The Horace Mann League Newsletter
April 2000

Highlights of the Annual Meeting

Ken Bird, President of the Horace Mann League

Ken Bird, Superintendent of the Westside Community Schools in Omaha, NE, assumes leadership of the League. Dr. Bird has been instrumental in facilitating the strategic plans and priorities of the Horace Mann League during the past five years.

Barry Lynn and Jane Hammond

Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, DC, was selected to receive the "Outstanding Friend of Public Education Award" present each year by the Horace Mann League, for his efforts to maintain the separation of church and state. Dr. Lynn, is a national leader in supporting public education and the ideals of Horace Mann.

Jane Hammond, Superintendent of the Jefferson County Public Schools, CO, was selected to receive the "Outstanding Leader in Public Education Award" for her leadership of a school district and community that is dealing with Columbine tragedy. Dr. Hammond, Past President of the Horace Mann League.

Members Elect New Officers and Directors

In addition to the election of Ken Bird as President, Ben Canada, Superintendent of the Portland (OR) Public Schools, was elected Presdent-elect. Art Stellar, Superintendent of the Kingston City (NY) Schools was elected Vice President.

Ben Canada and Art Stellar

Fred Hartmeister, Professor of Education Law, Texas A&M, Lubbock, TX

Steve Rasmussen, Superintendent, Franklin Pierce School District, Tacoma, WA

Walter Warfiled, Executive Director,Illinois Administrators of School Association, Springfield, IL

Colleen Wilcox, Superintendent, Santa Clara Education Service District, San Jose, CA

Directors Recognized for Service on the Board

Judy Fergusion, Education Consultant, Belle Meade, NJ

Pat Hoban, Executive Director, WA Retired Teachers Association

Joan Kowal, Superintendent, Palm Beach Co. Schools, FL

Virginia Crzymkowski, Superintendent, Storrs, CT

Members Recognized for Service to the League

Mark Edwards, Superintendent, Henrico Co. Public Schools, VA

Judy Ferguson, Education Consultant, Belle Meade, NJ

Jane Hammond, Superintendent, Jefferson Co. Schools, CO

Joan Kowal, Superintendent, Palm Beach, FL

Michael Richardson, Prof. of Ed.Ad., Statesboro, GA

Charles Scott, Superintendent, Wayne, PA

Art Stellar, Superintendent, Kingston, NY

Walter Warfield, Exec. Director, IASA, Springfield, IL

Dennis Woods, Superintendent, Bay Village, OH

Ten Top Factors Impacting School Reform

The five annual survey of the major factors impacting school reform in communities of Horace Mann League members was conducted in November 1999. The first survey, conducted in 1996, indicated that "negative myths" and the decline of family responsibilities" were seen as the major detractors to school reform efforts. In 1997, the same two factors were repeated, but in reverse order. In 1998, "negative myths" was again was seen as the destructive to school reform. However, the second factor was the "the lack of time for educators to plan and collaborate on improving public schools in their community.

In 1999, the top factor impacting on public school reform is "perpetuated negative myths about pubic schools". The second factor is "dependency on the local property tax to finance school". Following is a review of the top ten factors impacting school reform from 1996 to 1999.

1. Negative Myths about public education.

One who supports the need for a strong public supported schools can only be amazed at the continual alledged faults of our public schools. Even when critics are presented with test scores and examples caring schools and teachers, there seems to be little acknowledgment or, at least, understanding. Not more than a few years ago, public education was the cause of low worker skills and productivity. Now with productivity at record levels, the critics will say that it wasn’t low skills, but rather the public schools were the cause of low character and values. Yet, where in our society are the values of caring for others, respect for another’s opinion, and appreciation for diversity modeled everyday in classrooms all across the nation.

Now, the criticism is that students aren’t prepared do deal with globalization and instant access to information through technology. Yet, who is explaining to the adults about how to utilization the Internet and exchange information. (This reminds me of the commerical when the young employee is explaining to the corporate leader how to by stocks on the Internet.)

Maybe it comes with the territory of being a tax supported institution vulnerable to simplistic solutions endorsed by aspiring politicians. Or is it a planned conspiracy to erode confidence in public schools inorder to increase interest in privatization and that is characterized with competition, commericalization, and market demand. Or is it a geniune effort to shake up the public school establishment and force some changes and stronger corporate like accountability measures? Or it is our inability to explain clearly and effectively how well we are in preparing young adults for a very complex and rapidly changing society?

2. Dependence on local property tax.

There are two sides to the delimma created by a local tax support arrangement for public education. Should public education be a total state responsiblity and make all public schools the same-which is an impossibility with children of different needs? Or should the local taxpayers have the right to decide the level of support and quality of schooling in his or her community-which creates a wider disparity between the "haves" and "have nots". With statewide standards being the yardstick of good schools, then a solid, statewide funding arrangement for "basic" educational needs is essential. The support system is weak when the dependence on local resources is responsible for funding the "basic" education programs and services. The challenge for us is to clearly define and justify what "basic" education should be in the public school. Maybe more important is for the local community to realize that public education is the "highest" priority and responsibility-not sports stadiums.

3. Adequately planning time to implement change.

We know what research supports and the best practices for educating children. We know that cooperation and collaboration are critical to a successful district or school-wide reading or math adoption. We also know that before any significant change and be successful, there has to be an investment in retraining, in a phasing out of the former instructional practices and phasing in of the newer methods and materials. Often, it is the process of change that is more important that the actual product. A prime example is the investment in technology hardware. Usually, it is the cost of the computer and software that is the least expensive and easy to acquire. The critical step in utilizing technology to enhance learning is in the allocation of resources, such as time, to allow educators to plan and gain a sense of why and how the new technology will help students achieve.

4. Decline of family responsibilities.

We all know times are changing and this is particularly true with today’s family. One particular shift has been from the parent asking to teacher for help in solving the problem of the child, to the parent asking how they can work together to help solve the problem about the child’s behavior, to the parent saying, "when the child is with teacher, it is the teacher’s problem, not mine. Another shift has been from the parent thinking the teacher is usually right about describing the child’s misbehavior, to the parent thinking that the teacher is wrong in making a judgment about the child’s misbehavior and disruption in the classroom.

We need to find ways of regaining the parent’s confidence that it is not just the teacher’s responsiblity to develop the child. Parents and students must accept the common values of honesty, respect for others, and tolerance of different opinions. The primary purpose schooling is to learn new skills and knowledge. Disrupting the primary purpose will not be tolerated.

5. Educators’ inability to see schooling differently.

We know that grouping students by maturation age is more research based that by chronological age. We know that active learning is preferred over passive lecturing. We know that keeping children with the same teacher for two or three years is benefical over the child having a different teacher each year. We know that the year-round school calendar is more educationally sound than the traditional three-month summer vacation. We know that the integrated courriculum at the high school is preferred to the traditional departmental ized daily schedule.

Yet, we continue to embrace the "old ways" of organizing the school day and year. Maybe we are reluctant to tackle the issues related to school improvement because we know the high cost involved (e.g., community unrest, school board conflict, teacher grievances, demands for evidence that the change will be better while no evidence is required to support the traditional structures).

6. Self-interest of educators to sustain the status-quo.

As a profession, we need to re-examine the concepts of lifelong job protection, the nine-month school calendar, the lock-step salary schedule, the hostility towards charters and other alternative forms of educating children. If we are going to deal constructively with such things as salary and the shortage of teachers, we need to look at merit for excellence in teaching, at a twleve-month employment calendar, and the role of alternative forms of public financed alternative of public schools. Actually, in most districts, there already is open-enrollment between elemenatary schools, if not the entire K-12 system. Some school districts have adapted to the annual schedule and provided an optional summer school. There are also school districts that reward excellence in teaching, although not necessarily with a higher salary.

7. Citizens’ resistence to change in their local schools.

The citizens’ resistance to change may be the one most serious challenge to school reform. There are countless stories about school board recalls and superintendents being fired for bringing about aspect of school reform. More and more, school reform is a political issue. What makes a good research based decision and backed up with solid evidence of improved student achievement may be preceived as the most illogical and ill conceived efforts to improve schooling. Maybe citizens’ resistance to change is caused by the inability of the citizens to agree on the primary purpose of public education in their community.

8. Inadequately prepared teachers for today’s students.

With the widespread criticism of teacher preparation programs, it is interesting that out of ten items, this was placed ninth. This relatively low placement does not take teaching preparation programs off the hook. Across the nation, dispite the perception of limited career opportunities, teacher education programs are recruiting the best and the brightest into rigorous preparation programs. Our challenge is to keep the best and brightest in the teaching profession. This is going to take stronger partnerships between K-12 and higher education to jointly address the problem of beginning teacher dropout.

9. Inability of citizens to agree on educational goals for their community.

Possibly, the greatest leadership skill of a superintendent is in facilitating the building of a community wide concensus of the goals of their public schools. The successful superintendent is one who has the ability to build coalitions strong enough to with stand single-minded special interest groups from fractionalizing the community into a paralysis of decision making. Maybe this factor should be number one. If there isn’t a community-wide concensus on the purpose and objectives of thier public schools, all sense of direction and accomplishment is doubtful.

The ranking of the ten factors was done in November 1999, by a survey of the 900 members (primarily school superintendents and professors of school leadership) of the Horace Mann League. The Horace Mann League is a national organization founded in 1922, dedicated to the principles of Horace Mann, the founder of the American public school system.

Officers

President, Dr. Ken Bird, Supt., Westside Community Schools, Omaha, NE

President-elect, Dr. Ben Canada, Supt., Portland Public Schools, Portland, OR

Vice President, Dr. Art Stellar, Supt., Kingston City Schools, Kingston, NY

Past President, Dr. Beverly Reep, Principal, Bay Village Public Schools, Bay Village, OH.

Directors

Dr. David Berliner, Dean, College of Ed., U. of Arizona, Tucson, AS

Dr. Larry Dlugosh, Chair, Ed. Ad. U. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE

Dr. Mark Edwards, Supt. Henrico County Schools, Richmond, VA

Dr. Fred Hartmeister, Prof. of Ed. Law, Texas A&M, Lubbock, TX

Dr. Paul Houston, Exec. Director, AASA, Arlington, VA

Dr. Spike Jorgensen, Education Consultant, Tok, AK

Dr. Douglas Otto, Supt., Plano Public Schools, Plano, TX

Dr. Steve Rasmussen, Supt., Franklin Pierce Sch. Dist., Tacoma, WA

Dr. John Simpson, Supt. Norfolk Public Schools, Norfolk, VA

Dr. Stuart Thompson, Supt., Hickory Public Schools, Hickory, NC

Dr. Walter Warfield, Exec. Director, IASA, Springfield, IL

Dr. Colleen Wilcox, Supt. Santa Clara ESD, San Jose, CA

Executive Director, Dr. Jack McKay, Interim Dean, College of Education and Professional Studies, Central WashingtonUniv., Ellensburg, WA

Summer 2000 Board Meeting, Friday-Saturday, June 30- July 1, Westside Community Schools, Omaha, NE

2001 Winter Board Meeting, Friday, Feb. 16, 2001, Orlando, FL

2001 Annual Meeting, Saturday, February 17, 2001, Orlando, FL

2002 Winter Board Meeting, Friday, Feb. 15, 2002, San Diego

2002 Annual Meeting, Saturday, Feb. 16, 2002, San Diego

2002 Summer Board Meeting,