“Issues” was added in 2005. The purpose was to provide research and in depth experience in dealing with a number of complex subjects facing board of education members.

Introduction – Periodically, population increases, changes in education law, and/or deterioration of physical facilities result in the need for the leaders of school districts to seek funds, which are not included in annual budgets. After the determination of need, expressed in design requirements, and costs, they are required to establish a public referendum. Eligible voters are then given the opportunity to accept a resolution, which permits the acquisition of approved funding through additional taxation and/or borrowing.

Since building/restoration projects usually occur infrequently, board of education members often lack experience with the various considerations, which must be addressed successfully to ensure voter acceptance.

The Issue

Building construction/restoration includes a complex of needs requiring attention. Board of Education members, who must play a pivotal role, often have a limited understanding of the considerations, which must be addressed as they prepare for a building referendum. Where do they begin? What information do they seek? How do they design a successful referendum process?

Considerations in Preparing for a Building Referendum

• History of Referendum Success in the Community – Not all building referendums are successful. In the Rhinebeck Central School District the adage is that it takes three votes for passage, meaning the first two trials will fail to attract a positive vote from a majority of voters. I’ve been with the district through four trials. Two resulted in failure and two succeeded. After two failures and one success, we analyzed each process to identify the basis for the difference outcomes. We learned the successful referendum included three important supportive factors:
  
  • Strong parental support,
  • An important ally, which stood to gain with approval,
  • No tax increase for voters.

  We resolved in the fourth effort to include as many of those success factors as we could. Other considerations included the time of the vote, the number of propositions, and organization of activities to be accomplished in those propositions.

  Board members making their historical review might be aware that the organization and size of their district plays a role. I’ve participated on boards in two districts. The Rhinebeck community has essentially had a single point of focus: the Village and Town of Rhinebeck. When I began serving on the Rhinebeck board, I had to shift gears from the experiences with “community” I had had while serving on the Hyde Park board. At the time I served in Hyde Park, there were various geographic areas and social entities impacting the district. We were not confronted by a single tax pack group. When we wanted support we worked with support groups, such as music and sports parents, PTA, and the district’s labor unions. At that time, we were more organized to reach people than those against education. If your district is spread across village and town boundaries, then your approach may need to be tailored differently from another, which is contained in one municipality.

• Timing with Respect of the Economic Climate – We thought as we were completing the third referendum in the summer and fall 2000, that the booming economy, success of other districts across Dutchess County, and the State construction incentive would make our effort easy. It turned out our assumption was incorrect. Our colleagues to the north in the Red Hook Central School District were working through a series of difficulties during the construction phase following a successful referendum. Given press coverage of the Red Hook experience, the reactive nature of many Rhinebeck voters, and our inability to recognize our communication needs, we were not able to take advantage of the economic climate.

  The fourth referendum proposal came in the strained economic climate following the aftermath of 9/11. The State had significantly reduced its construction incentive, the number of construction projects across the County and State had dropped significantly, and the difficulties experienced by our Red Hook colleagues had been resolved. We were successful with our referendum initiative for reasons other than a positive economic climate.

• Establishing appropriate Professional Support – The professional expertise required for the preparation of a supportable, acceptable, and sound referendum proposal, includes the services of a/an:

• Architectural Design
• Construction Management
• Communications Management, and
• Financial Structuring.

A successful referendum not only implies the approval of a majority of voters, but also means a plan has been constructed with NYSED code and financial institution requirements in mind. There are various ways to organize the expertise. Some district leaders begin with an architectural firm for design, which provides for or arranges for the provision of the other areas. Communications management is often built into the services of the architect or construction management.

In Rhinebeck, where a number of architectural firms design schools, we experienced the political consequences of hiring one of those firms. Our decision was to begin the referendum preparation process with a construction management firm. As we reviewed the responses we received to our request for proposals, we realized we had an opportunity to bargain for a package of services, which best met our needs. We relied on our construction managers to review our failed referendum proposal, together with the status of our physical plant to establish a new referendum proposal. We were most fortunate that the construction management corporation provided an established public relations firm to guide us through capacity building through out the district.

• Increasing the Capacity for Support – From our analysis, we learned we had not communicated effectively:

• Supportive people were surprised by the “sticker shock” cost
• Many people thought we had included “wish list” items in the referendum
• A majority of parents did not support the referendum for a variety of reasons

While we had a new ally, a citizen group organized to support the district and its education program, we knew we needed to address the “sticker shock”, “wish list” and parent-support issues. We made the following arrangements:

• Construction management personnel helped us produce a revised list of items for the referendum, but did not identify a bottom line
• Board of Education members created a three-part vision for the project, which created the opportunity for parents and other community members to separate out what they thought were “wish list” items:
  
  • Part 1 – A Warm and Safe Learning Environment
  • Part 2 – Removal of long standing deterrents to the education program
  • Part 3 – Changes supporting education in the 21st Century.
• Board of Education members created an ad hoc Facilities Task Force and charged its members to review the revised lists, and physical sites then prepare a set of items for the referendum. More than twenty persons volunteered and provided a representative assembly of stakeholder groups. Once we have given them their charge we supported their independence. We were able to observe their proceedings on PANDA, our local community television station. When they presented their recommendations the bottom line amount was approximately 2/3 thirds of the amount, which had failed in the previous attempt with voters. Board members accepted their recommendations then worked with them to organize a referendum with two proposals. We learned in the process that the restorations required by NYSED would have to be included in the first proposition and that was fine because they could be linked with the first part of our vision – A Warm and Safe Learning Environment. The decision led us to the position where our second proposition provided for the second part of our vision – Removal of long standing deterrents to the education program. The items from the original list, which did not make the “cut” were linked to the third part of our vision and could be accepted by those who needed them as “wish list” items. Even thought we disagreed with them we felt that if the Board of Education, and staff, together with members of the ad hoc committee were united around the two-proposition referendum, our chances of success were high.

• Managing the Dialogue prior to and during the Vote – Once the two-proposition referendum was prepared, we shifted to a new phase of our communications process, designed to fully inform voters, and to give those were ready to provide active support the materials and support they needed to so. The new phase included:

• Meetings in small groups - Teams of board, staff and facilities task force members laid out the case and showed a seven-minute video, which contained images of the areas slated for restoration, and comments by board, staff, and facilities task force leaders about the needs to achieve increased safe and comfortable learning environments, and remove long standing deterrents to the district’s education program. We learned from previous referendum projects, and were supported by our professional public relations people not to organize large community meetings. Our experience in the past was that they became platforms for people against the project.
• Use of PANDA – The video was shown many times on the local community television stations.
• Distribution Four and Eight page information brochures – Through out the referendum preparation our communications management professionals prepared and distributed a series of newsletters. At first, some folks grumbled about the “slick” “expensive” tactics we were using, but feedback changed as people learned their concerns had registered with us and that we were doing an effective job of explaining the bases for our actions and decisions.
• Rumor Control Center – During the final stages of a referendum campaign it is expected that rumors will circulate in the community. We were all prepared that when a rumor surfaced, we would respond by getting the word out to the leaders of core support groups.
• Response and Exit Poles – During the preparation we designed and administered a survey instrument to people attending public meetings for that purpose and on the district’s Internet site. We used the results of response survey in the design of information we wanted to communicate. We also conducted exit poles through the day to determine the extent to which our messages had reached voters. We wanted to know how different groups of people votes and why. As the result, we were relative certain well before the vote ended that we had succeeded. In the end, Proposition #1 passed by almost 2 to 1 and Proposition #2 by a strong majority. The results were almost the opposite from those in the previous outing, where the referendum failed 2 to 1 against.

7:6, 8:60, 8:83, 8:84 - 28th Edition, School Law, NYS School Board Association/NYS Bar Association

Each school district maintains a process for the collection and analysis of probationary teacher/administrator performance information. Processes vary widely and many are frequently the cause of frustration for new board members, wishing to make effective decisions.

The Issue

Granting tenure is important, complex, and needs to be the outcome of positive dialogue among the stakeholders, including board members, administrators, teachers, and teacher union leaders. Unfortunately, in many districts it is not.

Initial frustration led to process analysis and revision - During my first experience with a tenure decision, the tenure list was presented, and board members asked questions. For me the answers given were inadequate because I felt I had not been involved in the analysis of probationary performance information. Rather the superintendent stated “I am recommending these teachers for tenure”, and we were expected to grant tenure. I realized I had not been involved meaningfully in what I considered one of the most important decisions made by members of a board of education. As I shared my experience with board members in Millbrook, and in other districts, I came to understand my frustration was shared by many others.

Review and Improvement of the Process – During executive sessions of the following year, we developed an annual review of ALL non-tenured teachers, which included three parts:

• Presentations by Principals and Supervisors
• Analysis of evaluation documents and their improvement through the addition of language, leading to new procedures with “ more teeth”
• Involvement of our lawyer, David Shaw, who assisted the administrators in the proper scripting of language that would support in our decision-making.

Teachers in Need of Support – Our work led to create a list of “Teachers in Need of Support” from among our probationary teachers, and to develop plans to stimulate improvement of their performances. We began to employ two tools for performance improvement: evaluation instruments with scripted language, and 3020A* guidelines. Finally, because we believe teachers don’t want to work with inadequate individuals or sense their reputations suffer because of others who are bad teachers, we established a dialogue with leaders in our teacher’s union.

* 3020A of NYS Education Law establishes guidelines a school district must follow when disciplining a teacher for issues dealing with behavior, competence, or efficiency.

The Millbrook Process – Teachers in need of improvement met with principals to develop improvement plans, which were used as a basis for determining the degree of progress toward effectiveness. Periodically, board members were given up dates on teacher performance. Comparisons of actual performance with intended performance led to conclusions about the continued relationship between the district and each teacher.

Emerging Tenure Philosophy - As board members, administrators, teachers, and union leaders worked together, a decision-making pattern developed, which included three parts:

• All first year teachers with issues who showed promise were given a second year to demonstrate they were effective and worthy.
• All first year teachers who did not show promise were not re-hired for a second year.
• All second year teachers who showed promise were re-hired for a third year. It was our intention not to continue teachers in a third year unless we felt they would earn tenure.

We avoided Juul* agreements unless absolutely necessary. We prided ourselves in developing a reputation that Millbrook was a hard place to get tenure.

* Juul Agreement- A district and a teacher may enter into an agreement to extend a probationary appointment for an additional year when a teacher is not recommended for tenure.

Impact on the tenure process – As the result of the changes made in the tenure granting process in Millbrook, we believe we have increased the review effectiveness of probationary teacher performance and provided effective tools for their supervisors. We believe there is less likelihood inadequate teachers will remain in our district. We also believe the quality of education in Millbrook has increased because poor teachers have been weeded out.