Waiting for Strategic Reductions

We were expecting to hear the first indications of where EKU's Strategic Budget Reallocation Task Force was headed this week. but alas, we will have to wait a bit longer. While this is disappointing, in fairness to the Task Force, they've been given a mammoth task which will not be served by advancing ideas that are not fully vetted.

In the meantime, those folks who prefer to give their advice to the committee anonymously now have a pipeline. Taskforce Feedback   or this:  https://eku.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e3ByTBkDeQURoGN

Otherwise, the Task Force leadership sorta says:

1. Thanks for the feedback
2. Substantive discussions about specific programs is only just beginning
3. Don't believe every rumor you hear
4. Students in affected programs will be supported through completion
5. No person or program is beyond review
6. Impact will not be evenly distributed
7. There will be efforts made to limit affected faculty and staff...but this is likely to come down in a hurry, when it comes

The following update is being sent by Pam Schlomann, James Street, and Janna Vice on behalf of the Strategic Budget Reallocation Task Force.

EKU Faculty and Staff:

We have received many communications via the email account established last week.  Thank you!  You may continue to use that as a vehicle to communicate your suggestions, questions, and comments to the Task Force.  Some folks have also asked for a way to submit comments anonymously. An anonymous survey has been created for this purpose. One may submit multiple entries by either method.

In addition to many suggestions on ways to increase revenue or cut costs, a few questions/concerns have been raised in multiple email communications:

1)      Concern in response to rumors about specific programs/units which will be eliminated:  The Task Force has only begun to discuss University level initiatives; there have been no substantive discussions or decisions.  Thus far, a beginning list of areas to be explored has been identified and an initial plan for obtaining appropriate data and recommendations has been developed. Concerns in response to statements such as, “I heard that…” are likely unfounded and based solely on rumor. Students have expressed concern that academic programs will be eliminated or faculty will not be available for necessary courses. Academic programs will be reviewed, but none will be abruptly discontinued. Supporting student success and progress toward graduation are priorities.

2)      Concern that some nonacademic units will be held harmless: No sector of the University will escape review. As indicated in the initial communication, “There are no “off-limit” topics of discussion. While all parts of the University will share in the reduction, the impact will not be equally distributed because the focus will be on strengthening the core mission.”

3)      Concern that individuals will not receive adequate notice or assistance in the reduction in force process: While recognizing that an involuntary reduction-in-force process will have negative impact on individuals, the University is committed to limiting the affected number of positions. The University continues to value its employees. Part of the delay in finalizing the recommendations is because the Task Force shares these concerns.

Although the Task Force had set a target of this week for the University community to be informed about proposed policies to reduce the workforce, the complexity of the process and the potential impact on both the University and individuals necessitate additional time. The Task Force has been exploring a variety of options and analyzing models to determine the best approach.  Additionally, the Board of Regents’ special meeting to approve the recommended policies will be after spring break.  Therefore, detailed communication to the campus about policies to reduce the workforce will be released after spring break when the Board meets.  While we realize that this delay prolongs anxiety about the process, the weight of the decisions necessitates careful deliberation. 

Again, the Task Force welcomes your comments, suggestions, and questions.  You can submit them by sending your email to BudgetTaskForce@eku.edu or submit them anonymously to the survey at Taskforce Feedback   or this:  https://eku.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e3ByTBkDeQURoGN .  If you should have difficulty accessing the link, please contact the Office of Institutional Research.

Then there's this from The Eastern Progress:

$23 million reallocations not beneficial for all

Layoffs, retirement incentives and cutting programs are some of the options being looked at by Eastern as ways of reallocating $23 million needed for the next administration.

Eastern President Doug Whitlock said the reallocated money is going toward improving the university’s growing programs. He said it would specifically go toward adding faculty members to the growing programs and providing raises.

“This will help my successor deal with this institution’s future in a very strategic and positive, positive way,” Whitlock said.

The only person to become more positive in this process will be the next president of Eastern, especially if people will be getting fired.
Whitlock said he doesn’t feel it’s possible to reach this goal without cutting employees because they make up 75 percent of the university’s budget.

Rather than cutting back on employees, we at The Progress would like to challenge the administration to cut back their own salaries.

Several administrators at Eastern make six-figure salaries. Whitlock makes $259,335, Janna Vice, university provost, makes $184,300 and Judy Spain, university counsel, makes $126,684.

Laying off employees and removing entire departments might seem more meaningful if the administration is willing to look at the usefulness and effectiveness of it’s own positions.

More importantly, the decision to do so would not seem so radical if administrative employees were open to taking a salary cut or shrinking their staff.

Why do these administrators not take a hit to their own paychecks for the betterment of the university? Instead, they immediately jump toward cutting programs that are beneficial in some fashion to a percentage of the student population...

This from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

3 to 1:

That's the Best Ratio of Tenure-Track Faculty 

to Administrators, a Study Concludes

In the long-running debate over how many administrators are too many, two economic researchers believe they have identified an ideal ratio. For colleges to operate most effectively, they say, each institution should employ three tenured or tenure-track faculty for every one full-time administrator.

What the ratio is now is difficult to say, though most colleges probably would have to hire significantly more faculty or pare back on administrators if they wanted to meet a three-to-one goal. The numbers are fuzzy and inconsistent because universities report their own data. Different institutions categorize jobs differently, and the ways they choose to count positions that blend teaching and administrative duties further complicate the data. When researchers talk about "administrators," they can never be sure exactly which employees they are including. Sometimes colleges count librarians, for example, as administrators, and sometimes they do not.

In their recent study, Robert E. Martin, a professor emeritus of economics at Centre College, and R. Carter Hill, a professor of economics at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, attempted to quantify the factors that drive costs at 137 public research institutions. They describe their findings in a working paper titled "Measuring Baumol and Bowen Effects in Public Research Universities," released in October.

In their analysis of federal data from 1987 to 2008, the researchers calculated that the nationwide ratio was tilted toward administrators, with two full-time administrators for every one tenured or tenure-track faculty member. But their analysis showed, they said, that a ratio of three faculty to one administrator would be the most cost-effective balance for universities.

While examining the cost effects on institutions of external forces, like faculty and administrative salary trends, and internal decisions, like where to spend available money, the researchers found that college officials' own decisions accounted for a $2 increase in cost for every $1 increase caused by external factors.

The researchers found that skewing the three-to-one ratio with too many administrators or too many faculty members would cause costs to climb.

"The balance between people who are actually in the trenches and those who are overseeing that work has gotten grossly out of line," Mr. Martin said. "That imbalance is one of the primary reasons for why costs grew so out of control over the last three decades." …

A Model for Eastern

The library at Model Lab School, on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University, was teeming with activity Thursday afternoon. About one hundred teachers, parents, student teachers, and EKU Teacher Education Program candidates (several from my class) heard a team from AdvancEd present an exit report following their accreditation visit to the school this week.

The outside examiners told the group some things I suspect they already knew, commending the school for,

·         High Expectations for students

·         Exemplary student achievement results

·         High Performance Standards

·         Creative/Innovative Instruction

·         A strong sense of community

·         Strong personal relationships among the parents and faculty

·         School Pride and observable passion about the school

·         Engaging Classrooms

·         Positive and Respectful Interactions with students

Under normal conditions, such a report would be cause for great celebration. But that was simply not the mood in the room. Instead, there was a palpable air of concern. 

Following the meeting, about half of the teachers left, and as many more parents, including several prominent EKU faculty members came in, and a second meeting of 100+ began; a meeting of the school’s SBDM Council. 

The topic for the day was the fate of Model Lab School.

The Model Laboratory School was established more than a century ago to educate P-12 students while providing clinical field experiences for preservice teachers at EKU. Its existence contributed significantly to the success of the EKU Teacher Education Program over the years. Today, as the only laboratory school remaining in the state of Kentucky, Model Lab must appear to the uninformed as an anachronistic vestige; a holdover from a bygone age. But those familiar with the new 21^st century standards for high-quality teacher preparation programs understand that Model’s existence, and excellence, has given EKU a distinct advantage over other Kentucky colleges struggling to implement the new requirement for candidates to complete 200 field hours (before student teaching) and to provide master teachers for student teaching.

It turns out good ol’ Model Lab School is ahead of its time. Indeed, Western Kentucky University recently opened the Gatton Academy, and the University of Kentucky is planning to open a high school academy for 600 students. P-20 collaboration is quickly becoming a mutually beneficial necessity under the mandates of Senate Bill 1 and 21^st century teacher accreditation standards.

The parents’ concern on Thursday sprung from a series of events which has left almost everyone on campus uncertain about the future of EKU programs, and many people’s jobs. The concern began in mid February when new Board of Regents Chair Craig Turner directed campus leaders to find $23 million in the budget to "set aside" so that the new president would have some resources to implement a (as yet undetermined ) set of changes to the university's business plan - our own little sequester. To make recommendations, President Whitlock formed the Strategic Budget Reallocation Task Force. Membership on the Task Force includes a cross-section of Deans and Vice Presidential types under the notion that these are the people who can best see the campus as a whole and who best understand the budget. 

That may be true, but faculty members (who are represented by one individual) have expressed serious concerns that the group is not able to see the whole campus, because they will not be able to see the bloated administration that supports their own departments. Dr Whitlock has acknowledged before the Faculty Senate that the last decade has seen a marked increase in administrative hiring. It is a national trend.

Across campus, departments and colleges are debating the relative merits of…pretty much everything…and there is a certain amount of finger-pointing (mostly at other people’s programs) as possible places where reductions might occur are discussed.

In reaction to that spirit, a KSN&C reader reported this week that parents were talking about holding a Rally to Save Model Lab School. The rally idea was prompted by an email sent throughout the College of Education by the Dean, which contained a laundry list of possible cuts to be discussed by the faculty on Monday, March 4th. On the list, was the idea of doubling of Model’s tuition. Parents also heard that a couple of Deans (not from Education) had suggested closure. One Model parent, speaking anonymously, confirmed that some parents had contacted the Richmond Register with their concerns, and that a rally was being discussed. She also said that an unnamed Madison County Schools official had threatened to refuse EKU Teacher Education candidates if EKU closed Model and overcrowded the local schools.

Model Lab School Principal James Dantic opened the meeting with data and a disclaimer. The disclaimer was that he didn’t really have any information to share about the fate of Model. In fact, in the room at the time was a Dean who serves on the Task Force determining the reductions, and who doubtlessly knew more about the issues than anyone present. She could offer no more than her intent to defend the school during Task Force discussions. 

Dantic’s data was eye-opening. In an average month Model hosts EKU teacher education candidates to the tune of 1,827 hours. That’s an average of 457 hours per week from 843 unique visitors. I thought we had a lot of visitors when I was Principal of Cassidy School in Lexington, but that was nothing compared to Model. Thirty-five EKU classes use Model for their Applied Learning Experiences (field work) and that doesn’t count the EKU Co-op students, America Reads and work/study students. Fifteen members of the Model faculty teach EKU courses while they collaborate with 16 different departments in teaching, service and scholarship.

Beyond that, many Model students attend EKU right now, and more will attend EKU after graduation. Over the past 5 years Model students have taken 340 courses at EKU. 

Of Model’s $5.2 million budget, more than $3.5 million (44%) is supported by state (SEEK) and federal (IDEA) funds. Tuition from Model parents adds $1.8 million (34%).  EKU provides 22.1% of Model’s budget or $1,168,197 – which apparently, some on campus believe is the amount that Model is over budget. It is not. It is exactly the budget Model is given to operate on, and like all departments, it’s down in recent years. Not so long ago, Model’s operational budget (what we call M&O) was $400,000. That is down to $178,804.

Dantic argued that compared to other university departments, Model is a bargain at $1.1 million, with $4.1 million of its budget (over 75%) coming from external sources. He expressed the concern that with Dr. Whitlock stepping down and the upcoming change in the EKU Presidency, that there may be “a void in terms of who’s standing up for us…Changes are occurring quickly and parents might be interested in communicating their concerns to the Task Force,” Dantic said.

The School Council reviewed the data and discussed the situation, ultimately deciding to send to Provost Janna Vice a letter outlining their concerns. (Once drafted, the letter will be posted to the school’s website.)

After the meeting, clusters of parents hung around to discuss what else might be done, while Dantic fielded individual questions from parents, and EKU teacher education candidates asked me about their futures in the program if Model were to close.

This Fact Sheet is from Model:

Model Lab School and EKU                          Update 2/28/2013

2012-2013 Model Budget Overview

Budgeted Expenditures                                                                                Model Income

Personnel:          $ 4,874,240          (92.4%)         State SEEK/federal IDEA:          $ 2,309,150  (43.8%)

M & O:  $ 178,804             (3.5%)                       Parent Tuition:                            $ 1,574,697  (29.9%)

Technology:       $ 139,100             (2.6%)          Parent Fees:                                   $ 220,275     (4.2%)

Textbook:           $ 80,175                (1.5%)                   TOTAL:                                  $ 4,104,122  (77.9%)

TOTAL:  $ 5,272,319

                                                Difference / EKU’s Portion:         $ 1,168,197 (22.1%)

Model Support of EKU students*

Number of EKU student hours facilitated for four-week time period:  2,228

Average hours per week:  557

Number of distinct EKU student “check-ins” for four-week time period:  1,244

Average check-ins per week:  311

*Data from January and February, 2013.

Students from the following classes currently use Model for Field Experiences:

CDF 741, CDS 541, EDF 103, EDF 203, EDF 349, EDF 349R, EDF 349Q, EDF 446,

EDF 490, ELE 322, ELE 362, ELE 445, ELE 446, ELE 496, EME 465, EME 490, EMG 349, EMG 430, EMG 445, EMS 349, EMS 349R, ESC 490, ESE 490, ETL 800, ETL 803, OTS 421, SED 104, SED 325, SED 349, SED 375, SED 401, SED 518, SPA 321, SWK 131, SWK 210

Additionally, Model places students for the following experiences:

CO-OP, AMERICA READS/WORK STUDY, VOLUNTEER HOURS

Collaborating Departments in Teaching, Service, and/or Scholarship

Biological Services, Exercise and Sport Science, Special Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, Foreign Language and Humanities, Curriculum and Instruction, Communication,

Nursing, Recreation and Park Administration, Psychology, Occupational Therapy, Music,

Justice and Safety, Anthropology, Sociology and Social Work

Model Faculty who teach at EKU

Lisa Corn – ELE 519/719                                                                  Sheila Lippman – ELE 362

Karen Baum - ELE 365, EME 586/786                                         Charlene Park – ESE 573               

Jennifer Green – EME 442, SPA 101, SPA 102                       Denise Discepoli – ELE 361

Lindsey Heath – MAT 202, MAT 303                                         Marla Muncy – ELE 519/719

Stacy Wilson – AST 135, SED 504/704                                       Sarah Shaffer – ELE 490, EMS 855

Ellen Rini – EDF 319, COU 826, COU 827, COU 856

James Dantic – HIS 202, EMS 830, EMS 842, EMG 810

Cheryl Wright – SED 504/704, SED 104, SED 375, SED 577/777

Cindy Reeves – CDS 273, CDS 541/741, CDS 373, CDS 374, CDS 474

Charter Schools for Jefferson County: No law, No Problem

The combination of the recent KDE report damning 16 persistently low-performing schools in Jefferson County (and Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday's claim that the Jefferson County School Board is maintaining a system of educational apartheid, and have even committed 'academic genocide') along with the current legislative session, has served as a starting gun for the Jefferson County Teacher's Association and pro-charter school groups in Kentucky.

At the Commissioner's prompting in mid February, the Black Alliance for Educational Options rallied in Louisville in support of Holliday's proposal (or was it a threat?) to take control of some number of low performing schools in the Jefferson County Public School district.

Holliday told WHAS that day, "Only six out of a hundred kids in Shawnee or Iroquois [high schools] graduate college/career ready. Out of the hundred that enter the 9th grade, only six graduate four years later." 

Holliday said the state could take over and orchestrate a turnaround at some constantly low achieving schools. There are 18 in Jefferson County...If the state does take over the schools, Holliday said they would become like charter schools - privately run but funded by the state.

Using Tea Party language, Holliday told WHAS, "We don't want a government takeover." (A lovely soundbite for the right-leaning public, but the schools are already run under governmental authority. Are we supposed to fear the government taking over the government?) "But I have the capacity to choose the model [used for turning the schools around]." When asked if that included charter schools, Holliday responded, "Certainly. We don't call it charter, but we call it Education Management Organizations. Certainly an EMO could come in and would not have some of the barriers that are in place, and create something very different."

But  "very different" would have to occur without violating the JCPS/JCTA union contract.

After reviewing the next round of test data KDE will decide whether (or more likely, which schools) to take over. "It's not sabre-rattling," Holliday said. "Take over, is not taking over the district. It's just taking over the solution - the strategy for these schools - not the district."

Of the two bills that are filed in the legislature this session, Holliday has given his blessings to Senate Bill 176, which would permit local school boards to designate a persistently low-achieving school (now called a Priority School) as a charter school. He has consistently said since coming to Kentucky that he is open to charter schools as long as local boards hold authority over the charters.

Over at JCTA, the reaction was unequivocal:

SB 176: Education Commissioner Supports Charters in PLA Schools
On Tuesday, in a special called meeting of the Senate Education Committee, Education Commissioner Terry Holliday spoke in favor of SB 176 that would allow schools identified as PLA's to become charter schools. He specifically pointed to the PLA schools in Jefferson County and remarked that the efforts going on for the past three years haven't worked and felt that charter schools couldn't do much worse. JCTA has been aware for quite some time of the Commissioner's desire to bring Charter Schools to Kentucky and now the rationale is clear regarding his recent attack on the PLA schools here in Jefferson County as he accused our District of "education genocide." [sic] JCTA STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS BILL. We urge you to contact your State Senator and your State Representative and urge them NOT to support this bill. 1-800-372-7181. 

Holliday's clear rationale would seem to go something like this:

1. Wait for the 2013 School Report Card results
2. Follow up with Leadership and Management Audits in JCPS
3. Decide on whether and/or which schools should be taken over by the state
4. Then, acting as the JCPS Board could have chosen to act, KDE could decide to hire an outside EMO to run some number of schools
5. In the process, he would have effectively established a charter-like situation in JCPS without the benefit of a Kentucky charter school law

Again, it must be noted that EMOs do not have the legal authority to negate a local teacher's contract, like the JCBE/JCTA agreement.

JCTA President Brent McKim told KSN&C in an email, 

JCTA is open to utilizing the EMO option, which would involve having an external management organization manage a priority school.  We would also be open negotiating staffing issues, if Dr. Holliday believes this is necessary.

We do not support SB 176 because we believe the current EMO option and the current flexibility available through “Districts of Innovation” allow the flexibility of charter schools without having the effect of privatizing public education.

In a series of emails with KSN&C, KDE spokeswoman Nancy Rodriguez said that scenario is all conjecture at this point. "We have tried restaffing and transformation in the JCPS schools and have seen only a couple of schools making measurable gains in student learning outcomes, however, the transformation model is working in other PLA schools across the state. The only other options available are school closure and EMO."

Rodriguez explained the commissioner's position. 

KRS 160.346 lays out four intervention options that persistently low-performing schools can choose from in their efforts to affect school turnaround. A fifth option allows for unspecified model that could be used as long as it complies with federal NCLB requirements.

Commissioner Holliday is encouraged by the progress he sees being made in many Priority Schools across the state. Some schools, however, are not making adequate progress relative to student achievement, graduate rates and college and career readiness. Dr. Holliday is concerned about what that means for the children in those schools and the communities in which they live. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to helping low-achieving schools overcome the numerous challenges they face. Each school is different, and helping them turnaround requires the collaborative efforts of districts, schools, educators, students, parents and communities. 

Meanwhile, in Frankfort...from WHAS:

The debate rages on about charter schools in Kentucky. Supporters for charter schools were in Frankfort Thursday as lawmakers took up the issue.

Charter schools are public schools that get state and local funding but can operate under their own set of guidelines.

The Kentucky Charter School project wants lawmakers to allow high quality public charter school options for families in the commonwealth. The group says other ideas have not worked and Kentucky should look at other states that have adopted charter schools. They brought in a representative from Georgia to stress their point. Kentucky's education commissioner also supports charter schools.

Those against it say it takes away resources from other schools.

The charter schools bill passed out of committee and will be voted on by the full senate as earlier as Friday.

It could pass out of the senate but could run into difficulty in the house.

The Kentucky Charter School Project, is a provider of misinformation whose members include Parents for Improving Kentucky Education, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and a few socially-right groups like the Bluegrass Institute, Kentuckians Advocating Reform in Education, and Kentucky Education Restoration Alliance, along with the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Democrats for Education Reform (essentially, a collection of hedge fund folks who found profit in schooling) recently joined up. Apparently in celebration, the Kentucky Charter school Project blog responded by posting a story defending profit in educational enterprise. The blog's author is anonymous, but I'm fairly certain the piece was written by Gordon Gekko.

All of that being said, perhaps things are working out they way they should.

On the one hand, charters as competition for successful public schools, is a bad idea which weakens the entire system. And charters for affluent whites, or groups looking to push a religious agendas for a select group of students should be resisted. 

But on the other hand, if a school district can not provide an adequate education for a given community of students over time, at some point a community has a right (and perhaps the state has the obligation) to expect a fresh approach. Maybe that takes a Commissioner stepping in to accomplish.

The lack of a charter school law limits the spread of charters beyond persistently low-performing schools. And that's the way it should be.