Mountains and Molehills

One of the most valuable, and perhaps painful lessons a school administrator can learn (often the hard way) is using the shotgun approach to leadership. It works like this: a subordinate makes an unforced error and the administrator uses that as an opportunity to make the entire faculty pay the price. It usually goes something like this: an employee leaves work early, has an interaction with a parent go sideways, or heaven forbid, park in the wrong spot. So, the administrator decides a faculty meeting or blanket email is in order to correct the malfeasance. Anyone see the issue? What ends up happening of course is the entire faulty is either, a.) annoyed that they are being called to task for something they didn't do; or b.) wondering if they did something wrong and worry about their fictional misdeed to the point they have to seek out clarification from the administrator. The right way to handle this is obvious even to the untrained novice. It continues to baffle me that we are inclined to make mountains out of molehills in order to solve issues that should simply be a conversation between a single employee and a single administrator. We don't need to dress down an entire faculty or staff due to the perceived (or imaginary) error of another. It is demoralizing.

Unfortunately some of the decisions that are being made right now in the state legislature are following a similar pattern. I read an editorial from an educator last week who feels that January through April each year is the most stressful time of the school year because the legislature is in session. It is ironic this educators' stress has nothing to do with the work they are doing on behalf of the children they serve. Frankly I sometimes feel the same way. In all honesty, it has been helpful for me to not pay as close of attention as I normally would. Yet, while this is part of the job I do eagerly look forward to the final gavel falling (hopefully by the end of next week) and the words 'Sine Die' being announced. In many ways this year has been extraordinarily painful to watch, and perhaps unprecedented with the number of bills that have been introduced and debated on the floor of the legislature. While being faced with a labor shortage that is certain to get worse, one must wonder how accusing educators of harboring some sort of 'sinister agenda' helps attract or retain talent. I suppose the quick follow up soundbite that 'most teachers are great' is supposed to somehow instill [confidence and support] that will magically smooth things over. 

The latest salvo came last night with the House passage of HF 2577. You may have heard this particular policy proposal described as the school transparency bill. Essentially it requires school districts to post and provide the following information related to instruction for the current school year: course syllabus or written summary of the material that will be taught in the student's class, how the class meets or exceeds the Iowa Core Academic Standards, and a list of all instructional materials that will be used in class by the teacher of record. It goes on to say that if the materials are modified during the school year, the information must be updated by the end of the school week where the modification occurs. Another section of the law requires a comprehensive listing of all books that are available in the school library. In an effort to put a sting to the law, any district found in noncompliance of the requirements 14 days after enactment or a modification of materials shall be assessed a civil penalty against the district between $500 and $5,000. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the law only applies to public and charter schools. Private schools are exempt, which it is worth noting since private school vouchers are being seriously debated and contemplated in the legislature this afternoon. 'Rules for thee but not for me?'

Truth be told, this entire policy proposal is a solution in search of a problem and I would urge the Senate to decline consideration. The fact is, this idea and many like it are surfacing because of a few, largely isolated incidents in schools around the state. Essentially, some constituents are concerned about the selection of some library books in circulation in school libraries, or a  specific concept that is alleged to being taught in classroom. Instead of addressing those concerns through local channels, the apparent solution is to run to the legislature for relief. Whatever happened to local control? Look, it is entirely possible these concerns are legitimate and deserve to have a fair debate. But a legislative fix that impacts the entire system seems like a serious overreach. Mountains and molehills....

Here's the deal. Every school district in the state has detailed policies outlining the 'adoption of' and 'objection to' curricular material. Likewise, every school district has detailed polices on the reconsideration of library books and opt out policies for material. In Hudson, we even have a regulation dealing with teaching controversial issues. If you are interested, please check out our policy series 600. Furthermore, there are countless opportunities for parental involvement in school: PTO organizations, booster clubs, school board service, participation in parent teacher conferences. Discussing concerns directly with the teacher or administrator. Shall I go on? For the legislature to suggest these avenues don't exist seems ingenuine.

My fear is this will become the law of the land along with many other proposals that do nothing to strengthen the public school system in Iowa. In fact, I think they could weaken it. That could lead to us losing good people. I can certainly understand why some young people who are currently in educator preparation programs are doing some serious soul searching right now. I wonder, if I were a younger version of myself in their shoes, what would I do?

The Four Day Week

Our academic calendar has followed a relatively traditional schedule over the years. For the most part, it has been stable year over year with both the number of instructional days, starting date, and ending date. In our community, most people prefer a calendar that starts in late August and ends the first semester by Christmas. Additionally, constituents like to see the school year wrapped up by Memorial Day. The last major change to the structure of our calendar happened about a decade ago with the addition of the weekly early dismissal. For the most part, this feature of our calendar is pretty much engrained in our culture at this point. However, based on a few random comments over the years that suggested we supplant the early dismissal with a full day of inservice, I developed that model for internal review this year. It was ultimately rejected by the cabinet because in order to get the same impact with professional development it would have pushed the end date of the school year well into June. Perhaps next year I'll show you what that looks like. The other substantive change came in 2015 when we moved the start date a week later in order to comply with a change to state law.

Based community preferences and a few other locally or state imposed variables, our annual calendar discussion is pretty non-eventful. We create a 'base' model and then a variation on that model where a vacation day or two is switched around. Feedback and input is solicited in January, a hearing is held in February; and the calendar is subsequently adopted. In most cases it looks very similar to the calendar from the previous year.  

Now, before we get into the topic of a 'Four Day Week' (as the title here suggests), let me be clear: this isn't an idea that I am proposing. I'm not advocating for a change to the calendar. I just think the discussion is, well interesting. And the fact our basic structure hasn't undergone any significant change in over a decade suggests it is appropriate from time to time to examine the status quo. Am I missing something? Do YOU, the constituent see a value that warrants exploration? Frankly, it is better to discuss and disseminate now as opposed to January and February when it's too late.

To start, the idea of a four day school week is novel in Iowa. To date, I believe there are less than a handful of districts that operate a calendar in this fashion. There are many reasons a district may decide to move in this direction, but a common reason often cited is the financial impact. By lengthening the school day instead and trading for fewer days of instruction, a district can save 20% off the top when it comes to transportation costs. Same goes with paraprofessionals, food service, and perhaps even clerical staff (to a degree). Energy costs are likely to be lower as well, although probably not to the tune of 20% since you simply can't turn the furnace off every Friday. But, in terms of  salary costs for certified teachers, I doubt you are looking at a savings at all. In fact, salaries for this classification of employment are likely to increase at a rate similar to their counterparts at school districts that operate a traditional five day a week calendar.

Instead, in at least one Iowa district, the idea of a four day work week is being used as a retention strategy. The idea calls for 150 days of instruction (as opposed to 180 days in the traditional calendar). State law, by the way, requires school districts to have either 180 days of instruction OR 1,080 hours of instruction. In this proposal, the district will have 1,095 hours of instruction during that 150 days, meaning they will be fully in compliance with the compulsory attendance laws. The strategy employed is based on a hypothesis that young professionals will be drawn to a work schedule that honors time over higher compensation that might be available in larger districts. 

Another reason at least one district is considering a move to a four day work week is to mitigate and hopefully eliminate the phenomenon know as the summer slide. In this proposal, the school year is simply lengthened to accommodate the number of four day weeks. Known more commonly as a 'year round' schedule, it simply shortens breaks to accommodate the weekly schedule. The current challenge with a structure like this is that it is in conflict with state law and would require a special waiver to adopt.

In the final analysis it is critically important for districts to understand their constituency and realize that schools serve a dual purpose. Granted, our primary mission is now and will always be the education of an informed citizenry. However, we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't recognize the role we play in providing other services that our parents and communities count on: childcare and meals. It will be important to ensure that the general public, and especially parents have an opportunity to weigh in on these issues. Luckily in both the cases mentioned above, the districts are well in tune to the needs of their communities and are solution focused. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for them!