legal and legislative issues - asbo |...

Tolerating Zero Tolerance?Collaboration and Collective Bargaining

The Privatization of Public EducationAlso: Executive Leadership Forum Information

Legal and Legislative Issues

S CHOOL BUS INESS AF FAIRSsbaOctober 2010 | Volume 76, Number 8 Association of School Business Officials International®

SBA_Oct10_c1-c4 9/14/10 2:11 PM Page c1

Copyright © The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company.

All rights reserved.

VC 23549 (09/2010) J77322 ER

Eliminate compliance administration headaches

Visit 403bUniversity.com or call us at 1-877-403(b)REG (2734)

Get professional compliance solutions from an experienced industry leader

RetirementManager

• Reduce unnecessary costs

• Simplify multivendor plan administration

• Meet important compliance requirements

• Aggregate plan data securely and safely

• Stay ahead of regulatory changes

VALIC is proud to be a Strategic Partner and congratulates ASBO as they celebrate their Centennial Anniversary.

BUSINESS SOFTWARE THAT FITS YOUR DISTRICT

InfiniteVisions.com | 888.654.3293

The most trusted Financial and Human Resources software, services and support in K-12.

HUMAN RESOURCES

PAYROLL

STATE REPORTINGRR

WORKFLOW

EMPLOYEE SELF-SERVICERR

PURCHASING

BENEFIT ENROLLMENT

FIXED ASSETAA

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

WAREHOUSE

GRANTS PRR ROJECT TRACKINGRR

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Copyright 2010 Windsor Management Group. InfiniteVisions is a registered trademark of Windsor Management Group. All rights reserved.

Today’s budget challenges demand business

software that fits your district’s needs, not your

district having to fit the software. The best fit,

InfiniteVisions® – K-12’s performance and value leader from Windsor Management Group. Our

fully integrated Financial and Human Resources

software offers flexible budget forecasting,

unlimited reporting, point and click import/exports,

and complete control over the employee life cycle.

Finally, business software that fits your district.

12

2 OCTOBER 2010 | SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS www.asbointl.org

DEPARTMENTS4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

6 PUBLISHER’S MESSAGE

7 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

34 FACILITIESGaining Stakeholder Supportfor Going GreenBy Bill Harris

36 AD INDEX

37 TECH TIPSOpening Multiple Tabs in IEBy William Flaherty

39 CORPORATE CORNER

40 SPOTLIGHT ON BRENDA BURKETT

20LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES8 Tolerating Zero Tolerance?

By Brian N. Moore, RSBS

12 Collaboration and the CollectiveBargaining Process in Public EducationBy Matthew Noggle, Ed.D.

14 The Privatization of Public EducationBy Richard Hunter, Ed.D.

20 Litigation and School Finance:A Cautionary TaleBy Charles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D.

24 Nepotism: A Policy of Convenience?By Robert Ruder

28 You’ve Been Served:Surviving a DepositionBy Nan Wodarz, Ed.D.

32 Automated Employee Training:Efficiency and EffectivenessBy Laurie Boedicker

table of contents | OCTOBER 2010

24

SBA_Oct10_pages 9/14/10 2:09 PM Page 2

Make her dream a reality. Take the guesswork out of the equation by educating your teachers on the importance of saving for retirement. MetLife Resources offers comprehensive plan administration services that provide your employees with the education, tools and resources needed to help them reach their retirement goals. To learn how MetLife can help your organization, contact:Ty MinnichNational Executive Director of Case Acquisition and [email protected]

Guarantees are subject to product terms, exclusions and limitations and the insurer’s claims-paying ability and financial strength. MetLife Resources is a division of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166. © 2010 Peanuts L0409033752(exp0611) MLR19000235057 1008-2450

If her dream is a secure financial future...

Please visit us at Booth #801

Ijust got off the Gettysburg battlefield aftera tour with participants at the ASBO EagleInstitute and I have a few “lessons learned”to share.

How can a battle that happened more than150 years ago teach us anything relevant?You’d be surprised!

The logistics of this battle are overwhelming:160,000 troops, tens of thousands of horses,artillery, supplies, medical stations, hospitals,food, water, all concentrated in a small town of2,400 people that happened to lie at a majorcrossroads.

This battle that saw 46,000 casualties turnedout to be a pivot point for the Civil War, as itstopped General Lee’s advance into Pennsyl -vania. It was by no means the end of the war,but it did mark the turning point in favor ofthe Union army.

Here a few lessons learned that are useful today:Be a leader. Communication took days and

the means were not reliable. Today, it’s easy topass the buck up the line. Why make a decisionwhen you can ask someone else with the flip ofa cell phone? Perhaps our communication toolsare inhibiting the growth of true leadership. Itmay be time to nurture and train your staff sothey can make decisions without feeling theneed to “pass the buck.”

Solicit input. No matter what your lengthof service or experience, during a battle or cri-sis, get good heads together and solicit input.

General Lee was far senior in rank (and age)to those who served him. By virtue of his sen-iority, his staff was inclined not to disagree withhim, nor offer opinions. Consequently, the deci-sion to assault the Union army during Pickett’scharge was not heartily challenge and as aresult, the Confederates were mowed down bythe thousands as they marched straight into abattery of artillery and guns.

On the other hand, General Meade, com-mander of the Union Army of the Potomac, wasappointed to the position just days before thebattle. His approach was quite different; he

gathered all of his major staff and had a meet-ing to discuss the best strategies.

Practice humane leadership. ColonelChamberlain, a Union leader from Maine,treated a group of deserters humanely and laterconvinced them to fight for the Union cause,probably helping him hold Little Round Top,a major battleground.

The Tasks of Effective LeadersSo what are your tasks as an effective leader?Consider these suggestions from the Center forCreative Leadership’s Campbell LeadershipDescriptor Guide:1. Vision—Set the direction.2. Management—Set goals and focus resources.3. Empowerment—Select and develop subordi-

nates, allow them to accept challenges.4. Diplomacy—Forge coalitions.5. Feedback—Observe, listen, share.6. Entrepreneurialism—Find future opportu-

nities.Do you fulfill these tasks to the best of your

ability every day? And just as important: haveyou nurtured your staff to step in when you arenot available?

The ultimate goal of leadership is to makeyourself irrelevant! Yup, you heard right. Dosuch a great job of developing your subordi-nates and empowering staff that you can leaveto pursue your next big thing and the organiza-tion will thrive without you!

Hone Your Leadership SkillsPlan now to attend the ASBO ExecutiveLeadership Forum in Grapevine Texas,February 24–26, 2011. See you there!

Erin K. Green, MBA, RSBAPresident, ASBO InternationalDirector of Business Services,Greendale (Wisconsin) School District

president’s message

Let’s Talk LeadershipBy Erin K. Green, MBA, RSBA

The ultimate goal

of leadership is

to make yourself

irrelevant.



Let AXA Equitable help you.

You are dedicated to your career in public education and to helping students create a bright future.

Who is helping you and your colleagues build your futures?

Life insurance and annuities are issued by AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, NY, NY and distributed by an affiliate, AXA Advisors, LLC, member SIPC.

GE-56790 (7/10) G24777

“Just between us, you know that choosing a retirement provider

isn’t going to take care of itself. Benefit from AXA Equitable’s

expertise and commitment to the K–12 market. But what do I

know, I’m just the 800lb gorilla in the room.”

With innovative financial strategies, over 150 years of experience and a long commitment to the K–12 marketplace, we can help you plan for your retirement.

To find out how AXA Equitable can help you and your colleagues work toward your retirement goals, visit us at www.axa-equitable.com, call (800) 628-6673 or contact your AXA Advisors Financial Professional.

AXA Equitable is proud to be an ASBO Strategic Partner by sponsoring ASBO’s Eagle Award and the Eagle Institute.

School Business Af fairsOctober 2010 | Volume 76, Number 8

SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS (ISSN 0036-651X) is the professional journal of the Association of

School Business Officials International and is published monthlyby the association. Periodical postage paid at Herndon, Virginia,

and additional mailing of fic es.

Postmaster: Send address corrections to School Business Affairs,11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190-4200; 703/478-0405.

2010 BOARD OF DIRECTORSPRESIDENT — Erin K. Green, MBA, RSBA

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT — Angela D. Peterman, RSBSVICE PRESIDENT — Charles E. Linderman, RSBA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — John D. Musso, CAE, RSBA

DIRECTORSPaul M. Bobek, CPABrian L. Mee, RSBA

Shirley A. Broz, CPA, RSBARon McCulley, CPPB, RSBO

Randy C. Evans, RSBOTerrie S. Simmons, RSBA

PUBLICATIONS POLICYThe materials published in each issue represent the ideas, beliefs,

or opinions of those who write them and are not necessarily theviews or policies of the Association of School Business Officials

International. Material that appears in School Business Affairs maynot be reproduced in any manner without written permission.

2010 EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEChair—Ellen R. Skoviera

Vice Chair—Gayle D. Isaac, CPAStephen B. Lawton, Ph.D.

Richard C. Hunter, Ed.D.Gail M. Zeman

Karen J. DeAngelis, Ph.D.William Flaherty

Brian Moore, RSBSBoard Liaison—Charles E. Linderman, RSBA

EDITORIAL STAFFDIRECTOR — Siobhán McMahon

EDITOR — Patricia GeorgePUBLICATIONS COORDINATOR — Lauren A. Konopka

DESIGN — Laura CarterCarter Publishing Studio

www.carterpublishingstudio.com

EDITORIAL OFFICES11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190-4200

Phone: 703/478-0405Fax: 703/478-0205

Home Page: www.asbointl.orgEmail: [email protected]

ADVERTISING INFORMATIONAscend Media

7015 College Blvd., Suite 600, Overland Park, KS 66210Phone: 913/ 344-1443 • Fax: 913/ 334-1417

Angie [email protected]

SUBSCRIPTION RATES eventy dollars of ASBO members’

annual dues are designated for School Business Affairs subscription.

© 2010, ASBO International

publisher’s message

TUNE IN TO ASBO RADIO FOR HOT TOPICS

Keeping up with technology is a full time job.“Information” is prolific. Encyclopedias have beenreplaced with Wikipedia, newspapers with news alerts,fm radio with satellite radio.

You are a busy school business professional. Where doyou go for your information?

Look no further than ASBO Radio. Yep, school business officials have their own radio

station! We have partnered with BAM Radio Networkto bring you ASBO Radio so school business managerscan listen to programs about the topics that directlyaffect them. Our very own Executive Director JohnMusso hosts the program, which focuses on the topicsyou really care about: school business managementpractices, professional growth, and the effective use ofeducation resources.

Tune in today and listen as John Musso and BrettMandel, the executive director of the NationalEducation Technology Funding Corporation (EddieTech) discuss the most effective way to get funds intothe classroom.

Hear the perspective Charles P. Rose, the generalcounsel for the Department of Education, has on schoolbusiness officials’ vital role in the uses of ARRA funds.

Learn from CoSN’s Keith Krueger what five strategiesand a three tactics allow you to leverage ARRA fundsto get more while spending less.

Find out how to get the most bang for the buck fromARRA funds while avoiding potential liabilities formisuse. Patricia Guard from the U.S Department ofEducation shares solid strategies.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Visit www.asbointl.org and click the button on the left. It takesyou directly to the archives.

If you don’t have time to listen today, build your ownASBO library through iTunes. Subscribe to ASBO Radiofor free and listen to the programs on your computer,iPod, or iPad.

You want information at your fingertips. ASBO isleveraging the power of today’s technology to bring youthe information you need right now.

— Siobhan McMahon, Managing Editor

Colophon: During production of this issue, Siobhan went toSkyline Caverns and read Sarah’s Key, Pat gulped at the cost ofcollege textbooks, and Lauren spent time outdoors kayaking andwine tasting.



www.asbointl.org SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS | OCTOBER 2010 7

It has nearly been two years since theeconomic crisis began to rear its uglyclaws. At that time, ASBO Internationalmobilized a team of experts from the

United States and Canada to examine potentialand long-range effects the crisis would haveon schools.

At that time, discussions around the tableincluded much speculation and projectionbased on the current and best informationwe had. We know a lot more today, but theprojections and conclusions we came to in2008 are not much different from what hasactually occurred.

Two years ago, economists projected thatthe recession would be around for at least ayear. ASBO advised school business officialsto plan on the current economic issues beingaround for at least three years. We based thisadvice on the fact that schools are typicallyfunded on a formula model that includes property tax as one component.

Because homes were just beginning to gointo foreclosure, property tax revenue wouldtake a much longer time to rebound; it wouldtake even longer for schools to begin receivingany property tax recovery.

Economist’s projections have expanded interms of recovery. Property tax revenue willcontinue a steady decline as property re-assess-ments are scheduled and the full effect of fore-closures and rising unemployment are felt at thelocal level.

ASBO International continues to warn schoolbusiness officials that any property tax revenuewill lag substantially once recovery has begun.

ASBO International predicted multi-yeareconomic suffering and that prediction hasnot changed.

So What?What does this mean? We know that schooldistricts cannot look to state education agenciesto help shore up any deficits, especially in lightof the fact that most states used ARRA fundsintended for sustainable educational reformto balance current state deficits. We also knowthat any expectation of federal dollars in thefuture diminishes as the days go on. And, weknow school systems must rely on their owncreativity and ability to manage budgets.

The bottom line is that budget cuts will belong-term and that the most significant sourcesof revenue for school districts continue to bediminished. It is more imperative than ever thatwe think about alternate sources of revenue,public/private partnerships, community involve-ment, and even the core mission of our schools.

The key to achieving a reliable new founda-tion of support is well-designed strategies forrevenue generation and cost shifting/sharing.Opportunities for increasing revenue and shar-ing costs exist, but are much more difficult torecognize than those for cost cutting.

In the midst of the worst economic time inour history and severe budget reductions, itbecomes difficult to implement educationalreform and maintain any kind of professionalcomposure. One thing we do know, is that thosewho think and act rationally during irrationaltimes are the ones who have the highest proba-bility of surviving these challenging times. Keepfocused on the children in our school systems.

The Importance ofBeing RationalBy John D. Musso, CAE, RSBA

Those who think

and act rationally

during irrational

times are those

who have the

highest probability

of surviving.

executive director’s message

www.asbointl.org


By Brian N. Moore, RSBS

Perhaps now is

the right time to

revisit the issue and

define just what

things we really do

have zero tolerance

for in schools.

Tolerating Zero Tolerance?

legal and legislative issues


It all starts with good enough intent. Who could argue when

a politician takes a hard line and says into the camera, “We

will have zero tolerance when it comes to drugs or guns in

our schools.” This is almost always followed by a rousing

round of cheers and applause.

Keeping kids safe is always the way to go, right? But what if

you are the parent of an adorable third grader who is suspended

because zero tolerance to drugs includes over-the-counter cough

drops? This is just one example of the many intricate traps of

zero tolerance that has led to debate after debate over the years.

Perhaps now is the right time to revisit the issue and define

just what things we really do have zero tolerance for in schools.



Back to the BeginningThe concept of zero tolerance dates back to the mid-1990s when New Jersey was creating laws to addressnuisance crimes in communities. The main goal of theseneighborhood crime policies was to have zero tolerancefor petty crime such as graffiti or littering so as to keepmore serious crimes from occurring. The media com-mended this same ideology when New York City MayorRudy Giuliani took to cleaning up Times Square byfighting the nuisance crimes in the largest tourist spot inNew York.

Next came the war on drugs. In federal law, zero toler-ance became a seizure tool that allowed federal agenciesto seize vehicles, planes, and boats used to transport eventhe smallest amount of drugs into the country. Again, nota bad idea if one is fighting a major influx of drugs.

States began to follow suit with laws such as manda-tory sentencing when guns were used during a felony.Zero tolerance became a standard for adding jail timefor such offenses.

Students would follow therules because they knewexactly what would happenif they didn’t.

In the 1990s, opponents of zero tolerance began toquestion how a court could possibly make the punish-ment fit the crime if the circumstances of the crime werenot allowed to enter into the equation. This would soonbecome a sticking point as the policy made its way fromthe courtroom into the classroom, from the state houseall the way down to the school house.

As zero tolerance policies were enacted, many districtsbelieved they would create a status quo for school cli-mate. By taking away the administrator’s ability todetermine punishment for each case, they would elimi-nate issues such as favoritism and would force schools tocomply with pre-determined disciplinary consequences.Students would follow the rules because they knewexactly what would happen if they didn’t.

Fighting Back the FearsAfter the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999,guns in schools became a major element of what couldnow be called the zero tolerance culture. If you broughta gun to school you would be expelled automatically.

Again, many experts and parent groups applaudedthese types of hard-line stances on protecting our chil-dren. Soon the states were establishing the sameinitiatives surrounding drugs in school. But soon ques-tions arose about the definition of a drug. Districts

struggled to understand what the legislature meant by“no drugs in schools.”

“No guns” slowly changed to “no weapons” andagain the terminology opened itself up to interpretation.One person’s idea of a weapon did not coincide withanother person’s idea and challenges started to crop upin court.

Still, the legislatures and school boards around thecountry were fighting the public battle to stop violenceand drug abuse in schools, so taking a hard line was apopular position.

Scant data was made public about the success of theseearly initiatives in the traditional law enforcement com-munity. Public opinion supported these approaches andapplauded their use in making a community safe. It washard, according to researchers, to develop data basedupon what the crime rates might have been if the lawshad not been enforced using zero tolerance policies.

What did become clear, however, was that correctionalinstitutions were beginning to burst at the seams basedon the mandatory sentences passed down under zero tol-erance. While prison overcrowding became an issue forthe penal system, high drop out rates and suspensionand expulsion rates began to have an effect on educa-tion. How could a school district strike a balancebetween taking a hard line on crime in school yet stillmeet its constitutional role of educating a child?

Zero Tolerance TodayDuring the past few years, many school districts havebecome embroiled in bitter media battles over zero toler-ance policies.

One school district received national attention when itsuspended a student for bringing a cake knife to schoolto cut a birthday cake, although the student never actu-ally handled the knife. That same district was criticizedfor putting a six year old in an alternative education set-ting for bringing a Cub Scout knife to school to usewhile eating his lunch.

Is the issue here a question of zero tolerance policy ordoes it center on a building administrator’s definition ofthe term “weapon”?

Sometimes the issues that surround zero tolerance arenot about enforcement, but rather about the initialassessment and decision (usually by a school administra-tor) to take action under the auspices of zero tolerance.

Robin Case is the Delaware Department of Educationassociate for school climate and discipline. She checksevery case of reported crimes that occur in schools.When there is an issue, Case notes, it is often in the wayan administrator at the school level defines the offense.

“It can be a real challenge to find a way to share aconsistent view of what is a crime and what is not,”Case says. These judgment calls can be made in haste bysometimes inexperienced and often overwhelmed school



administrators. The end results can be difficult for dis-tricts and the public to reconcile.

“In the end you simply cannot legislate good old fash-ioned common sense and experience,” Case says.

Organizations Speak OutThe American Bar Association weighed in on the topicof zero tolerance in 2000. In a report to their members,a committee on zero tolerance noted, “zero tolerance isa perverse version of mandatory sentencing, first, becauseit takes no account of what we know about child andadolescent development, and second, because at least inthe criminal justice system (despite ABA policy) whenmandatory sentences exist, there are different mandatorysentences for offenses of different seriousness.”

The report noted that the entire educational processis supposed to recognize the growth and learning of eachstudent—something that can easily be lost under zerotolerance.

How could a school districtstrike a balance betweentaking a hard line on crimein school yet still meet itsconstitutional role ofeducating a child?

Experts who work in the field of juvenile justice tendto agree. Detective Nick Terranova of the Delaware StatePolice Youth Aide Division is charged with investigatingcrimes that involve school students.

“Zero tolerance in its original form was meant toserve as a deterrent against drug crime,” Terranova says,“but in its current form it can sometimes hinder both theschools and our own ability to look at the circumstancesbehind the crime.”

In one case he investigated, a student brought aweapon into the school for the purpose of committingsuicide. “My heart truly went out to this student and hisfamily,” Terranova says. “He wasn’t a criminal butrather someone in desperate need of help and support.”

In 2008, the American Psychological Associationreleased a report that highlighted the fact that what littledata exists regarding zero tolerance in schools may actu-

ally point to the fact that these policies have a negativeeffect on school climate.

The report, published in the December 2008 issue ofAmerican Psychologist magazine, notes that studentswith high suspension and expulsion rates, such as minor-ity students, suffer even greater rates of disciplinaryaction under these policies. The report highlights the factthat disciplinary actions in these schools are even higher,which would lead to the question: how much of a“deterrent” is zero tolerance?

Now What?If your district has a standing zero tolerance policy,remember that education is the key. Make sure all staffmembers share the same definition of what offenses meetthe requirements to fall into a zero tolerance issue. Ifthey are not sure, have them check with a district officeperson who has a clear understanding of the law or pol-icy your district uses. Make sure those definitions forwhat constitutes a weapon or drugs are clearly definedin your policy. Review your old policies to make surethey are still applicable today.

The most difficult issue is not simply the definitionof what each offense represents, but what your organi -zation believes is its responsibility to educate and itsstance on school climate.

In the community that your district serves, is mari-juana use so common in the community that a zerotolerance policy toward a small amount would lead toa significant number of students not being able to receiveeducational services? Again, these are decisions that haveto be made locally and based on what your communitymay need or desire.

Everyone wants schools to be safe and crime free.But when do we stop serving as an educational institu-tion and start serving as part of the criminal justicesystem? Today’s educators are challenged to decide whereto draw the line between tolerance and zero tolerance.

Yes, you need discipline in your school so you caneducate your students, but you also need understandingand compassion. Take the lead in your district by reallylooking at your zero tolerance policy and asking yourselfif it truly serves a purpose as it is written. If not, step upto the plate and recommend changes.

Brian N. Moore, RSBS, is supervisor of public safety for RedClay School District in Wilmington, Delaware, vice chair of theASBO’s School Facilities Committee, and a member of theASBO Editorial Advisory Committee. Email: [email protected]

Coming in the November SBA: Focus on HR Issues


Collaboration and the Collective-Bargaining Process in Public EducationBy Matthew Noggle, Ed.D.



In the vast majority of school districts, the collective-bargaining process has evolved little during the pastfew decades. Teachers unions have successfully rep-resented teachers’ economic and job security

interests by linking them to collective bargaining andprocedural due process rights, but district administratorscontinue to make the decisions about educational deliv-ery and quality (Kerchner, Koppich, and Weeres 1998).

For the most part, neither side seems to recognizemuch need for a collaborative bond. In fact, very littleinformation is available about how collaborative labor-management models are established and maintained.

However, in many districts, teachers unions and dis-trict administrators are beginning to incorporate

collaborative actions to their collective-bargainingprocesses and daily interactions. Teacher contracts arebeginning to include nontraditional issues such asteacher professional development, teacher quality,instructional delivery, student achievement standards,and educational reform (Koppich 2005; Urbanski 1998).

In Miami-Dade, Florida, the school district and itsteachers union use a joint committee that meets regularlyto update the teachers’ contract with recent initiativesthat have evolved and to establish the course for futureinitiatives and other changes (Kerchner and Koppich1993). In Rochester, New York, and Hammond,Indiana, the contract includes language that permits amore timely response to issues that demand more imme-



diate attention (Urbanski 2003). In those districts, aswell as others across the country, issues no longer festeruntil contract negotiations resume; rather they areaddressed at the time, when the issue is significant.

One study of collaboration between school districtadministrations and teachers unions revealed that collab-oration emerged from a discontent with the adversarialstatus quo. The initial foray into collaboration did notnecessarily include collaborative contract negotiationsat all sites, although all districts eventually incorporatedsome form of collaborative interest-based approach totheir collective-bargaining process. Some adopted aformal type of interest-based bargaining and receivedformal training to implement it, while others incorpo-rated less formal collaborative principles to theircollective-bargaining process (Noggle 2010).

The commingling of teacher and administrative rolesvia contract negotiations transformed the school districtsin this study. Teachers unions were no longer fixatedsolely on financial gains. Administrative leaders beganto share control over traditional administrative functionsand draw on the expertise of their teaching staff, allow-ing greater latitude for teachers to improve their craftand that of their peers.

The essence of collabor ativebargaining is rooted in a jointemphasis on communicatinginterests and avoiding takingpositions.

By shedding traditional positional posturing, teachersunion leaders and district management successfullynegotiated improved salary compensation, site-baseddecision making, peer review programs, and improve-ments to teacher quality and student academicperformance and secured significant grant funding fortheir respective districts (Noggle 2010).

The essence of collaborative bargaining is rooted in ajoint emphasis on communicating interests and avoidingtaking positions. Both parties should view the final nego-tiated agreement as a flexible, living document, subjectto change as needed. This approach allows districts andunions the opportunity to address problems as they ariserather than waiting for formal negotiations to resume.

When the process is collaborative, contract negotia-tions are often shorter, less time is spent on laborrelations, and fewer grievances are filed between con-tracts. Discussions throughout the district remainfocused on educational issues rather than contractualissues (Doyle 1992).

Expanding teacher authority through shared decisionmaking cultivates greater ownership in the successesof the district (Ilg 1999). Collaborative bargaining alsoopens other avenues for collaboration and problemsolving. In the many districts that espouse collaborativebargaining, representatives from labor and managementmeet regularly, not just during negotiations. Thisapproach to meeting between rounds of formal bargain-ing can provide a forum to settle contract issues, solveproblems, and consider proposals.

A district’s readiness forcollaborative bargainingdepends in part on bothsides having an impetusfor change.

A district’s readiness for collaborative bargainingdepends in part on both sides having an impetus forchange (Noggle 2010). If either side is satisfied with thetraditional approach, collaborative bargaining will notsucceed. If either side expects to win at the other team’sexpense, collaborative bargaining will not succeedbecause the premise of collaborative bargaining is thatneither side wins unless both sides win (Doyle 1992).

ReferencesDoyle, R. 1992. A better way to bargain. American School BoardJournal 179 (7): 22–24.

Ilg, T. J. 1999. Negotiating with teachers’ unions: Ongoingprocess or. . . . School Business Affairs 65 (4): 28–32.

Kerchner, C. T., and J. Koppich. 1993. A union of professionals:Labor relations and educational reform. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Kerchner, C. T., J. Koppich, and J. G. Weeres. 1998. Takingcharge of quality: How teachers and unions can revitalizeschools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koppich, J. 2005. Addressing teacher quality through induction,professional compensation, and evaluation: The effects on labor-management relations. Educational Policy 19 (1): 90–111.

Noggle, M. 2010. Win-Win: A Case Study of CollaborativeStructures between Labor and Management. Ph.D. diss., TempleUniversity, 2010. Abstract in Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 71/02 (August 2010).

Urbanski, A. 1998. TURNing unions around. ContemporaryEducation 69 (4): 186–90.

———. 2003. Improving student achievement through labor-management collaboration in urban school districts. EducationalPolicy 17 (4): 503–18.

Matthew Noggle, Ed.D., is a teacher in suburban Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected]


The Privatization of Public EducationBy Richard Hunter, Ed.D.



supplies, food service, and transportation. Many publicschool districts contract with for-profit companies toprovide services in these areas and have done so formany years. Soft services include administration andinstruction. When EMOs offer soft services, they takeover the operation of the school and provide principals,teachers, and classroom instruction.

Supporting PrivatizationWhy is public education being privatized? Murphy(1996) identifies several reasons, including the following:• A rising tide of discontent about public education’s

ability to properly educate students• A perception that government is attempting to do

more than it should with regard to education in theUnited States

• Poor performance in the public sector, including edu-cation

• Prolonged budgetary pressures• The resurgence of the political right and its influence

over government• The expansion of pro-market forces• Increased interest in the political system’s pointing us

toward greater privatization of government services.People believe that public education, which they asso-

ciate with the government, is inefficient and the privatesector is efficient. Thus, if government services are priva-tized, efficiency will increase and scarce resources will besaved.

Governments and school districts contract out servicesfor other reasons: to solve labor problems, to producehigher-quality services, to reduce implementation time,to promote shared risk between the government and theprivate sector, and to help the government avoid localpolitical problems sometimes associated with laborunions (Hunter 1995).

Opposing PrivatizationArguments against contracting with for-profit companiesfor hard or soft services are embedded in the followingstatements:• Political implications must be considered because

sometimes there is great opposition to privatizing gov-ernment services. Opposition often comes fromemployee unions, but it can come from parents as well.

For-profit education is not a new focus for publicschools in the United States. It has been aroundfor several decades, has stimulated considerablecontroversy, and has been heralded by some as

a panacea for improving learning for the nation’s publicschool students.

For-profit schools are run by private, for-profit compa-nies or organizations often referred to as educationalmanagement organizations (EMOs). For the most part,for-profit or privatized schools are funded by the local,state, or federal government and offer free education topublic school students (Bracey 2002).

These EMOs offer “hard services” and “soft services”(Russo and others 1995). Hard services include books,


PLUS 360, the next generation of the trusted PLUS SERIESTM product line, represents an approach uniqueto K-12 education technology: A single, integrated, district-wide software suite that allows teachers, parentsand administrators to manage all their relevant student and administrative data in support of student achievement. The PLUS 360 product suite provides true 360º access to critical data, when and where you need it.PLUS 360 includes powerful products that can be packaged together to integrate student, financialand administrative data across the enterprise, or used individually as powerful stand-alone systems.

Introducing PLUS 360,TM the comprehensive and innovative suite of K-12 software solutions for student information, learning management, special education, and financial and human resources, used in over 1,500 school districts nationwide.

PLUS 360360º Access Anywhere

Collaborate Anywhere

Integrate Anywhere

Learn Anywhere

Inspire Anywhere

Teach Anywhere

Contribute Anywhere

Flexibility Anywhere

Validate Anywhere

Student Achievement Anywhere.Measure Anywhere

Assess Anywhere

Map Anywhere

Analyze Anywhere

Communicate Anywhere

Create Anywhere

One Solution.

SunGardPS.com/PLUS360 | 866.965.PSEC

© 2010 SunGard Public SectorSunGard and the SunGard logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunGard Data Systems Inc. or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and other countries. PLUS Series and PLUS 360 are registered trademarks of SunGard Public Sector Inc. All other trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Student Information Management | Learning Management | Special Education Management | Financial and Human Resource Management

Connect the Community


• Decreased managerial control accompaniescontracting out services. For example, with regard toschool bus transportation services, I’ve experienceda situation in which a for-profit company wouldnot pick up students during inclement weatherbecause of a labor agreement with the union.Consequently, many students were forced towalk home in the snow.

• The quality of services can suffer with for-profitcompanies that are concerned with making moneyand reducing costs. For example, in the BaltimoreCity Public School District, the for-profit companyeliminated special-education services in the schoolsthey were contracted to operate because those serviceswere too expensive and cut into their profits.

• The reliability of services can be suddenly inter-rupted when the company providing the services goesbankrupt or experiences a shortfall of cash.

• The potential for improprieties increasesbecause of possible corruption in the bidding process.The favored company may be incapable of providingthe services specified in the contract (Lyons 1995).Another reason people oppose public school districts’

hiring for-profit companies is the cost of the contractedservices often increases dramatically after the company’sinitial contract. Some attribute this rise in cost to the

underbidding by for-profit providers who want to get theinitial contract and demonstrate to school districts thatthere are greater efficiencies in contracting out.

Unfortunately for school districts, such an increasehappens after they have disposed of their equipment andpersonnel and no longer have the ability to provide theservices they have contracted out to the for-profit com-pany. Thus, the for-profit company has the schooldistrict over a barrel, and the district is forced to payincreased costs for the services (Hunter 1995).

People believe that publiceducation, which they associatewith the government, isinefficient and the privatesector is efficient.

The National Education Association (2010) offers yetanother argument against for-profit companies by indi-cating that public officials are less accountable to thepatrons of school districts when services are taken overby private contractors.

Bracey (2002) argues that a war is being waged onpublic schools in the United States and identifies the ene-


mies as conservative foundations, media, higher educa-tion, business and industry, Christian and politicalconservatives, and the enemy within. Bracey questionsthe motivations of governors, state boards of education,and legislators who have created unreasonably high passrates for state accountability tests for public school stu-dents as a justification for privatizing public schools.

The Future of PrivatizationThe number of public schools being operated by EMOsincreased from 18,375 schools and 180,632 students in2002–03 to 24,483 schools and 227,740 students in2004–05. However, the number of EMO-operatedschools declined to 23,457 schools and 218,675 studentsin 2006–07. These data suggest the growth of privatiza-tion in public education may have slowed and appears tobe stabilizing (Molmar and others 2007).

On the other hand, the increase in the number of char-ter schools advocated by the Obama administration ingrants to states under the Reach for the Stars programmay significantly expand the opportunities for EMOs toprovide more “soft services” to public school districts(King and Martinez 2010). Is public education likely tobe taken over by privatization? Bauman (1996) says noand maintains that the public education system is toolarge and entrenched to be privatized.

ConclusionThere has and will continue to be great concern over thelack of effectiveness and efficiency of the public educa-tion system. The majority of this ire should be directedat the schools that primarily serve low-achieving minor-ity group students (Hodgkinson 1991).

Most of the for-profit or privatization projects thatprovide “soft services” are located in school districtsthat serve such populations, although evidence suggeststhat for-profit companies do not have a corner on themarket of educational strategies and are not succeedingany better than regular public schools at educating thesestudent groups.

Perhaps we should reform the public education systemby devoting more resources to equalize expenditures forall student groups, regardless of their race, ethnicity, com-munity, or individual wealth. All systems are failing toproperly educate the children of the poor, including alltypes of public and private schools, and charter schools,as well as schools that are managed by for-profit compa-nies (Lubienski and Lubienski 2006).

ReferencesBauman, P. C. 1996. Governing education: Public sector reformor privatization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bracey, G. W. 2002. The war against America’s public schools:Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Hodgkinson, H. 1991. Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan73 (1): 9–16.

Hunter, R. C. 1995. Privatization of instruction in public educa-tion. Education and Urban Society 27 (2): 168–94.

King, N., and B. Martinez. 2010. States race to apply for U.S.education funds. Wall Street Journal, January 29. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575012860304884840.html.

Lubienski, S. T., and C. Lubienski. 2006. School sector and aca-demic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAESP mathematicsdata. American Educational Research Journal 43 (4): 651–98.

Lyons, J. E. 1995. Contracting out for public school supportservices. Education and Urban Society 27 (2): 154–67.

Molmar, A., D. R. Garcia, G. Miron, and S. Berry. 2007. Profilesof for-profit education management organization: Ninth annualreport, 2006–2007. Tempe, AR: Education Policy StudiesLaboratory.

Murphy, J. 1996. The privatization of schooling: Problems andpossibilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Education Association. 2010. Privatization.http://www.nea.org/home/16355.htm.

Russo, C. J., R. F. Sandidge, R. Shapiro, and J. J. Harris III.1995. Legal issues in contracting out for public education serv-ices. Education and Urban Society 27 (2): 127–35.

Richard Hunter, Ed.D., is a professor of education at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a memberof the ASBO Editorial Advisory Committee. Email: [email protected]

WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICTSDON’T KNOW

This fall, the Center on Education Policy recently releaseda report highlighting the extent to which school districtshave experience implementing the four federally man-dated school reform models meant to “turn around” thenation’s lowest-performing 5% of schools: the turnaround,restart, closure, and transformation models.

According to the report, School Districts’ Perspectiveson the Economic Stimulus Package: School ImprovementGrants Present Uncertainty and Opportunity:

More than one-third of the nation’ school districts wereunfamiliar with the four models, and few districts hadimplemented any of them. Fewer than 12% of the nation’sschool districts had implemented any of the models inone or more schools.

Fewer than 12% of districts had received assistancefrom the state for any of the four improvement models.More districts—although still a small minority—had receivedstate assistance with the turnaround and transformationmodels, rather than with the restart and closure models.

Districts that implemented the models had varyingdegrees of success with them. For three of the models(turnaround, restart, and closure), there were no differ-ences in the estimated percentages of districts that hadpositive results versus those that had unknown, mixed, orpoor results. For the transformation model, roughly 91%of the districts that tried this model had positive results.



With the challenges facing school districts today, the same old methods of managing your finances and human resources simply do not work. Today, performance counts. You need to be more efficient, and if your desire is to “go green” by reducing paper consumption, alio® will get you there.

More school districts are turning to alio® education management software because alio provides:

• Superior technology developed by the industry leader – Weidenhammer • Powered by Oracle™ and featuring web-based technology alio® • Fully integrated library of Financial and Human Resource management software To learn more about alio®, contact Weidenhammer today via www.hammer.net or call 866-497-2227.

Financial Management Software

Finally, a Different Approach That Pays!

Litigation and School Finance:A Cautionary TaleCharles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D.



In the most recent school finance case, ConnecticutCoalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell (Rell2010), a plurality of justices held that since the plaintiffs’challenge to the state’s system of funding was subject tojudicial review, the dispute had to be remanded for atrial on the merits of their claims.

Overview of School Finance LitigationThe Supreme Court of California’s decision in Serranov. Priest (Serrano I 1971), the first major school financecase, generated more reaction than any other such litiga-tion in a state court. In Serrano I the court found that afunding plan that dictated that the quality of a child’seducation was based on a school system’s wealth dis-criminated against poor students by violating the EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment andthe state constitution. While the United States SupremeCourt essentially repudiated Serrano I a year andone-half later in San Antonio, the Supreme Court ofCalifornia ultimately reaffirmed its initial judgment inSerrano v. Priest II (1976) under the state constitution.

Shortly after Serrano I, a federal trial court in Texasapplied its rationale in striking down the state’s systemof funding public education. However, in San AntonioIndependent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) theSupreme Court reversed in favor of Texas, rejectingthe plaintiffs’ claim that the system was discriminatorybecause per-child costs bore a rational relationship to thestate’s goal of educating students. In often-quoted lan-guage, the Court noted that “[e]ducation, of course, isnot among the rights afforded explicit protection underour Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis forsaying it is implicitly so protected” (p. 35). The Courtadded that since the legislature and local school boardswere better prepared to address school funding, it woulddefer to their authority.

Since San Antonio, school finance has been litigatedexclusively in state courts, ordinarily under the equalprotection clauses of their constitutions. Starting withSerrano I, school finance litigation passed through threestages (Thro 1994). The cases during the first phase,Serrano I and San Antonio, focused on the federal con-stitution. The second wave, starting in New Jersey with

Beginning in the early 1970s, plaintiffs initiateda veritable tidal wave of litigation over financ-ing public education in states with unequalfunding for students in poor school systems.

In the only case on school finance to reach the UnitedStates Supreme Court, San Antonio Independent SchoolDistrict v. Rodriguez (1973), the justices rejected a chal-lenge to Texas’ method of funding public schools on thebasis that education is not a federally protected consti -tutional right. In so ruling, the Court opened the flood -gates of litigation. Plaintiffs in the majority of stateshave succeeded in reforming about one-half of theschool funding systems in the United States.



Robinson v. Cahill (1973) and including Serrano II(1976), involved litigation fought on the equality provi-sions in state constitutions. The third wave began withKentucky’s Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989),initiating a series of disputes that emphasized educa-tional adequacy under state constitutions.

Because of litigation, state supreme courts frequentlyorder legislatures to modify their funding formulas whendiscrepancies vary greatly between and among schoolsystems, usually when plans fail to narrow the gapbetween poor and wealthy districts. The courts usuallygrant legislatures time to redesign their plans but stillcommonly result in multiple rounds of litigation.

Connecticut Coalition for Justice inEducation Funding v. RellConnecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Fundingv. Rell (Rell 2010) represents the third round of litiga-tion to reach the state’s supreme court on the adequacyof financing public schools. In Rell, the plaintiffs filedsuit alleging that the state’s public schools did not offersubstantially equal educational opportunities to allstudents and that African Americans were dispropor -tionately affected.

In Rell, the seven-member court handed down a judgment in excess of 100 pages. At its heart, Rell wasa three-justice plurality opinion, meaning that it is not

binding precedent since a majority of members of thecourt failed to agree on exactly the same rationale.

At the outset of its analysis, the three-justice pluralitycited Connecticut’s first school finance case, Horton v.Meskill (1977), which declared that the state had theduty to “provide a substantially equal educationalopportunity to youth in its free public elementary andsecondary school” (Rell at 210, citing Meskill at 375).The plurality asserted that almost 20 years later, in Sheffv. O’Neill (1996), the court acknowledged its role “inensuring that our state’s public school students receivethat fundamental guarantee” (Rell at 210). Relying onScheff, the plurality rejected the state’s contention thatRell was a non-justiciable political question. Instead, theplurality identified the issue before it as whether the leg-islature met the state constitutional mandate to providean appropriate education.

The plurality further described its task as resolvingwhether the state constitution provides public schoolstudents with “the right to a particular minimum qualityof education, namely, suitable educational opportuni-ties” (Rell 2010, p. 211). In its more than 40-pageopinion, the plurality divided its analysis into six sec-tions, discussing the key passage from the stateconstitution, article eighth, § 1, according to which“[t]here shall always be free public and elementaryschools in the state. The general assembly shall imple-


ment this principle by appropriate legislation”; its hold-ings and dicta or non-binding statements of law; stateconstitutional history on school finance; a review of fed-eral case law; relevant case law from other states; andeconomic and sociological public policy considerations.

In its rationale the plurality included the substantiverequirement that the state offer students an educationaffording them a variety of overlapping opportunitiessuch as entering higher education, participating fully inthe democratic activities of voting and jury duty, andfinding productive employment. Reversing an earlierorder to the contrary, the plurality concluded that sinceRell did not present a political question that was exemptfrom judicial review, it had to be returned to the trialcourt for further proceedings to consider how the statecould provide “suitable educational opportunities”(Rell 2010, p. 211) for all children in Connecticut.

Justice Palmer’s concurrence agreed with the major-ity’s ultimate outcome but disagreed to the extent that hebelieved that the legislature, not the judiciary, is respon-sible for defining an adequate education. In focusing onconstitutional issues, Justice Schaller’s concurrenceechoed similar concerns in questioning whether a trialcourt has the ability to evaluate the nature of an ade-quate education.

Justice Vertefuille’s dissent agreed with the pluralitythat Rell was justiciable but disagreed as to the meaningof the disputed state constitutional text. JusticeVertefuille reasoned that since the language did mean toensure that public schools always existed in Connecticut,but was not designed to establish a suitable educationalstandard, the court should have affirmed the earlierorder dismissing the case. Justice Zarella, joined byJustice McLachlan would have dismissed the suit as non-justiciable, cautioning that the plurality set a dangerousprecedent by further blurring the lines between the sepa-ration of powers between the legislature and judiciary.

ReflectionsAs well-intentioned as the plurality’s judgment in Rellappears to be in its quest to provide a quality educationfor all public school students in the state, its remandingthe case for a trial opens a proverbial “can of worms”for three reasons. Whether viewed together or separately,these points can serve as part of a cautionary tale forschool business officials and others who are interested inpublic education.

First, in remanding Rell for proceedings that are likelyto stretch out for years, the court delayed the creation ofan equitable funding solution to better serve the educa-tional needs of children. The parties should thus strive toreach a non-judicial agreement on how to reform thestate’s school funding formula.

Second, regardless of how the litigation plays out, theplurality may have created extra difficulties in failing to

set an appropriate standard defining the limits of an“adequate education.”

Third, pursuant to language in the disputed provisionof the state constitution that was highlighted by thedissent, that control over public education is a legisla-tive prerogative, vociferous debate will continue overthe fundamental question of whether school financereform should be directed by elected political officialsor the judiciary.

As a practical matter, evidenced in the majority ofschool finance cases during the past 40 years, a host ofpractical issues remain even if the court or ConnecticutGeneral Assembly could devise an acceptable fundingformula. On the one hand, a funding formula still can-not adequately address such intangibles as parentalassistance in helping their children learn, teacherquality, student motivation, and creating an ethosin schools and communities that encourages studentsto strive for higher achievement.

Turning to tangible factors, even if lawmakers orjudges can devise an equitable formula to provide addi-tional funding to pay for newer school buildings,facilities, books, and equipment, based on the experi-ences of other states where school finance litigation hasoccurred, it is unclear whether these extra expendituresare likely to have much of an impact on student achieve-ment in communities that are economically depressed.Such a result is particularly questionable in Connecticut,since it ranks eighth in national averages in per pupilfunding at $11,885 per child, well above the nationalnorm of $9,963 (Mitani, 2009, citing National Centerfor Education Statistics).

Clearly, insofar as funding is not necessarily the solefactor in seeking to increase student achievement, legis -lators and jurists need to be mindful of the need to seeka holistic solution.

The major additional costs associated with schoolreform that emerged in concurring and dissenting opin-ions in Rell, and which are examined in the nextparagraph, are of course focused on Connecticut. Evenso, this discussion can serve to caution school businessofficials and others who are interested in public schools.Hopefully education leaders can rely on Rell to avoidsome of the issues that emerged in Connecticut’s morethan 30-year seemingly never-ending cycle of legislationbeing litigated, revised, and re-litigated because of thetremendous financial costs that are likely to arise in sucha sequence of events.

Citing a 2005 report released by the plaintiffs in the runup to Rell, Justice Palmer noted that the study suggestedthat if the state were to meet the standard of educationdesired by the coalition, it could cost an addition $2.2billion per year. Palmer commented that this total was“approximately 92% more than the amount that the stateactually spent” (Rell p. 267) during the 2003-04 school




year on which the sum was predicated. Palmer was quickto concede that it may well have been premature to usesuch an estimate. Yet, given annual inflation and relatedcost increases, it is hard to imagine that this amountwould be less and could impose a major strain onalready highly taxed citizens during a down economy.

Without referring to this study, but maintaining thatthe plurality overstepped its bounds, Justice Zarella’sdissent observed that “[i]t will require the legislatureto appropriate at least $2 billion per year in additionalfunding to ensure that Connecticut schoolchildren willbe provided with the resources allegedly required fora suitable education” (Rell, p. 301).

Rell should encourage education leaders to promotelegislative solutions rather than ask judges to resolvethe essentially political question of how best to financepublic schools. Such an approach should be speedierand more cost-effective than engaging in years of pro-tracted litigation.

Clearly, if legislatures cannot balance the complexcombination of educational, funding, legal, and socio-logical questions associated with providing suitablefinancial resources for schools, the courts must inter-vene. However, to the extent that judicial action oftentakes years and consumes untold resources without mov-ing any closer to the goal of providing equitable fundingfor public schools, then perhaps leaders of good faith

can come together to devise plans to better educateAmerica’s children.

ReferencesConnecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell,990 A.2d 206 (Conn. 2010).

Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (Conn. 1977).

Mitani, H. (2009, Jan. 2009). Per Pupil Funding Approaches$10,000. available at www.edweek.org/rc/articles/2009/01/21/sow0121.h27.html

Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973).

Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1989).

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.1 (1973).

Serrano v. Priest (I), 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal.1971).

Serrano v. Priest (II), 557 P.2d 929 (Cal.1976), cert. denied, 432U.S. 907 (1977).

Sheff v. O’Neill, 678 A.2d 1267 (Conn. 1996).

Thro, W.E. (1994). Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave ofSchool Finance Litigation: the Massachusetts Decision as aModel, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 35, pp. 597-616.

Charles J. Russo, J.D., Ed.D., is Panzer Chair in Education andadjunct professor of law at the University of Dayton (Ohio),and chair of ASBO’s Legal Affairs Committee. Email:[email protected]


She did not supervise themdirectly; they were employedseveral layers beneath her withinthe organization.

• The manager of custodial servicesand grounds supervised his son.

• Two brothers were employed asmanagers in the maintenancedepartment while two otherbrothers—one a manager, theother a supervisor—were em -ployed in the same department. Awife of one brother was em ployedin the district’s equal edu cationalopportunities department.

• A database analysis revealed thatof the 37,550 school districtemployees, 2,400 shared a hometelephone number with anotheremployee.

Nepotism: A Policy of Convenience?By Robert Ruder



An exposé by Jennifer Gollan andMegan O’Matz that appeared in theMarch 6, 2010 Sun-Sentinel sent seis-mic waves through the BrowardCounty School District in southFlorida. Frequently criticized by themedia for an endless string of ques-tionable practices, the district saw itspublic trust erode even more bycharges of nepotism. In a time ofheightened fiscal accountability, thelack of community support and dimin-ished trust further complicate andchallenge the primary responsibility ofschool entities: to educate children.

The investigative report related thefollowing details of the situation:• A transportation manager had

15 relatives, 6 family friends,and her pastor working with her.

Nepotism is one of thosewords that makes uscringe. The hint of suchbehavior within an organi-

zation immediately raises suspicionsof unethical behavior despite well-written, comprehensive policies andprocedures. School districts are notimmune to the damage that can bedone to even the most highly regardedand well-respected organizations.

Yet despite well-written and com-prehensive policies, the possibility ofnepotism may envelop a district inan ominous cloud that challenges adistrict’s hiring practices and organi-za tional structure. Accompanyingthat cloud may be the threat ofexhaustive investigations and a critical local media.


The newspaper’s investigation into alleged nepotismbrought to light the possibility of mismanagement withinthe school district that included sexual harassment andkickbacks in exchange for obtaining positions. Whilenepotism is not illegal, its perceived existence within theschool district prompted district administrators toreview existing policies to address the concerns of thedistrict employees and the community.

While nepotism is notillegal, its perceivedexistence within the schooldistrict prompted districtadministrators to reviewexisting policies

Further exacerbating the problem was the charge by aunion official that the son of a supervisor completed thedistrict’s three-year apprenticeship program in two years.The official indicated that there have been two or threeother similar scenarios out of 50 apprenticeships withinthe district in recent years.

The decision by an eight-member district committeethat allowed the employee to circumvent the three-yearapprenticeship requirement opened the door for a law-suit initiated by a journeyman carpenter who claimed hewas required to spend four years in the apprenticeshipprogram when the district hired him almost 30 yearsearlier. A federal jury awarded the carpenter $200,000after hearing his claims of nepotism, racial discrimina-tion, and violation of rights under the Americans withDisabilities Act. The school district is appealing thejury’s ruling.

A Widespread Problem?Gretchen McKay of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette saidit was difficult for her to identify a school district inPennsylvania “where at least one teacher isn’t related toa board member, administrator, or another employee.”

Working around the suspicion of nepotism by elimi-nating district policy is a tactic that Pennsylvania schooldis tricts have employed, according to McKay in her2003 article, “Nepotism Loosely Regulated by State,School Districts.”

According to McKay, in 1998, the Ringgold SchoolDistrict eliminated its anti-nepotism policy, allowing theschool board to renew the contract of the high school’sbaseball coach who was the son of a board member.The neighboring Bethel Park School District used anoverride clause in its nepotism policy to allow thedistrict to hire a relative of a district employee.Other dis-


tricts within the region have allowed greater latitude intheir nepotism policies to be able to draw well-qualifiedpersonnel into the communities that attract few appli-cants for vacant positions.

An article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitutionannounced that two Georgia school board members arehoping to overturn the state’s newly adapted nepotismprovision that prevents them from seeking reelection.Reporter Kristina Torres shared with the paper’s readersin a January 2010 article that a suit has been filed in fed-eral court. The provision bars someone from serving ona local school board if he or she has an immediate familymember working in the same school district in a varietyof administrative positions. One plaintiff’s wife is anassistant principal and another’s daughter is an assistantprincipal in their school systems.

The Grand Rapids, Michigan, school board ponderedthe need to generate a nepotism policy after a youthadvocate in the school system who was also the sonof a school board member was convicted of having sexual relationships with students. After discussingwhether a nepotism policy was needed, the school boardindicated that it had “no plans to create a policy againsthiring relatives.”

With or without officialboard policy, nepotismexists in various shadesof gray in school districts.

Dave Murray of the Grand Rapids Press reported inthe February 19, 2010 issue that the school board secre-tary felt that banning the relatives of school boardmembers from employment would “tie the district’shands.” The board secretary also said: “We looked athow many people we have on the payroll who are relatedto another employee, and realized that we have somereally great employees. Telling someone we couldn’t hirethem just because of who they are related to would puta real crimp in our ability to get the very best peoplewe can get.”

In Gallup, New Mexico, members of the Gallup–McKinley County School District began wrestling withtheir nepotism policy in 2004. A February 28, 2004 arti-cle written by Zsombor Peter of the Gallup Independentspoke to the possibility of the school board’s waiving itspolicy that restricted the family of school board mem-bers from competing for district contracts.

Prompting this discussion was the consideration ofwaiving the existing policy so the wife of a school boardmember could participate in a bidding process that pro-vided diagnostic and special-education services toMcKinley County students.


The school board tabled the decision as it consideredexpanding the waiver beyond this particular case toallow the families of board members to participate in bid-ding for future contracts without having to seek a waiverfor each contract. Two board members who supportedthe waiver nonetheless expressed their concerns that“granting the waiver, even if it meets legal conditions,would carry the appearance of nepotism and potentiallydiscourage others from applying (or bidding).”

The nepotism policy of the New Mexico SchoolBoards Association (www.nmsba.org) reflects the think-ing of the current board:

A person who is the spouse, father, father-in-law, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, brother, brother-in-law,sister, sister-in-law of a member of the Board or Super -intendent may not be initially employed or approved foremployment in any capacity in the District. The local schoolboard may waive the nepotism rule for family members ofa local superintendent. Nothing in this section of the policyshall prohibit the continued employment of such a personemployed on or before March 1, 2003.

No, school employee may be the immediate supervisorof one’s spouse, father, father-in-law, mother, mother-in-law,son, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law.

With or without official board policy, nepotism existsin various shades of gray in school districts. Districtseager to develop comprehensive policies that encompassevery possible scenario to avoid charges of nepotismmay feel as if their mission is akin to herding cats.Other districts committed to easing or eliminating policies designed to address nepotism will find theirgoal just as difficult but a bit more precarious andpotentially expensive as employees or candidates forpositions seek legal recourse for not being promotedor not being hired.

There appears to be no one-size-fits-all answer forall school districts as they address this issue, which canbe unifying or divisive. Regardless of a district’s think-ing, a review of case law is a wise place for prudentdistrict policy makers to begin the decision-makingprocess. Keeping in mind the adage “If it walks likea duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it mustbe a duck” may keep the process well grounded andmoving forward.

Robert Ruder is a retired school administrator and writer inLancaster, Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected]


January 2011 TechnologyArticles due October 1

February 2011 Support Services and StaffArticles due November 1

March 2011 CommunicationArticles due December 1

April 2011 Kids and CommunityArticles due January 1

May 2011 Legal Issues and RiskManagementArticles due February 1

June 2011 LeadershipArticles due March 1

July/Aug 2011 Research and AnalysisArticles due April 1

September 2011 Financial and Strategic PlanningArticles due June 1

October 2011 Budgeting and ReportingArticles due July 1

November 2011 FacilitiesArticles due August 1

December 2011 Human ResourcesArticles due September 1

HAVE SOMETHINGTO SHARE?

SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS is your magazine. Shareyour proven strategies, your knowledge, and yourperspectives. Let us hear from you. Visitwww.asbointl.org for submission guidelines.


www.asbointl.org

School business managersare in the unique positionof supervising the areas ofthe operation that present

the greatest opportunities for legalissues to arise.

New construction and renovationprojects are strewn with legal landmines. The possibility of lawsuitshovers like a black cloud over per-sonnel issues. Opportunities fortransportation or food service issuesto crop up are continuous. Andschool business officials often arecalled on to weigh in on issuesinvolving equal education andunhappy parents.

Our attorneys handle most of theissues related to any litigation pend-ing against our schools or districts;yet there is one area in which we areon our own: depositions. During adeposition, the district’s attorney

can offer advice and moral support,but little else. It is a stressful processand the best preparation is to learna little bit about this portion of thelegal process.

Overview and ProcessA deposition is one of the mostimportant elements in a civil case.Specifically, it is a pretrial discoverydevice in which one party’s lawyerquestions another party or witnessin the case in order to gather infor-mation. It’s a game of TwentyQuestions.

During the actual deposition, youare not there to defend your schoolor district; you are not in control;you are not there to clarify issues. Itis definitely not a time to get on yoursoapbox. The goal of the depositionis simple from your perspec tive: an -swer the questions and do no harm.


By the time you are ready to startthe deposition process, you willalready have begun the litigationprocess by filing various documents.At some point, your attorney willnotify you that opposing counselwishes to depose you, to find out asmuch as possible about you andwhat you know related to the case.

The actual deposition usuallytakes place in the lawyer’s officewith several people in attendance,including the opposing party’s attor-neys and maybe the client. Yourattorney should be with you to pro-tect your rights. In addition, a courtreporter will take down the conver-sation verbatim.

The opposing counsel will begauging you as a witness, determin-ing whether you will be credible attrial, whether a jury will like youand, more importantly, believe you.If the attorney concludes that youwill make a good witness for thedefense, he or she will likely wantto avoid trial.

Getting ReadyDepending on the complexity of thecase, you may want to start prepar-ing for your deposition about a weekbefore the scheduled date. By pre -paring any earlier, you may risk for-getting the information that wascovered; preparing closer to thedate may significantly increase youranxiety level.

A good attorney will thoroughlyreview all documents related to thecase: all the pleadings, the com-plaint, the answer, and any expertdesignations. This information will

You’ve Been Served:Surviving a DepositionBy Nan Wodarz, Ed.D.



help you fully understand the background of the caseand why you were deposed.

Your testimony at the deposition must be consistentwith all previous testimony and signed, sworn state -ments. If testimony is inconsistent, your credibilitywill suffer.

With the help of your attorney, try to anticipate thetough questions and prepare answers for them. Ask yourattorney to question you in the same manner that oppos-ing counsel would. Learning to respond under pressure,in a confrontational setting, will help you prepare for thestress you will experience on “game day.”

Although the actual deposition is less formal than acourt appearance, it should still be treated with the samelevel of seriousness. Dress as you would for court or ajob interview. Make sure to get a good night’s sleep andset up the necessary safety measures to ensure that youarrive at the designated location on time. Being late isnot an option.

Interacting with the AttorneysYour attorney will remind you that you are “on” anytime the opposing counsel is present. Make sure you arementally prepared to begin. Then follow these tips.• Don’t be intimidated. Clearly, the whole process

is intimidating, but come in confident and ready.Remember, everyone is there to complete a businesstransaction.

• Don’t tell little white lies. This tip is especiallyimportant if you are prone to exaggeration. Yourtestimony must be correct. Any white lies will comeback to haunt you. The deposition is conductedunder oath and is the equivalent of court testimony.A person who doesn’t tell the truth during a deposi-tion can be cited for perjury.

• Follow your attorney’s advice. Many people getinto the heat of the situation and stop listening totheir attorney. This is a time when you do not knowbest. So even if you disagree with your attorney’sadvice, follow it anyway and then discuss the issueprivately.

• Don’t expect your attorney to do a lot ofhand-holding. Your attorney may interject to getclarification or to lead you to a more clear answer ifhe or she believes your answer was too vague.However, most of the time, he or she will be quiet.

• Pause before answering. After you are askeda question, wait several seconds before responding.This pause will allow your attorney to object tothe question if appropriate and will give you time togather your thoughts.

• Speak clearly, using proper grammar. Don’tsay um, ah, yeah, or nope because all utterances willbe transcribed exactly. Pauses are not recorded, sotake your time answering.

• Listen to the entire question. Don’t try to antic-ipate the question or interrupt the attorney. Listen forcategorical words like always, never, all, every, ornone. Responding to questions with these words canbe problematic.

• Ask for clarification. Never answer a questionthat is unclear. Ask the lawyer to rephrase the ques-tion or, if the question has multiple parts, to restateeach part as a separate question.

• Don’t guess at an answer. If you have troubleanswering a question, don’t guess. Rather, say, “Icannot recall” or “I do not remember.” There is adifference between these responses and “I don’tknow.” This distinction is especially important whenasked to estimate time or distance. If you mustanswer, use the phrase, “My best estimate is. . . .”

• Answer only the question that was asked.For a variety of reasons—like pent-up anger, a desireto be in command, nervousness, or a need to impressthe lawyer—people who are being deposed often offerboundless information. Random information thatdoes not directly address the question may lead to thediscovery of additional information that is counter-productive to the case. Do not elaborate or volunteerinformation.

• Don’t argue or use sarcasm or flippantremarks. Opposing counsel may attempt to provokeyou. Don’t play into his or her hands as it might indi-cate that you will behave the same way at trial, whichcould work in his or her favor.

• Relax. If coffee makes you jittery, skip it that day.Arrive comfortable and ready to go. A cordial, profes-sional manner will go a long way toward helpingyour cause.

• Don’t write or draw anything. There are norules that require you to draw a picture, diagram, ormap, even if opposing counsel asks you to. Anythingthat is written during the deposition may become partof the permanent record. And unless you are a giftedartist, you will likely make errors in content or scalethat could be problematic in the future.

• Take a break. As long as a question isn’t pending,ask for a 10-minute break. Sometimes it is a good ideato break once an hour so you can find out how youare doing and get advice from your attorney.

• Don’t chat. When taking a break at the beginningor end of the deposition, avoid chatting with theopposing parties or within their earshot. They arealert for any information that can help them, andyour job is to give them as little information as possi-ble. Remember, you are never “off the record.”

Types of QuestionsAttorneys have an arsenal of questions. An overviewof the types of questions they may ask will be helpful.



• Sandwich questions are three-part queries con-sisting of a compliment, the actual question, and aclosing compliment. For example, “Mr. Smith, Inotice that you are the senior director of humanresources and you are president of the local HRAssociation. Please give us an overview of the majorobjectives of your affirmative action program. Alsoidentify how your program has served as a model forother firms.” Flattery and criticism are tools used tosway the answers based on emotion. When a generalquestion is asked, give a general response.

• Close-ended questions limit the range ofresponses so the lawyer can obtain specific answers.For example, “Did you write this memo dated January15, 2008?” Do not immediately answer the question,even if you know you wrote the memo. Ask to see itand read it before answering the question in its nar-rowest form. If you wrote it, dictated it, or composedit, you will simply answer “yes.” Say no more.

• Open-ended questions cannot be answered with asimple yes or no. This questioning strategy is effectivebecause it takes advantage of people’s desire to talk,often revealing important information. For example,“Please describe the performance appraisal system.”This is a general question so the response should begeneral as well. A good response would be, “A writtenperformance evaluation is conducted on each employeeonce a year. After the evaluation is made, it is discussedwith the employee and the evaluation becomes part ofthe employee’s permanent record.” If more specificinformation is needed, you will be asked.

• Machine-gun questions are simple queries, fired inrapid succession, that require quick, simple answers.You get into a rhythm of question and answer and ifyou stop thinking before you answer, you may sud-denly find yourself having to dig out of a hole.

• Compound questions require two-part answers.This type of query puts additional stress on you inthat you will need to separate the questions and thenanswer each individually. Request that the attorneyask each question separately.

• Probing questions look for more details on some-thing you said previously. For example, afteranswering a question you may be asked, “Why didyou say that?” This type of question is like a fencer’sfoil thrust forward in hope of drawing blood. Thebest defense is to deflect the thrust. Respond,“Because I thought it was important.”

• Leading questions are worded to elicit the desiredanswer. They may begin with, “Isn’t it true that . . .”or “Would it be fair to say. . . .” Think carefully beforeanswering and give your attorney time to object.

• Loaded questions address key points in the law-suit and may possibly damage your case. In fact, aloaded question is often preceded by a true commentso the implication of the answer is easy to recognize.You should ask your attorney to try to anticipate anyloaded questions that may be asked and practiceanswering them.

• Nonquestions are actually statements followed bya pause. It is easy to presume that a question wasasked and attempt to answer it. Always listen for thequestion; if the attorney makes a statement andpauses, ask, “What is the question?”

• Hypothetical questions speculate about a givencondition or situation. These questions often beginwith phrases like, “Let’s assume that you . . .” or“If you were in his position. . . .” These questionshave no place at a deposition. If you allow the properwait time, your lawyer will undoubtedly object. Ifthere is no objection, try to deflect the question usinga phrase like “I have too little information on whichto make a decision.”

After the DepositionA few weeks after the deposition, your attorney willreceive a copy of the transcript. You have the right toreview and amend the transcript. The recorders arehuman and may have made an error, which you willwant to correct. You should request a copy and readit carefully. If you notice any inconsistencies, let yourattorney know right away.

You don’t “win” a deposition. The best you can hopefor is to survive and do no harm.

Nan Wodarz, Ed.D., is the director of the Robinson School inCondado, Puerto Rico. Email: [email protected]

A cordial, professional mannerwill go a long way toward

helping your cause.



Automated Employee Training:Efficiency and EffectivenessBy Laurie Boedicker

professional development


safety and violence prevention training in accordancewith legislation enacted in 2007. According to HouseBill 276, elementary certified staff required training inchild abuse detection, violence prevention, substanceabuse prevention, and positive youth development.

Highland is a small school district, so it is difficult tocoordinate design and delivery of this kind of training.Responsibility for executing these legislative mandatestends to funnel down to one person who is alreadystretched thin.

Responsibility for executing themandates issued by differentstate or federal agencies tendsto funnel down to one person.

The challenge intensified when the district had tocomply with two 2009 state laws: House Bill 1, whichexpanded HB 276 to include middle and high schoolcertified staff; and House Bill 19, or Tina’s Law, whichextended the safety and violence prevention training forstaff to include the identification and prevention of teendating violence.

Employees must complete at least four hours of thein-service training within two years after beginningemployment and every five years thereafter.

This situation became a challenge for Highlandbecause we do not have the resources to hire an administrator for personnel. To address this need, wereplaced most of our live, site-based, training withonline staff development.

Going OnlineHighland Local Schools introduced online training tofaculty and classified staff in August 2009. It proved tobe the right choice for our school district. Initially, wehad concerns about the online training, such as whetherstaff members would be able to work comfortably withthe online technology and whether these Web-basedcourses would be effective.

New legislation or modifications to existing fed-eral and state education legislation oftenmandate more training for district staff andmore documentation to prove compliance.

These regulations come with heavy penalties for non-compliance; yet these initiatives are usually unfunded,thus making it difficult to ensure that staff membersreceive the training they need.

Highland Local Schools in Ohio faced these chal-lenges during the past couple of years. In addition toproviding standard training “refreshers” about issuessuch as blood borne pathogens, sexual harassment, andhazardous materials, Highland had to provide expanded


School districts have lagged behind other industries,businesses, and professions in using online technology tostreamline important functions, such as training.However, only 3 of more than 350 staff membersrequested assistance and there were no negativeresponses to moving the live training online.

Much has been made of the fact that while today’sstudents are digital natives, the adults running schoolsare best described as digital immigrants. To address theconcern that district staff might be uncomfortable withthe technology, we provided a brief demonstration ofhow the new system worked. Once participants learnedhow to log in using their unique passwords, they foundthe point-and-click format easy to navigate.

With regard to the effectiveness of online training,individuals who had attended training in the 2008–09school year said the new online model was much moreengaging.

School districts have laggedbehind other industries,businesses, and professionsin using online technology tostreamline important functions.

Highland previously used a train-the-trainer model forall professional development. The district sent a team ofteachers for training and then had those teachers trainthe rest of the staff. However, staff members admittedthat when they were sitting in a room listening to the

annual refresher course on bloodborne pathogens, theydidn’t pay attention.

The online courses require users to interact with thecontent, which means they need to focus in order to getto the end of the module. With the online courses, userscan quickly review the information they already knowand concentrate on the information they had notretained, which is the purpose of a refresher. The built-inquestions checked for understanding and documentedmore than seat time.

All assigned modules met with the approval of in-house experts. For example, our head school nurseexamined the system’s courses on first aid, students withdiabetes, seizures, and so on.

Time Savings and ComplianceThe state set a deadline for staff to complete therefresher courses and the new safety and violence pre-vention training, so Highland had to ensure that allteachers were trained by that date. The new training system provided five modules so teachers could do onemodule per week. Since part of the training time windowwas during the winter break, staff members could trainat their own convenience.

Employees who were on leave received emails withlinks to their compulsory courses so they could fulfilltheir training while they were home. The new systemalso allowed employees hired in the middle of the schoolyear to complete the training within a limited time win-dow to ensure compliance with the laws.

We previously had to spend a great deal of time man -ually verifying the participation of each staff member.Now the system automatically tracks who completes aparticular course, and at the end of the year, we printout specific tracking reports to send to the appropriateagency or file as required. Using the capabilities of itsnew system, Highland Local Schools achieved 100%compliance with its training requirements in the2009–10 school year.

School districts receive little if any guidance from relevant state agencies regarding the implementation ofpolicies and training. In these days of shrinking budgetsand staff, it is imperative that administrators find themost efficient methods for delivering quality professionaldevelopment and documenting compliance.

Highland Local Schools has realized the benefits ofautomated online training, which frees up administra-tors’ time and resources so the district can continue tofocus on improving student achievement.

Laurie Boedicker is director of curriculum and instruction forthe Highland Local Schools in Medina, Ohio. Email:[email protected]

EFFECTIVEONLINE TRAINING

Here are some points to consider when implement-ing online training systems in your school district:• Look for a vendor who closely monitors existing

and new state, local, and federal education legis-lation.

• Ensure that the online modules are easy to use. Wearranged the demonstration as a precaution, butmost of our staff would have been able to clickthrough and complete the modules without thedemonstration.

• Make computers available so employees can accessthe online courses and ask questions if needed.We plan open lab time during which staff mem-bers can complete the required training with assis -tance available.



Gaining StakeholderSupport for Going GreenBy Bill Harris

These are challenging times for America’sschools and the people who run them.

The pressure is on to raise test scores,improve graduation rates, and prepare studentsto compete in a global economy. But lower taxrevenues, smaller budgets, and higher operatingcosts are just a few of the factors that are forc-ing schools to do more with less as educatorsstrive to create a learning environment in whichstudents, teachers, and staff can excel.

Complicating matters is the fact that theaverage public school building in this countryis 42 years old and almost 75% of the nation’sschools were built more than 30 years ago.The Government Accountability Office esti-mates that 14 million American students—about one in four—attend schools in buildingsthat are unsafe or below standard.

Meanwhile, the National Center for Educa -tion Statistics says the number of students inU.S. schools will grow about 8% to nearly60 million by 2018. Enrollment in some SunBelt and Mountain states will increase by 20%to 30% or more in just a decade.

We cannot build ourselves out of the predica-ment caused by aging buildings, rising enroll-ments, and shifting demographics. But clearly, thesolution includes building a significant number ofnew, energy-efficient, high-performance schools.

Building a CaseWith an enrollment of about 7,600 students,Bryant (Arkansas) Public Schools serve a thriv-ing bedroom community about 20 miles fromLittle Rock. Bryant made Money magazine’slist of the “100 Best Places to Live” in 2009;quality of education was one criterion the magazine considered in making the selection.

But despite performance that includes testscores 25% above the national average and a2009 graduation rate of more than 87%,Bryant Public Schools faced challenges familiarto educators across the country. The studentpopulation has been growing about 3% peryear, making Bryant one of the fastest-growingdistricts in Arkansas. By the early part of this

decade, it became clear that Bryant neededto increase capacity to meet the community’scurrent and projected education needs.

“New schools aren’t built very often in smallcommunities like ours,” says RichardAbernathy, Bryant’s superintendent of schools.“So when voters passed a 2003 millage increaseto fund seven projects, including two newschools, we were determined to make the mostof the opportunity. We wanted to build schoolsthat create a truly exceptional learning environ-ment for our kids. Every decision along the wayhas been made with that goal in mind.”

“Intuitively, we knew that ‘going green’ wasthe right thing to do,” Abernathy continues.“But to take that approach we needed to showthat high-performance schools create a betterenvironment for students and make economicsense for our community and taxpayers.”

Bryant officials created a compellingbusiness case and gained stakeholder supportto build Bethel Middle School, Arkansas’sfirst LEED (Leadership in Energy andEnviron mental Design) school. The districthas since built a LEED-certified elementaryschool and construction is under way on anexpansion to Bryant High School, which isalso a LEED project.

Developed by the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil, LEED is a certification system that promotes the design and construction of energy-efficient, environmentally responsible buildings.

A Performance EdgeEven before voters approved funding for thenew schools, Abernathy and his team beganreaching out to key stakeholders, includingschool board members, state legislators,educators, and community members.

Abernathy and Assistant SuperintendentDeborah Bruick teamed up with an energy services company to assess the effect of greenschools on student health, absenteeism, andacademic achievement. There is a wealth ofdata tying factors such as HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning), lighting,


facilities

The Government

Accountability Office

estimates that 14

million American

students—about

one in four—attend

schools in buildings

that are unsafe or

below standard.


SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

acoustics, and indoor air quality to animproved learning environment.

Bruick, who analyzed the link be -tween high-performance schools andstudent attendance and achievement forher doctoral dissertation, approachedthe topic using the eight LEED criteriadeveloped by the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil.

“I compared the perceptions ofteachers from LEED-certified schoolswith those from schools that were notcertified,” Bruick says. “Teachers over-whelmingly believe that the classroomenvironment affects learning andhealth. There are substantial differencesin how teachers from LEED schoolsperceive the learning environment, par-ticularly where indoor air quality andacoustics are concerned. They abso -lutely believe that the LEED schoolsprovide a better environment for stu-dents and teachers.”

The correlation between high-per-formance schools and the bottom line isjust as convincing. While the initial costof building a green school is about 2%higher, that “green premium” is repaidmany times over in the decades-long lifespan of a typical school. Coupled withbuilding automation, lighting, and con-trol systems, modern HVAC technologycan help reduce a typical school’senergy costs by 30% to 40%.

The Green Approach“Building a broad coalition of support-ers was instrumental in our success ingaining approval to move forward withan expansion program based on LEEDguidelines,” says Bruick. “We kept theschool board apprised of our researchactivities and met regularly with boardmembers to share our findings. Whenwe were ready to move forward theboard was behind us 100%.”

Abernathy included Bethel’s newprincipal and several teachers on theproject design team, along with thearchitect, maintenance manager, com-missioning agent, energy servicesprovider, and other key players. He andBruick began meeting regularly withboard members, school administrators,teachers, parent groups, and otherstakeholders to provide information

about the benefits of building a high-performance school.

“We also reached out to membersof the Arkansas State Legislature,”Abernathy says. “Deborah and I accom-panied several legislators on a visit to aLEED-certified school in Texas so theycould see the difference for themselves.They came back enthusiastic supportersof the high-performance concept.”

Collaborating with theLegislatureWhen it came time to finance the newbuilding, Bryant Public Schools chosean innovative approach called a per-formance contract. Performance con-tracts enable school districts to fundnew construction or building upgradesusing future energy and operatingcost savings.

“Arkansas law limited the use ofperformance contracts to energy im -provements on existing structures,”Aber nathy notes. “They could not beused for new construction. State SenatorShane Broadway was a member of ourgrassroots team and a huge advocate forbuilding a LEED school in Bryant. Heled the effort to get the law amended sowe could use a performance contract tohelp finance the Bethel project.”

“The real value of a performancecontract is that it considers the entirelife-cycle cost of a project, rather thanjust the construction costs,” Abernathycontinues. “First costs are really just thetip of the iceberg. To get a true pictureyou need to consider factors such asenergy consumption and maintenancecosts, along with the less tangible bene-fits of creating a better environment forstudents to learn and teachers to teach.”

When it opened in 2006, BethelMiddle School became the first LEED-certified school in Arkansas and one ofjust a handful in the nation. Amongother features, the school’s designmakes extensive use of natural lightingand acoustical panels to control noise.A highly efficient HVAC system worksin concert with an automated buildingcontrol system and sophisticated lightingand temperature sensors in each room.

Last year, Bryant Public Schoolsreceived LEED certification for a sec-



SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

ond school—Hurricane CreekElementary. The two schools areexpected to save taxpayers $19.8 mil-lion in energy and related costs overtheir projected 50-year life cycle.

“I do not believe that our experiencein Bryant is unique,” Abernathy says.“Many school districts face the samekinds of challenges that we faced andthat we continue to face. Choosing ahigh-performance LEED approach tonew construction was an obvious deci-sion for us. Once they have done theirhomework, I think most districts willmake the same choice.”

My advice is to learn all you can,make sure you involve your key stake-holders, keep the lines of communica-tion open and—above all—considerthe impact of every decision on the students.”

Bill Harris is the vertical market leaderresponsible for Trane’s K–12 and highereducation business segments. ©Trane


Index of AdvertisersAmerican Fidelity Assurance Company . . . . . . . . . . . . inside back cover

AXA Equitable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 5

CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 16

Durham School Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 23

Metlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 3

National Alliance for Insurance Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 21

PCS Revenue Control Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 35

School Nutrition Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 11

Sungard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 15

Tyler Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . back cover

VALIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inside front cover

Weidenhammer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19

Windsor Management Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1


William Flaherty is assistant superintendent of technology services for Spotsylvania County, Virginia,Schools. Email: [email protected]

tech tips

Opening Multiple Tabs in IEBy William Flaherty

Do you visit the same website regu-larly? You don’t have to type in theaddress every time you launchInternet Explorer. Here’s a short cut

to opening multiple tabs.1. Open Internet Explorer. Select Tools. Select

Internet Options.2. In the Home Page box, type in the address

(URL) for each website you would like toopen whenever you launch Internet Explorer.You are not limited to any particular num-ber. Type one address per line.

3. When you are done, click on Apply at thevery bottom of the box.

4. Now close out Internet Explorer and re -launch. E ach website has a designated tab,so click away!


1

4

2–3



There’s an adage about follow-up: “You areonly as good as your last contact.”

So if you make a commitment at a tradeshow and never do anything about it, yourcredibility is lost.

What do you do with all those leads you col-lected during the last trade show? Did you stickthem in the packing case with the booth as theywere rolling up the aisle carpet or did youreview them each evening, make notes, and putthem in your briefcase—close at hand?

For the best follow up, you should start withan effective way to trap the information youcollect at the show. Don’t rely on a scrap ofpaper or the back of a 2” � 3” business card.Instead, create a customized lead form for yourown personal use. The time and expenseinvolved in doing this is insignificant—you canuse any computer word processing program—but the value is indisputable.

The lead form captures the contact informa-tion and details about the customer; it acts as aguide to asking the right questions before apresentation.

Creating this form is simplicity itself. The diffi-culty lies in determining beforehand what infor-mation is necessary for productive follow up.Certain requisites are elementary to every ver-sion: name, company, title, address, and othercontact information. You can attached a businesscard to the form or complete it by hand.

Now, decide what you need to learn about aprospect or customer. One supplier only wants towork with customers who are located within afive-state region. Others might have national repsor customer service personnel and want to codethe information so it can be passed on easily andtracked by the appropriate person. Some haveminimum purchase requirements. Still othersmight prefer to work with distributors who havelots of sales people. Your requirements are yoursalone. You just have to be able to define them.

If you have several product lines, you’ll needinformation about which products your

prospects were interested in. Are sample kitsavailable? Did they order one? Or several? Orspecific samples? Is there a case study you needto send? Allow space for all this information onyour form.

Somewhere near the bottom of the form, havea place to rank the contact. After the show, thiswill let you separate the leads into piles of thosewho need immediate attention—within 24hours—and those who can wait a few days.

Probably the most important area is thespace for “comments.” This is where you trapinformation that doesn’t fit any category, butmight be the make-or-break difference.

Finally, put in an area that details what fol-low up actually happened after the show. Forexample, on what date did you send informa-tion? When did you follow up with a phonecall? Was an appointment scheduled? Whatresulted from the phone call or appointment?

Remember, you are only as good as your lastcontact. The more you care about your cus-tomers, the more they’ll care about you. If youwant to grow a great business, make sure yourtrade show contact is a seedling that sprouts.

Margit Weisgal, CME, is president and CEO ofthe Trade Show Exhibitors Associ ation (TSEA).

Follow the LeadBy Margit Weisgal, CME

You are only

as good as

your last

contact.

corporatecorner

About TSEASince 1967, TSEA (www.tsea.org) has beenproviding knowledge to marketing and manage-ment professionals who use exhibits, eventsand face-to-face marketing to promote and selltheir products, as well as to those who supplythem with products and services. Membersbenefit from access to education, networking,resources, advocacy and member-only discountson products and services that all exhibit andevent professionals use. To register for anyTSEA education program at the member priceor to join TSEA and enjoy the benefits all yearat the discounted show rate please use promocode: XYZ SHOW


Taking on her new role on theASBO International Board ofDirectors is one more way

that Brenda Burkett, chief financialofficer for Norman Public Schoolsin Norman, Oklahoma, believes she

can give back to the field.Now in her 20th year with the dis-

trict, Brenda feels lucky to have found acommunity that staunchly supports education at alllevels, from preschool through post-secondary. Sheexplains that Oklahoma has been a leader in earlychildhood development: full-day kindergarten wasimplemented several years ago, and programs for four-year-olds are being established. A few districts are evenreaching to set up programs for three-year-olds. At theother end of the education spectrum, Norman is hometo the University of Oklahoma, with which the districtenjoys a collaborative relationship.

Like many districts, Norman Public Schools struggleswith a lack of education funding. Because up to 65% offunding comes from the state, schools are dependent onthe state economy.

A State Question (SQ 744) on the ballot thisNovember is the reason for much debate. SQ 744 wouldchange the state’s constitution to require that publicschools be funded at least at the same level as public

schools in surrounding states. Many feel that if thispasses, education will get more funding to be at theregional average per-pupil spending, but that will occurat the expense of other state agencies providing for stateneeds.

“Our state funding pie just is not big enough,” Brendasays. “We need this State Question to pass. Oklahoma’schildren deserve to have the necessary tools to besuccessful—small class sizes, high-quality teachers, andup-to-date materials and technology. But the legislaturealso needs to address ways of increasing state revenues.”

Despite the challenges, the district continues to setand achieve important goals. It has received the Excel -lence in Financial Reporting Award from the OklahomaState Department of Education three times in recentyears

Brenda, too, has set her goals high to improve differentaspects of Norman Public Schools. Three years ago shelaunched a project that resulted in improved in-schoolhealth services for district students. Through a partner-ship with Norman Regional Hospital, the project provided22 health care professionals to work in district schoolsthat previously had shared only four health professionalsamong the district’s 14,500 students.

The innovative program has the potential to serve asa nationwide model and earned Brenda a Pinnacle ofAchievement Award in 2008.

Publisher’s StatementStatement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation1. Publication Title: School Business Affairs. 2. Publication Number: 0036-651X. 3. Filing Date: August 30, 2010. 4. Issue Frequency: Monthly. 5. No.of Issues Published Annually: 11. 6. Annual Subscription Price: $65. 7 Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication: 11401 North Shore Drive,Reston, VA 20190. 8. Mailing Address of Headquarters: 11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190.9. Names and Mailing Addresses of Publisher,Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: John D. Musso, RSBA, Association of School Business Officials International, 11401 North Shore Drive,Reston, VA 20190. Editor: Patricia George, 37864 Alberts Farm Drive, Purcellville, VA 20132. Managing Editor: Siobhan McMahon, Association ofSchool Business Officials, International, 11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190.10. Owner: Association of School Business Officials,International, 11401 North Shore Drive, Reston, VA 20190. 11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None. 12. Tax Status: The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of thisorganization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months. 13. Publication Title: SchoolBusiness Affairs. 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: September 2010.15. Extent and Nature of Circulation

Average No. Copies Each Issue No. Copies of Single IssueDuring Preceding 12 Months Published Nearest to Filing Date

A. Total number of copies (net press run) 5037 62221. Paid and/or requested circulation paid/requested outside country 0 02. Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 5037 62223. Paid In-County Subscriptions as Stated on Form 3541 0 04. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter

Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution 0 0C. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation 5037 6222D. Free Distribution by Mail

1. Outside County as Stated on Form 3541 0 02. In County as Stated on Form 3541 0 03. Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS 0 0

E. Free Distribution Outside the Mail 0 0F. Total Free Distribution 0 0G. Total Distribution 5037 6222H. Copies Not Distributed 0 0I. Total 5037 6222J. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation 100% 100%

16. This Statement of Ownership will be printed in the October 2010 issue of School Business Affairs.17. I certify that all information furnished above is true and complete. Siobhan McMahon.


Spotlight on Brenda Burkett: Innovation in Oklahoma


Tyler Technologies has the insight to empower

you as a K-12 education professional. Our

financial, SIS, transportation, special education

and district planning products do more than

meet your needs. They anticipate them.

That’s why more and more school systems

choose Tyler for their data management. To

spend more time with your students and less

time with data, visit us at tylertech.com or

email us at [email protected].

Our insight. Your schools.

Tyler Technologies is an awarded contract vendor partner of National Joint Powers Alliance.

legal and legislative issues - asbo |...

Documents