Opinions, authority, and who's in charge?

I wanted to share a little bit about a couple of aspects of "Boardsmanship" that are interesting, possibly eye-opening, and at the very least illustrate a little sliver of life as a member of the Board of Education.

For me, being a member of a Board is challenging in a lot of ways. One of them is in the balance of “me” vs. “board.” By design, and by law, no individual Board member has any authority or power or influence over any part of the school district. In state-mandated training by the New Jersey School Boards Association, and in books I’ve read, like The Five Habits of High-Impact School Boards, The Essential School Board Book and The Secrets of School Board Success (yes, I’m the kind of person who researched and read things like this…early on in my tenure), Board members are cautioned against the dangers of “micro managing.” For someone who, as a parent, had no problem emailing a principal or superintendent with my opinion of how something could be done better, it puts me in a strange, seemingly less-empowered place as a Board member.

Within the Board, obviously we all have our own approaches to our responsibilities and we all have opinions about various issues. But the actual authority of the Board only exists as that group of five people.

Early on, I got some advice from a previous long-time BOE member and a veteran of many corporate and philanthropic boards. He said, once the Board makes a decision, that’s it. Individual opinions must be put aside, and members must support the Board’s decision and advance the Board’s efforts accordingly. Infighting and public Tuesday-morning quarterbacking are dysfunctional. I believe that. I also know that we all still have plenty of ways to communicate our alternate views, if we have them, with each other.

But…back to the Board’s authority. What does it mean? It may be news to some residents that the Board of Education does not run the Ridgewood Public Schools. It’s true and it’s the law. I know I’ve written about this in the past, but it bears repeating. The BOE is not responsible for running the schools, but the BOE is responsible for ensuring that the schools are well run. (That’s the way they present it at the NJSBA.) How are we supposed to do this? By setting policy and goals that guide those who actually run the schools, namely the superintendent and district staff. All day-to-day decisions are the superintendent’s decisions to make. The superintendent, in turn, is the only staff person that the BOE supervises. We evaluate his performance in a formal way every year, with detailed feedback, action plans, goal-setting, etc.

At this time of year, when citizens pay more attention to what Board members think and how Board members perform, I think it’s important to keep these facts of boardsmanship and Board responsibilities in mind.

Governor Christie's inconsistent policy on salary caps lets charters use public funds to pay high salaries.

How is it fair that charter schools are exempt from Governor Christie's cap on superintendent salaries? If he truly wants to walk the walk and really believes that no one who runs a school district should make more than the governor, then how does he justify the exemption for charter schools? If he truly believes that what he calls high salaries are a misuse of public funds, how are charter schools -- also funded by public money -- allowed to pay their leaders more than the governor?

According to the story in today's Bergen Record:

The director of a Teaneck charter school with about 300 students was paid more than $200,000 last year. In Englewood, the head of an even smaller charter school, with 200 students, earned $152,000 in public money for working part time.

Governor Christie has moved to cap the salaries of superintendents at much larger traditional public school districts, but has proposed no such ceiling on tax-supported charters.

To some, the exemption shows how charters — publicly funded but independently operated — are given a pass when it comes to state regulations meant to ensure fiscal accountability.

"It's patently inequitable," said Bruce Baker, a Rutgers professor who has studied charter school financing.

Read the rest of the article here.

Only in New Jersey...

Buyer beware: Superintendent salary caps are a bad a idea.

Hey, I thought Republicans were supposed to be about less government intrusion into our lives! Why on earth does Governor Christie think he knows better than the residents of Ridgewood what goals we expect our superintendent of schools to achieve, and how we should compensate our superintendent for his achievement of those goals? I'm joining a growing number of New Jerseyans in saying, "Back off, big guy."

Superintendent Salary Caps 101. What are they?
Governor Christie has proposed establishing caps on the salaries paid to school superintendents. Seventy percent of superintendents in New Jersey are currently earning more than the proposed caps. In Bergen County 62 superintendents’ salaries exceed the proposed caps.

Christie's capped salaries would be set based on district enrollment. In addition, superintendents could receive non-pensionable merit pay -- as much as 15% of salary -- if he/she achieves goals. This would be a one year increase to the salary. In addition if the district has a high school, the superintendent would receive an additional stipend of $2,500.

The proposed salary caps are:
Student Enrollment..........Maximum Salary
0 – 250 students..........$125,000
251 – 750..........$135,000
751 – 1,500..........$145,000
1,501 – 3,000..........$155,000
3,001 – 6,500..........$165,000
6,501 – 10,000..........$175,000*

*The Commissioner, could also approve, on a case by case basis, a waiver of the maximum salary amount for districts with a total enrollment of 10,000 or more.

Superintendents could also earn $10,000 more for each additional district they supervise.

School boards would not be permitted to increase a superintendent's base pay (for example, with longevity increases) beyond these salary caps. Additionally, no superintendent contract that includes a compensation package above these salary caps could be extended; at its expiration, the new compensation package of the superintendent would need to conform to this new policy.

Click here to view the contract for Ridgewood superintendent Dan Fishbein, which is approx. $40,000 over the cap. Dr. Fishbein has declined his salary increase for the past two years.

Strangely, Governor Christie has stated that this proposal does not need legislative or NJ State Board of Education approval and that it can simply be added to regulations. It would become effective February 7. Wow...if it's that simple, why doesn't he just rewrite all the laws and do away with that pesky representative legislature...or state Board of Education. That would sure streamline things!

What's wrong?
As a taxpayer, I do understand the wish to deal with our state's high property taxes. Really, I do. But as a school board member who has been elected to provide leadership to our school system, I have real concerns about this plan. Here are a few:

1. Some of New Jersey’s most experienced superintendents will choose to resign or retire rather than continue to work at the same job with the same responsibilities for less money. This state is going to experience an exodus of qualified superintendents (and it's already hard enough for districts to fill superintendent positions). As the chairman of one nationwide search firm told the Star-Ledger, "The fact of the matter is the pool of really good superintendents is smaller than the 17,000 school districts across the country. If you want mediocrity, they are out there and will continue to be. But if you want people who will really make a difference, this [caps] will hurt."

2. Some of New Jersey’s superintendents will choose to leave New Jersey, and commute relatively easily to jobs in New York, Connecticut or Pennsylvania. This drain on leadership will have negative consequences for our schools.

3. In some districts, high school principals and district administrators will have higher salaries than superintendents.

4. Why is he only focusing on public school superintendents? What about charter school superintendents? What about private special ed school directors? They both are paid with taxpayer dollars?

5. Over the past few years, superintendents have found their jobs further and further complicated, thanks to dwindling resources, reduced state aid, tax and spending limits, and more. In some, smaller districts, superintendents serve multiple roles, such as principal or special education director. Christie's proposed salaries do not seem to reflect the realities of the job.

6. Minnesota tried capping superintendent salaries to a level that could not exceed that of the governor. After 10 years, leadership had deteriorated so much, the state legislature abolished the law.

6. If you look at the actual list of things for which a Board of Education is statutorily responsible, it's not that long. One of the most important items on the list is hiring, setting goals for, evaluating the performance of, and negotiating compensation for a superintendent. This responsibility should remain in our community, undertaken by members of the community who are elected to do so.

Share your thoughts.
Several people have asked me how they can comment on the proposal to cap superintendent salaries. If you're interested, you can comment in person or in writing:

In-Person Testimony:
Monday, November 29, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
North Warren Regional High School auditorium, 10 Noe Road, Blairstown, NJ 07825

Thursday, December 2, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Cumberland County College Conference and Events Center
3322 College Drive, Vineland, NJ 08362

Tuesday, December 7, 2010
6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Burlington County Institute of Technology
Westampton Campus auditorium
695 Woodlane Road, Westampton, NJ 08060

Written comments by December 31, 2010 to:
Eric Taylor, Director
Office of Statute and Code Review
New Jersey Department of Education
River View Executive Plaza
Building 100, P.O. Box 500
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500

New Jersey School Boards Association questions need for administrator salary caps.

From the most recent issue of School Board Notes:

Proposed salary caps for New Jersey superintendents and other central office school administrators are unnecessary and could prevent school boards from securing the best possible leaders for their education programs, according to NJSBA’s review of the proposal. The review took into account recent statute and regulations that have dramatically increased state oversight of local school district finances.

NJSBA President Ray Wiss will formally present the Association’s position to the state Department of Education on Nov. 18 during the first of four regional hearings on the proposal.

Unnecessary NJSBA supports certain aspects of the plan, including the concept of merit-based bonuses tied to educational goals and incentives for small school districts to share administrative services voluntarily. However, recent additions to state law and administrative code, such as the 2-percent property tax levy cap and the Accountability Regulations, render the proposed salary caps unnecessary.

“In practical terms, the new 2-percent tax levy cap, which is part of the governor’s toolkit to control government spending, coupled with reductions in state revenue make it financially imprudent for a school board to grant excessive compensation packages to administrators,” said Marie S. Bilik, NJSBA executive director. “Clearly, a school board that did so would have much to explain to its taxpayers and voters.

“In addition, the 2008 Accountability Regulations require all new contracts for central office administrators to receive approval from the state’s executive county superintendents. Such approval is granted only upon compliance with state-developed criteria that limit compensation, including benefits and salary increases.”

That review process is far-reaching and brings into question the need for rigid salary caps, according to NJSBA. In fact, Governor Christie relied on it last week when he instructed the executive county superintendents not to approve any superintendent contract extensions that exceed the salary caps and which would begin before the Feb. 7 effective date of the regulations.

Disadvantage “We share the goal of controlling the growth of all school district salaries and would consider reasonable constraints,” Bilik explained. “However, the limits proposed by the state might put some New Jersey school districts—especially those in areas with a high cost of living and which border other states—at a disadvantage when hiring superintendents and other administrators.”

When the proposed salary caps were introduced in the summer, NJSBA stressed that the role of the board of education is not to advocate for administrators’ salaries, but to ensure quality school leadership.

Low Administrative Costs Spending on school administration has not been a problem in New Jersey, according to federal statistics.

The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education places New Jersey’s overall spending on education administration below that of 42 other states. Compiled by the department’s National Center for Education Statistics, the data show that New Jersey public school districts devote 9.5 percent of their operating budgets to central office and school building administration, compared to a nationwide average of 10.8 percent. At the same time, the state’s spending on instruction and student support services (71.9 percent of total expenditures) is higher than the national average.

The Proposal The salary caps would be implemented through “commissioner regulations” as an amendment to the state’s Accountability Regulations without the need for approval by the state Board of Education.

Under the plan, salary caps would range from $125,000 for districts with fewer than 250 students, increasing incrementally to $175,000 for those with 6,501 to 10,000 students. Districts with more than 10,000 students would be able to apply for a waiver from the commissioner of education to exceed the top cap. The plan would also allow additional compensation in a district that operates a high school and for an individual who serves as superintendent for two or more districts. (A description of the proposal appeared in last week’s School Board Notes.)

BOE Self-Evaluation 09-10: Board/Superintendent Relationships & Board/Staff Relationships

Here's the latest installment in our Board Self-Evaluation for 2009-10. Remember, 4 = Commendable, 3 = Good, 2 = Adequate, 1 = Unsatisfactory. (The scores are BOE averages, plus the score I personally gave in parentheses.) Also, remember that the presentation and discussion of this evaluation took place at the Board meeting on 8/30, and you can watch the video by clicking here.

Section VII: Board/Superintendent Relationships:

Our Board:
1. respects the management responsibilities and administrative prerogatives of the superintendent. 3.5 (4)
2. works with the superintendent in a spirit of mutual trust and condfidence. 3.5 (4)
3. maintains ongoing open lines of communication, and observes the chain of command. 3.2 (4)
4. keeps the superintendent informed about community/school issues and aspirations. 3.7 (4)
5. conducts a comprehensive and fair annual evaluation of the superintendent in accordance with statute and code as per NJQSAC. 3.7 (4)
6. works with the superintendent to develop performance objectives for evaluation that are consistent with district goals and in compliance with district policy. 3.2 (3)
7. requires regular dialogue on progress towards district goals and objectives, student achievement and feedback on performance. 3.2 (2)

As a board member, I:
A. respect the management responsibility of the superintendent. 3.8 (4)
B. observe the chain of command. 3.6 (3)
C. participate fully in the superintendent evaluation process approaching the task of evaluation fairly and diligently. 3.8 (4)


Section VIII: Board/Staff Relationships

Our Board:
1. provides effective personnel policy direction and oversight. 2.8 (3)
2. recognizes the importance of staff development and provides the necessary time and funds. 2.8 (3)
3. provides for public recognition of staff achievements. 3.3 (3)
4. treats district staff with courtesy and respect, recognizing that the appropriate channel for board/staff communications is through the superintendent. 3.5 (4)
5. ensures that our actions and decision are quickly and effectively communicated to the staff. 3.3 (3)

As a board member, I:
A. communicate all concerns about staff members to the superintendent. 3.2 (2)
B. use and enforce the chain of command. 3.4 (3)
C. attend school and community activities. 3.4 (4)

Ridgewood BOE opposes Governor Christie's proposed cap on superintendent salaries

Last night, the BOE passed a resolution opposing Governor Christie's proposed cap on superintendent's salaries. As I commented last night, I'm not sure such a resolution will do much good. It's largely symbolic. But I suppose it doesn't hurt anything either. Charlie Reilly discussed his view that Ridgewood is a leader among districts and that we should speak out about issues that we feel are unacceptable attacks on our district's ability to make decisions and represent our community's wishes. I see his point. I see Sheila Brogan's point that unlike the 2% budget cap, which is a done deal, there is still time to influence the Governor and/or legislature on the salary cap issue. I also see Michele Lenhard's point, that a resolution such as this should be part of a larger strategy, perhaps more coordinated with other districts or groups such as Garden State Coalition of Schools. In the end, I voted "yes," and will be interested to see if any other districts pass similar resolutions.

Here is the text of the resolution:

RESOLUTION OF THE RIDGEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION
RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY
Superintendent Salary Cap

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2010, Governor Christopher Christie announced a reform proposal to cap school superintendents’ base pay; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie proposed that the capped salary be based on a sliding scale determined by the state; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal based the maximum amount of the capped salary for a superintendent on the number of students enrolled in the district; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal allows for an increment of $5,000 for each additional district the superintendent oversees and an additional $2,500 if the district includes at least one high school; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal restricts a duly elected Board of Education from increasing a superintendent’s base pay above the mandated cap; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would disallow renewal of a contract for an existing superintendent with a compensation package above the mandated cap and requires that the compensation in the new contract conform to the mandated salary cap; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would allow the duly elected Board of Education to provide a non-pensionable, individual year merit stipend awarded on the basis of the school district’s year-to-year progress relative to specific performance metrics of student learning defined by the state; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would require the New Jersey Department of Education to provide the duly elected Board of Education with a list of state-approved quantitative and qualitative merit criteria; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would permit the duly elected Board of Education to add one district-requested merit criterion to the NJDOE list and have the district-requested merit criterion approved by the Executive County Superintendent; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would allow the duly elected Board of Education to choose 3 quantitative and 2 qualitative merit criteria from the state approved list; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would require the Executive County Superintendent to assemble the quantitative and qualitative performance data that forms the basis of a superintendent’s performance evaluation relative to the state approved merit criteria; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal prescribes the amount of the non-pensionable merit stipend to be 3.33% of base salary for each quantitative performance criterion achieved and 2.5% of base salary for each qualitative performance criterion achieved in a given year; and

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal arbitrarily compared and set the compensation of career educators to that of his statutory elected official’s salary;

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal has no provision for higher cost of living expenses in different areas of the state;

WHEREAS, Governor Christie’s proposal would impact 70% of New Jersey superintendents whose current salaries are above the proposed salary caps; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ridgewood Board of Education opposes Governor Christie’s proposal to cap superintendent salaries; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Ridgewood Board of Education objects to the state’s interference in contract negotiations between the duly elected Board of Education and the superintendent; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Ridgewood Board of Education objects to the state defining the quantitative and qualitative merit criteria to be used to evaluate the superintendent’s performance; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Ridgewood Board of Education believes that the superintendent’s compensation and merit increase should be based on achievement of district and superintendent goals defined by the Board of Education; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the administrative and supervisory tasks required of a superintendent to run an effective and efficient school district are not to be undervalued by the state; and be it further

RESOLVED, that with dwindling resources, reduced state aid, and restrictive tax and expenditure limits, the job of the superintendent to manage the budget, supervise staff, oversee the instructional program, ensure compliance with state and federal mandates, and focus efforts on continued improvement and high student achievement requires a skilled administrator whose salary is appropriately determined based on his/her education, experience, skill, and goal attainment, not on the number of students in the district or a state approved list of performance criteria; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Ridgewood Board of Education duly elected by the voters in Ridgewood has the duty and responsibility to negotiate a fair and reasonable contract and set the compensation for our Superintendent of Schools; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this resolution be sent to Governor Christopher Christie, Commissioner of Education Bret Schundler Senate President Stephen Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, State Senator Kevin O’Toole, Assemblyman David Russo, and Assemblyman Scott Rumana; and be it further

RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Garden State Coalition of Schools, Dollar$ and Sense, the Bergen County Association of School Administrators, the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, the New Jersey Association of School Business Officials, and the New Jersey School Boards Association.

What's behind Gov. Christie's cap on superintendent's salaries?

Reprinting an interesting post from NJ Left Behind:

What’s behind Gov. Christie’s surprise announcement that he is capping school superintendent salaries? Isn't this sort of un-Republican? What happened to the free market economy? Is it a sort of shooting-fish-in-a-barrel move, a free ride fueled by public animosity towards school taxes or the occasional exorbitant salary? Is it a set-up for capping teacher salaries or installing statewide contracts? Is Christie trying to get some love from Jersey City, where citizens are fighting back against a mishandled $268,000 annual superintendent contract? Is the heat getting to him?

A few facts to throw out there: first, superintendent salaries are a tiny piece of school costs. From New Jersey School Boards Association’s press release yesterday:

The department’s National Center for Education Statistics indicates that New Jersey directs 9.5 percent of public school expenditures toward central-office and school-level administration, as compared to a nationwide average of 10.8 percent. According to this report, New Jersey administrative spending is lower than that of 42 other states. At the same time, New Jersey’s spending on instruction and student support services (71.9% of total expenditures) is higher than the nationwide average.

Secondly, one reason for high salaries, to whatever degree they’re high, is because school superintendents don’t get tenure. (A blog called Dr. Petrosino's Education Project argues that the DOE should reinstate tenure to balance out newly-cropped salaries.) Thirdly, the cap of $175,000, except for the 16 districts with more than 10,000 students, will encourage some unknown number of superintendents to go to Pennsylvania or New York or Delaware, which remain capless. Not so good for maintaining quality. See what happens, Gov. Christie, when you go all non-Republican on us? (Read Bruce Baker’s post at SchoolFinance101, specifically his chart of NY superintendent salaries which are almost all above $175K, at least in southern NY., though his larger point that the cap is arbitrary is rebutted by John Mooney at NJ Spotlight in the comment section of today’s column, also well-worth reading.)

Of course the cap will also wreak havoc with administrators – supervisors, principals, directors -- further down the food chain, some of whom get more than $175,000. (The slick comparison to Christie’s salary, also $175K, by the way, is a canard: not too many superintendents we know are contemplating higher office or big book deals in a couple of years. Superintendency is typically the last stop.)

In effect, Christie’s plan takes school superintendents out of the marketplace and places them on a pay grade on the civil service scale. Next to come is business administrators and assistant superintendents, according to Comm. Schundler. Are teacher salaries the endgame?

Letter to parents from Dr. Fishbein

The following letter was emailed to parents today from Superintendent of Schools Dan Fishbein:

Dear Parent(s) or Guardian(s):

I am reaching out to you because I am aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about what is transpiring during this 2010-2011 school budget season. As you may know, at this point we are required to deliver a budget to the community that balances our expenditures with the revenues the district will have available for the upcoming year. Usually, about 90% of the district’s revenue comes from the local tax levy, which the law allows to grow by a maximum of 4% each year. The rest of the district’s revenue comes from state aid and other sources, such as rental of our facilities, tuition, and interest.

The state’s fiscal problems have driven officials in Trenton to announce this past week a cut of $2,985,477 in state aid to the Ridgewood Public Schools, which is 100% of our state aid. This loss is in addition to $3.4 million dollars of expenditures that we must cut from our 2010-2011 budget to stay within the 4% cap that state law puts on our tax levy growth. Much of that $3.4 million overage comes from an expected 25% - 30% increase in the district’s medical insurance premium for next year. Unfortunately, public school districts just aren’t able to create new, meaningful revenue streams, so reducing expenditures has to be our primary focus in balancing the budget. The types of cuts and dollar amounts are unprecedented in the Village of Ridgewood.

Professionally and personally, this is the most difficult budget I have had to deliver to a Board of Education in all the years I have been a Superintendent. Ridgewood is not an “average” school district. It is an outstanding one. Every single idea for a budget cut reflects the loss of a person and/or a program that contributes to what makes us exceptional here in Ridgewood. The fact that we had to make $2.5 million dollars in cuts last year means that every cut we need to make this year is even closer to the “core” of what makes this district special. The fact that I live here, and educate my own children in our schools, means that I feel the impact of these necessary but far-reaching decisions both as a Superintendent and as a parent. That’s why I began our budget development process for next year by asking for input from administrators, the district’s unions, and from your elected Board of Education. Many questions were asked, and many suggestions were made. Some ideas were viable and some were not. The viable ideas, the ones that could work to reduce our expenditures, were then prioritized. Not every suggestion I was given during the budget development process made it to the first, second or third round of proposed cuts, but many did. While ultimately, it’s not important who made which recommendation, I am grateful for every suggestion, for the thoughtfulness and concern that was evident in each and every proposal.

As the Superintendent of Schools, I am the leader of our school district. My responsibility is to provide support when necessary, provide guidance when necessary and give direction when necessary. Budget development, especially in hard times like the ones we’re now in, requires that I give direction in the form of decisions about which cuts we should use to bring about a balanced budget, and in which order. My job is to assemble the budget “package” and recommend it to the Board.

Ultimately, every budget cut that will be made is my decision. I understand that disagreement and frustration about the budget cuts, and even about the budget process, are inevitable. I also know that many in the community will voice their frustration with me.

This is as it should be. I would prefer to remain the focus of discontent rather than see our cohesive community be jeopardized from discord between parents and teachers; between teachers and teachers; or between teachers and administrators. It’s normal to be angry and upset. But I urge you to refrain from directing negative emotions towards our faculty and staff. Please also know that the difficult decisions that must be made are being done with significant input from district staff and administration, and much thought, energy and emotion on everyone’s part, including mine.

We are facing difficult financial times. It is my sincere hope that we choose to face our fiscal challenges as a community rather than individuals. We can blame others because we have lost things that are important to us and we can try to protect our individual interests. But ultimately decisions have to be made and the budget has to comply with all legal requirements. In order to face these challenges as a community, we will need to accept that cuts are inevitable, and that while we may be individually unhappy with the necessary cuts, we will do our best as an educational community to go forward after the budget vote on April 20.

It is my hope that despite the difficulties ahead, we will continue our great tradition of working together to keep Ridgewood as one of the outstanding school systems in New Jersey.
Sincerely yours,

Daniel Fishbein, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools