Allowable Growth (Supplemental State Aid): Stalemate

We are a little more than a week and a half into the legislative session and are already at an impasse in regard to education funding. Allowable growth, or supplemental state aid as it is now called, is the amount that the state cost per pupil  increases from one year to the next. This year, the state cost per pupil is $6,121 and next year it is scheduled to increase by 4% to $6,366. The unknown is the rate for the following year. It may seem like quite a long time off, but the legislature needs to act now. This way, when schools begin the budgeting process for the following school year, decisions are based on anticipated revenue.

If they don't make this decision now they will be forced to make it when they reconvene in January of 2015. While that may not seem like too big of a deal it really is. First, school districts will begin to budget for that fiscal year in January (2015) and have statutory benchmarks that must be met with regard to budgeting deadlines. Second, while we can anticipate certain increases in expenditures, that only accounts for half of the picture necessary for sound budgeting practices. Knowing revenue is equally important. It has also been opined that 'certainly the legislature can determine school aid early in the session', which was the argument made last year. Except that didn't happen. School aid was not determined until the very end of the session, shortly before the next fiscal year began. And finally, even if it were determined as the first order of business in the new legislative session it would provide a mere 6 months to put together sound fiscal policy that has far reaching implications for educational programming. This makes it incredibly difficult to make projections and programming decisions. Case in point: the State of Iowa has insisted on a two year budget cycle because they see the value of forecasting, and predicting.

Ever hear that saying about building a plane while you are flying it?

Governor Branstad has been consistent in his remarks that supplemental state aid for the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2015 (Fiscal Year 2016) will not be determined this legislative session. His reasoning is that we shouldn't make the decision on supplemental state aid until we have a better idea of what revenue will be. The result of not setting supplemental state aid during this fiscal year will no doubt mean that school districts will be put in the situation of deciding their own spending plans without knowing what revenue will be. Seems paradoxical, doesn't it?

If you recall, that is what happened last legislative session. Schools began the budgeting process for Fiscal Year 2014 (which began on July 1, 2013) last January. During that budgeting cycle, school districts did not know the school funding level. Hudson, along with a majority of school districts in Iowa were forced to assume that there would not be an increase in school funding. In many school districts this delay in the funding algorithm resulted in cuts to programming or layoffs of teachers. Luckily the allowable growth rate was set before the end of the legislative session that provided answers to school funding levels for Fiscal Year 2014 (which we are currently in) and Fiscal Year 2015 (which we are now planning for--and is set to begin on July 1, 2014). The trouble was, funding levels were set so late that school budgets had already been approved. If districts previously had this knowledge, programming decisions would have been different.

So to properly frame the debate it is first important to realize that funding levels currently being discussed are approximately 18 months in the future. Sure, it seems like a long time away and it probably is, but if the legislature doesn't set the school aid rates this session, they won't be revisited again until next January. At that point, we are only 6 months out from the start of the fiscal year. That is why the Code of Iowa, 257.8 requires the legislature set the rate of growth for the subsequent budget year within 30 days of the submission of the Governor's budget. That puts the 30 day deadline at February 13th. What happens if they miss the deadline? Well, I guess they have broken the law, which probably doesn't really mean anything since the same thing happened last year. The net effect is that it shifts uncertainty to local school districts. 

Meanwhile, the Senate is moving forward with a spending proposal to increase supplemental state aid by 6 percent. Once the bill clears the Senate, (which I am sure it probably will) it will be sent to the House for consideration. Don't get too excited, that doesn't really mean anything. The House likely won't do anything to move the bill, they have already indicated that they are with the Governor on this.

School teachers AND administrators agree at subcommittee: Make funding decisions NOW as law requires. #ialegis
— Iowa Senate (@IowaSenate) January 27, 2014

Connected Learning

As our school district has prepared for the launch of our 1:1 computer initiative, the focus has been on the device students would be using. Consider how we referenced the project: "The Hudson 1:1 Initiative". The name in and of itself implies that the device was the most important variable in this equation. During this last year, I believe that our focus on the device [was in fact] appropriate. There were numerous logistical hurdles that needed to be overcome and professional training that had to be provided for our staff. Since last January, we have been focused on the device and rightly so--it is a tremendous investment in resources. Our professional learning continues as teachers implement this technology into the classroom. But now our shift has focused. It is no longer about the device, but what our students and teachers are able to do with the device. For those of us who grew up learning in a more traditional model of education, we were probably used to going to school and having instruction delivered by a teacher at the front of the classroom with the desks in neat rows. The teacher was considered the sole provider and, expert (or master if you will) of the content.

That is no longer the case. Instead of a model that requires teachers to be at the front of the classroom imparting wisdom, they are now sitting side by side with their students. Our vision is this:

Faculty members constructing and guiding students in the creation and uncovering of knowledge. Students connecting their own learning to life experiences and real world problems. This is sometimes referred to as a 'Flipped Classroom' environment. One of the leading scholars on technology integration in schools, Dr. Scott McLeod, suggests that our students and teachers will go through several stages of technology integration as our implementation blossoms and unfolds in the coming months and years.

Stages of integration (from Dr. Scott McLeod):

• Stage 1, Technology Literacy, teachers focus on the tool itself. They ask questions like, “What do I click on?” and “How do I do this with it?” In this stage, they’re not focused on learning and teaching with students. They’re just familiarizing themselves with the various options and functions available within the tool itself.
• Stage 2, Replacement, teachers use digital tools to replicate what they did in analog learning environments. For instance, they use expensive interactive whiteboards in the same transmission-oriented ways that they used chalkboards and dry erase boards. They replace multiple-choice paper worksheets with student response systems (aka ‘clickers’). Instead of passively viewing teacher-selected DVDs or VHS tapes, students passively view teacher-selected YouTube videos. And so on.
• Stage 3, Amplification, teachers use technology to make the learning work of themselves and their students more efficient and productive. They begin experimenting with new forms of learning and teaching. Significant changes in student learning tasks may not be seen yet, but teachers are on their way toward more transformative practices.
• Stage 4, Transformation, teachers use digital learning tools to substantially change student learning processes, content and their own classroom instruction. New opportunities become not just possible but real. Learning and teaching environments look significantly different than what came before.

In just the few short weeks we have been implementing our Connected Learning Initiative, we have seen powerful examples of student learning in all four stages of integration. Indeed as our initiative gains momentum and we continue our journey, more and more of the learning experiences that we have in our classrooms will be in stage 4: Transformation!

Even though our students now have these powerful tools at their disposal and all the work it took to get to this point is now a fading memory, it is important to note that our journey is just in its infancy. Our professional development to this point has focused on preparation for the device. We have now shifted our focus to integration and moving our learning into a transformative stage. It will not happen overnight!

Finally, as I was preparing for this blog entry, Dr. McLeod suggested this blog post as a great resource. I would also encourage you to follow his blog Dangerously Irrelevant, it is a great source of information!