Education Policy in Pennsylvania Governance & Leadership

Group Members  Rosemary Nilles  Lee Burket  Dale Keagy  Elaine Tischer  Jim Thomas

Outline  Task  Obsolete school code  School Board –Demographics –Term Length  School Board professional development  Creating consensus  Conclusions

Task  Identify issues concerning governance and leadership in Pennsylvania education policy that require state action. Focus  Legislative accountability for student achievement

What law needs to change to improve local school boards’ accountability for student outcomes?

Pennsylvania School Code  Findings –Written in 1949, Many Amendments No comprehensive update since –Contradictory and outdated sections –Language confusing on duties of board  Assessment –School Code is obsolete and lacks vision

Pennsylvania School Code  Examples of obsolescence in school board responsibilities –24 PS Water-closets or out-houses –24 PS Part-time teachers, etc. –24 PS Bible reading –24 PS William Penn Day

School Board Background  Originally active in day-to-day operations, now focus on policy  Federal and state legislation has moved control away from local boards –Curriculum –Student achievement standards –Personnel  Superintendents and staff now handle day-to-day issues  State holds school administrators responsible for teacher quality and student achievement  Local boards now have little accountability for student achievement to meet mandated standards  Local community holds board responsible for preparing graduates to enter workforce

School Board Accountability  Complicated  Requires strengthening credibility and relevance with the community by establishing: –Policy connected to achievement –Budget connected to achievement –Vision –Close relationship with school administration –Culture of ethical school governance –Requirement for Board member development

School Board Selection and Qualifications - Issues  School board election cycles  School board director development

3 – 3 – 3 Election Cycle Cycle1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 3 Directors – 6 year term

5-4 Election Cycle Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 4 Directors – 4 year term 5 Directors – 4 year term 4 Directors – 4 year term 5 Directors – 4 year term

Election Cycles in PA  Until early 1980s, Boards in PA elected on cycle with 6 year terms  Given reason for change to a 5 –4 cycle –Difficult to find people willing to commit to 6 years of service –High turnover rate  Other reasons  Time for a change…?

Board Demographics in PA Years of Service on School Board Under 562%50%46% 5 – 1024%35% 11 – 2010%12%14% Over 204%3%5%

Advantages/Disadvantages  3 – 3 – 3 Boards –Stability –Continuity of leadership –Assurance of experienced board  5-4 Boards –Quick response to single issues –Potential for “take-overs” and instability  Recommendation – Return to 3-3-3

School Board Election Cycles  Findings –Current law specifies 9 members for most districts –Election of 5 members one election and 4 the next, for term of 4 years –Election cycle produces turbulence  Assessment –Member turbulence can causes dramatic policy shifts –Election law could be changed to provide for fewer members each election and/or longer terms providing more stability

Board Demographics in PA AGE Under 3511%7%3% %35%20% %31%40% %17%22% Over 656%10%15%

Board Demographics in PA Education High School27%18%15% Some College 19%18%14% College Grad28%31%33% Master16%20%26% PhD, EdD10%13%12%

Board Director Development  Findings –Aging board members –Board members well educated –No background checks or formal training required –School code specifies members to be 18 years old and of good moral character. –Other states have successfully implemented mandatory training to develop board members –Ability of boards to govern and provide leadership not consistently displayed

Board Director Development  Assumptions –Older board members may have interest in taxation issues over education mission –Lack of formal training lends towards members functioning in their “comfort zone” and furtherance of personal agendas and/or risk aversion –Developmental training increases member efficiency, focus on board functions and consistency in governance –Learning organizations serve their constituents better

Board Director Development  Recommendation –Legislature amend laws to require: All newly elected Board members attend orientation training (12 hrs) Annual professional development (4 hrs) All Board members successfully pass background checks prior to assuming duties. –Variety of options –Administered by state Bd. of Ed. –Funded by school board –Incentives

Board Director Development  Training Content –Overview of Education in PA –Legal and Regulatory Environment –District Goals, Programs, Policies –Board Operations –Roles and Responsibilities –Creating a Vision –Personal/Professional Development

Building Consensus  Enlist Support of Stakeholders in the Educational Community to: –Educate the Legislature –Educate the Public About the Importance of School Board

Creating a Critical Mass of Support  Small Scale: Build Support within the Organizations  Larger Scale: Communication to Legislature and General Public  Full Scale: Bill Introduced  Consider the Opposition

Conclusions  Legislature has role in student achievement through school code  School code must be revised to reflect changes in school board roles and responsibilities  Complexity of school policy environment dictates development for school board members

Education Policy in Pennsylvania Governance & Leadership

References  Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for Student Learning: Restructuring School District Leadership. Washington D.C.  Pennsylvania Department of Education. Pennsylvania Public School Code of Harrisburg, PA.  The Education Policy and Leadership Center. (2004). Strengthening the Work of School Boards in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA.  Bloomington  Cunningham  Gehring  Land