About two dozen school staff members were on hand at the December 3, 2015 special meeting of the Cook County Schools/ISD 166 school board. Gary Lee from the Minnesota School Boards Association led the full house in discussion of administrative structure proposals. Lee, who has been with the association for six years, is from Fertile, Minnesota where he has also been a school board member. He reiterated several times that the purpose for this discourse is to move forward, decide how the district wishes to organize the administration, and not to dwell on the past.
Lee covered a few of the requirements of administration such as a state law requiring that a district have a licensed superintendent if it has a secondary school. If hiring an unlicensed person for the position there is usually no more than a year wait allowed for licensure to be obtained. The superintendent is responsible for all administrative, management and human resource aspects of the district. He or she has oversight of curriculum and every program happening in district buildings.
Preschool, which is not mandated by the state, is technically covered under community education but is still under the jurisdiction of the superintendent.
Most superintendents have financial backgrounds but also have access to many resources to supplement their decision-making. Finally, the superintendent is to act as a conduit to the school board and is responsible for implementing policies set by the board.
Principals also always have the right to move back into the classroom based on their seniority in the district, as opposed to ever being just solely dismissed. One of the main roles of a principal is to assist teachers to grow in their job. The principal is also there to identify teachers who are lacking in their performance and who should not be allowed to continue in the district, as well as identifying exceptional teachers who can be available to help others expand their skills.
Lee also stated that a major part of administrative structure is completing teacher evaluations. A licensed administrator who is not a member of the teachers’ union must do evaluations. Laws connected with evaluations were put in place because principals were becoming overburdened with other job tasks and not getting evaluations completed as necessary to assist teachers improving their work performance.
Board Member Deb White also stated that a licensed administrator must be on site at all times during a school day.
Information from other school districts
Based on information gathered from the Minnesota Department of Education by Board Chair Jeanne Anderson, other districts of similar size averaged 207 students per administrator as of October 1, 2014. Anderson, replying by email after the meeting, added that with the addition of a part-time temporary administrator, Cook County Schools currently has 2.09 full-time administrators equaling approximately 217 students per administrator.
The same report showed an average of 6.6 students per district employee for other districts while ISD 166 stood at 5.8 students. Superintendent Beth Schwarz, also replying in a later email, attributes the difference to a higher than average number of special education and higher need students than the other districts.
Several structure options were presented before the audience broke into five groups to discuss the pros and cons of the various options. Board Member Terry Collins added that a probable goal to keep in mind would be to decrease administrative costs by at least $100,000.
The usual base salaries of superintendents in similar settings throughout Minnesota are mostly in the range of $92,000 to $115,000. There are however some higher and lower than those figures. During the 2014- 15 school year, ISD 166 showed a base salary of $107,000.
Alternatives considered included sharing a superintendent with another district, hiring a part-time superintendent, and combining the superintendent position with various principal positions based on early childhood, preschool and kindergarten, elementary and secondary grades.
The three configurations most preferred by the audience are provided below:
Replenishing the General Fund Reserve Balance
The current adopted budget for fiscal year 2016 shows expenditures of $8.53 million while revenues are projected at $8.35 million. One goal is to have the budget in balance by January or February.
The board also reviewed a proposed policy with the purpose of requiring a percentage of the annual budget to be set aside as unassigned funds to be available to the district in case of unexpected necessities. Proposed targets are 12 percent by the end of the 2016-17 school year; 14.5 percent the following year; and 17 percent at the end of the 2018-19 year. The amount needed to begin rebuilding this fund is approximately $700,000 in the next budget year. In order to achieve this objective, a list of possible budget reductions was discussed. The discussion list totaled just over $1 million.
Larger items to be considered include: . Discontinuing funding the Arrowhead Center for the Arts (ACA) and eliminating the ACA manager. A savings of $75,000 and $19,800 per year. . Reducing capital expenditures to necessary maintenance only. $100,000 per year. . Decreasing custodial staff. $48,000 per year. . Eliminating health and physical education for grades nine through 12. $105,000 per year. . Licensed Administration reduction. $115,000 per year. . Moving grades 2 and 5 to one section each. $58,000 and $50,000 per year. . Suspending athletics. $150,000 less $40,000 in annual revenues.
ACA director Sue Hennessy spoke as a community member during the comment portion of the meeting. Hennessy, who has been with the ACA since it opened in 1995, encouraged the board to continue the programs there. She stated that the evidence is there that the center supports every child and thinks there may be some creative problem solving that can be arrived at.
White said that she has heard the comment of “Why would you close the ACA if you have to just reopen it in a couple years?’”
She added, “Some of these things do not have to be gone forever.”
Donations welcome!
Collins spoke of possibly adopting challenges or making offers of cooperation with public groups to raise funding and cost share in some of the potential reduction areas that are not central to education. He would like to see the board decide soon if they would like to pursue something of this nature so that groups would have time to raise funds. Some prospective areas for this idea may include athletics, preschool and the ACA.
There have been several inquiries by individuals wishing to donate by credit card. The board directed Schwarz to explore how to set up some such process through a local bank. The superintendent had checked in to Internet sites for this purpose but the sites themselves retain a sizeable percentage of donations as a fee for their service. The board discussed possibly creating a policy for accepting donations, especially those earmarked for specific items or programs. Schwarz stated that the district’s legal council had advised that most districts do not actually create a policy for contributions but establishes practices related to the acceptance of donations.
Donations for specific purposes may have the potential of affecting such things as Title IX requirements in sports as well as curriculum. The general feeling of the board was to word the details of the practice in a very broad sense to allow the district to remain within fiscal and legal guidelines.
Another Levy Referendum?
Schwarz asked when and if the board will move forward toward pursuing another voter approved levy referendum. She said with next year’s presidential election in November, the district would be able to share the cost of election expenses. Anderson added that it is possible to attempt another referendum as soon as this coming spring.
Administrative restructuring considered
Superintendent/Principal to grade 5 and a Principal 6-12: Pros included a high focus and better handling of discipline in secondary, a good fit with current staff, and a shared responsibility of administration. Cons consisted of a lack of emphasis on and physical presence in elementary.
Superintendent/Principal 6-12 (or 9-12) and a Principal to grade 5 (or 8): Pros involved having a leader in elementary, a focus on early childhood, a shared responsibility of administration, and a strong team with back up from the business manager and other staff. Cons comprised the possible need for an additional dean of students, a possible decline in early grade enrollment, and the challenge of the superintendent being able to handle discipline in secondary.
Superintendent who also acts as an Assistant Principal and a Principal for all grades: Pros covered being close to the current set up, flexibility and teamwork. Cons incorporated the need for a very clear framework and the need for teachers on special assignment to assist.
Leave a Reply