic cleaning functions from privitized firms that often fall short of the extra efforts needed to be truly successful.  The catalyst is PASSION!  These individuals have what it takes to go beyond the basics of janitorial duties and instead exhibit the spirit, knowledge and determination to act as custodians; care takers of the facilities.

At a time when budgetary dollars are stretched and all aspects of the operations are continuosly evaluated for cost benefit, the value add remains the primary reason continuation and continued success.  In summary, "We are in the Business of Education!"  And these men and women continue to play a vital role in the delivery of instruction.

Are Charter Schools Just a Drain of Public Ed?

As recently reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Charter Schools Drain $365 Million a year," in Pennsylvania alone.  The real question remains are charter schools succeeding in creating a better environment for learning in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of turning out better prepared students for the 21st Century?  

The Philadelphia Inquirer (6/21, Woodall) reports that Pennsylvania state Auditor General Jack Wagner found the state "could save $365 million each year if it fixed the state's flawed formula for funding cyber and charter schools." Wagner released a report saying the state has spent "substantially more" than the national average on these schools, which educate more than 100,000 students. To help fix the problem, several bills have been introduced in the Assembly, including one introduced by State Rep. Mike Fleck that would "tighten oversight, require outside annual audits, and change some factors in the funding formula." The proposal has been endorsed by the state School Boards Association and the state's largest teachers' union.

Other Estimates Are A Bit Lower. The Scranton (PA) Times Tribune (6/21, Swift) also reports Auditor General Wagner's findings, though they reported the possible savings as slightly lower, at $300 million. The report also mentioned that Pennsylvania's average of $13,400 to educate every student in a charter school is about $3000 more than the national average. "The Auditor General recommends capping fees paid to private companies, because Pennsylvania's method of funding charter schools through the per-student tuition rate has attracted a large number of management firms," the report said.

New Taxpayers' Guide to Education Spending

In a new release of data driven decisions predicated on advancing the Governor's accountability agenda with respect to public education spending, Commissioner Cerf announced the new Taxpayers' Guide to Education Spending. 

"According to the more complete Taxpayers’ Guide, average total spending per pupil for the 2009-2010 school year is reported as $17,836. Furthermore, total spending per pupil in the 31 former Abbott districts averages $20,859 compared to average total spending per pupil of $17,051 in the other 500-plus school districts in New Jersey."

While the roughly $3,800 differential between the avg. former Abbot district spending per student over the (RODs) Regular Operating Districts drives up the overall spending per pupil; it underscores the administration's position that throwing money at the problem, in this case student under performance, is not a solution and further impacts taxpayers. 

"Previous calculations of the total per-pupil cost in the former Comparative Spending Guide did not include costs such as transportation, debt service, federal funds, and state payments on behalf of the districts for pension, social security, and post-retirement medical costs. The previous guide also omitted the costs of tuition and students sent out of district. The new Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending will include these numbers, as they are very real parts to the whole spending picture."

The total per-pupil cost is calculated by dividing districts’ total expenditures, and state payments on behalf of the district, by total students, excluding those attending charter schools.

It is good to see the 'whole picture' with respect to any organization's operation, especially the financials, thus underscores the need and value of the (CAFR) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or audit.  What does not compute in the compiling of data is the fact that the comparison of 'district to district' is often skewed by the actual make up of personnel and other negotiated factors that are non-discressionary, albeit negotiable.  Each district does not have the same distribution of new teachers at beginning salaries or experienced teachers at the top of the guide.  Likewise, number of years experience and years of service in the same district often provide a differential in salaries of supervisors, principals and central office administrators even if the ratio to number of students is the same.  The same holds true for health benefits, and other costs related to differences in collective barganing agreements such as co-pays, and plan type.  What is helpful is the ability to guage performance of comparable district's based on socio-economic critieria and enrollment size.  In this respect the comparisons work as a tool to compare and contrast and measure return on investment and focus on areas for improvement.      

The other problem is the lag time between improvements or regression in a district's position and the reporting.  While the comparison data is a good indicator in many respects to compare performance and cost distribution, we are three budget cycles forward in adjustments that are reflective of data compiled and reported from four cycles ago.  Case in point, district's have already submitted and loaded the 2012-13 budget; yet the department is releasing comparisons based on the 2009-10 school year.  Therefore, a district can not see the benefit of changes made on a comparitive scale until four to five years into the future with respect to state reporting.

Perhaps the most troubling comparison in the "New" comparative spending report is that of Debt Service or accrued liability related to principal and interest for facility improvements or constuction as a result of expansion and maintenance.  How can districts be compared with respect to debt when each district is unique and the challenges related to such operational needs are likewise unique.  The quality of instruction is directly linked to the environment in which that instruction is delivered.  Delapadated buildings yield conditions that are unsafe and non conducive to learning.  District's that take action to mitegate or relieve such conditions often embark on capital projects that require long term debt in order to finace the work.  While the amount of outstanding debt is certainly a consideration in terms of future obligations, it should not be leveraged into the calculation of per student costs for comparative purposes as it serves to only drive up costs that again are non-discressionary and fixed until final payoff of the bonds, typically 20-25 years.  This type of scrutiny could presure districts to steer clear of much needed improvements or scale back capacity in design of new buildings to meet increases in student population.

The 2011 Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending can be found online at:

http://www.state.nj.us/education/guide/2011/

Of citical interest is the topical article that appeared on the Business Insurance.com website related to RMS (Risk Management Solutions Inc.'s) revised hurricane model which will be effecting rates on property package insurance premiums as the concern moves inward or inland vs. traditional coastal communities.  In many cases the assessments can see an annual increase of rates ranging from 10 to 20% depending on the base rate for property.  Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee redefined the impact area in the North East primarily NJ, NY, CT and PA.

New RMS hurricane model changes outlook on rates

May 22, 2011 - 6:00am

BusinessInsurance.com

by Judy Greenwald

The latest version of Risk Management Solutions Inc.'s U.S. hurricane model is causing a stir in the insurance market, but it is still unclear how big an impact it will have on pricing.
Claire Souch, London-based vp of natural catastrophe and portfolio solutions for RMS, said the RMS Version 11 changes the grading of risk as hurricanes move inland.
While the risk of wind damage still diminishes, “it's now less steep than the previous (model), so the further you go inland, the greater the risk vs. the previous version,” she said.
“Companies are somewhat taking the middle ground” with respect to the RMS model, said Amit Kumar, vp of Macquarie Securities Group in New York. During their earnings calls, most companies “suggested RMS was one of the models they used,” but also said it “would not be the sole driver of examining their catastrophe exposure,” he said.  “I don't know if it has had any tangible impact yet,” said Mark Dwelle, an insurance analyst at RBC Capital Markets, a unit of RBC Dominion Securities Inc. in Richmond, Va. “I think everyone is still testing it out and feeling their way around,” he said of the updated hurricane model that was released in February. “I don't think anybody's using it as a rate-setting or a policy tool at this point.”  “You're still looking at a U.S. property market where they have done very well for the last five years,” which makes it hard for companies “to tell their customers they should pay more because of the model change” when “the actual, real risk hasn't changed at all,” said Cliff Gallant, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. in New York.

Marie Bilik, NJSBA Executive Director, to Retire

After five years of service as the Executive Director of the New Jersey School Boards Association, Marie S. Bilik will retire from the position, effective Dec. 31. The NJSBA Board of Directors accepted her retirement notice at its May 18 meeting.
Bilik joined the staff of NJSBA in 1993 as a county program coordinator. Over the years, she has worked as a field service representative, the membership advocacy coordinator, the director of field services and, since 2007, the executive director.
Before working at NJSBA, Bilik's service to public education started as a school board member in Green Township, Sussex County. She has also served as town council member and mayor of Green Township.