Fluvanna Schools Considering Teacher RIF's

Fluvanna Schools are facing substantial reductions in funding which will require drastic reductions in expenditures. Reduction in Force (RIF) for teaching positions is "on the table". Some have suggested simple "across the board" cuts to balance the budget but "targeted" cuts also need to be considered as an alternative.

The following comments are by School Board Member Douglas R. Johnson and do not necessarily represent any positions of the Board nor any other Board Member.

INTRODUCTION

Before recommending any specific cuts, it would be wise to see just what requirements are mandated by both the state and the federal government. Whatever teaching staff level we have above those requirements need to be prioritized. The following deals with the procedure and some further suggestions.

STAFF LEVELS

There seems to be confusion as to where our teaching staff levels are with respect to state mandates and federal incentive programs. We need to clearly define just where we are with respect to both before we make any recommendations for change.

I believe we need to deal with the state requirements first. We have made a policy to have a ratio of 22 to 1 when the state says 25 to 1. We therefore need to specify both in our analysis.

But we seem to have other categories that are not considered in the ratio calculations, namely, resource teachers, special education teachers, teacher aides, librarians, and perhaps others.

And the breakdowns need to be done by school. For each school, list first the teachers who count in the ratio. A suggested example is as follows:

School Total Students Total Teachers Actual Ratio

example 250 students 10 teachers 25 stud/teach

Then make the analysis of how many teachers need to be added or subtracted to achieve each of the two ratios, the existing policy ratio and the state mandate ratio.

Then for each school list the state requirement for each other teaching category. A suggested example is as follows:

School Category State Requirement Actual Number

example Special Ed 10 teachers 12 teachers
Resource 5 teachers 3 teachers
Teacher Aides 5 aides 6 aides

When we have these numbers, we can then evaluate what can be done with teacher staffing.

Then we can evaluate any federal programs that require additional staff positions. These programs need to be evaluated with respect to both economics and effectiveness.

After we determine the legal minimums, we then can consider recommendations of our administration for keeping additional positions. Each such position would need to be justified as to the education of the students would improve.

POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS

For a generalization as to the percentage cuts to various categories, let us look at the most dollar areas first:

BUDGET CATEGORY	CURRENT IN MILLIONS	ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE	POTENTIAL CUT AMOUNT
Instruction	$30.6	5.0%	$1.58
Operations	3.5	10.0%	0.35
Transportation	2.5	5.0%	0.13
Administration	1.3	20.0%	0.26
Technology	1.2	5.0%	0.06
Total	39.1	n/a	2.44

This analysis is being done to demonstrate how we do not need to make the cuts "across the board" but to target the cuts based on reasonable factors.

The Instruction cuts of 5% are based on the concept that we probably have more staff positions than are mandated by the state. Such staffing cuts would probably be greater than 5% but the salary scale based on years of experience is an implied contract with the teachers and needs to be reinstated. The combined cuts along with the steps should generate the net of about 5%.

Operations need to be cut 10%. There are no salary contracts and no ratios to maintain.

Transportation is mandated for getting the children to and from school. The 5% cut is arbitrary but relatively modest.

Administration needs a very large cut. Twenty percent is possible and should be attempted. This can be accomplished by a combination of cutting positions and actual wages.

Technology is very important but it also must "bite the bullet". The 5% is very reasonable.

Each of these cuts are not limited by state mandates and thus become strict business decisions. Salary levels need to be judged by "replacement cost" rather than employee needs.

TEACHER COMPENSATION

When a teacher is hired, he/she is shown and given the then current salary scale which shows the salary based on years of experience. This constitutes an implied contract with the teacher. While such a "contract" would probably not hold up in court, the teacher certainly believes it should.

Last year the decision was made to skip the salary steps that are based on years of experience. I believe this was a mistake. I believe we should restore these steps both retroactive to last year and maintain the steps this next year.

I further believe we should make the steps be something each year rather than bigger steps less often. The difficulty comes in the transition from one system to the other. For this reason I do not suggest making this change this year.

If the board chooses to keep more teachers by freezing the steps, I believe a Public Hearing should be held first. This could also be done by having such an item placed as an "Information Item" on the agenda to let the public comment on the issue.

It also has been suggested to give a percentage raise in place of the steps. This makes no sense as we eventually need to go back to the steps.

CONCLUSION

The cuts of staff across the board would be a blind and thus unreasonable generalization. We must first find the baseline as defined by the state mandates and federal requirements. That is truly the first step.

Sex Survey Brings Apology

An apology has been issued by the Fluvanna Public Schools for allowing a sex survey to be given to 7th and 8th grade students contrary to School Policy. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any written apology online.

The survey was given in conjunction with the Family Life Program. There were no complaints against the Program, only with the survey.

The Board voted to proceed with the Program without the survey.

The following comments are by elected School Board Member Doug Johnson writing for himself rather than for the Board:

Comments on Sex Survey

by Douglas R. Johnson

January 12, 2010

It appears that a survey to determine the effectiveness of various teaching methods and or full curricula is fully allowed by law, especially where informed consent is given.

Parents are given the right to review all materials used in the classes where sex, euphemistically called "family life", is discussed.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Notwithstanding the legality of the concept of a survey, the actual survey itself must not have unintended consequences that are potentially harmful to the students.

It is a well known fact that tests are instructional also and not just measurements. That means that when you test, you also reinforce. That reinforcement is a positive phenomena of a well designed test.

We are all well familiar with the objectionable question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" This example demonstrates how a question can be slanted on purpose. What we are dealing with here is an objection on a basis of the consequence of the questions without dealing with the motive in the formation of the question.

To take the above example a little further, consider the theoretical survey questions:

1. Did you ever beat your wife?
2. How often do you beat your wife?
3. When was the last time you beat your wife?

What you are saying in such a survey is that wife beating is quite common. Some beat their wives regularly. If you beat your wife occasionally, you are probably better than those that beat their wives more often.

Now to have a wife, one needs to be an adult and would take such a survey with a grain of salt. It would not cause any real harm to a person with a normal state of mind.

But we are talking about sex with very impressionable children. Extra care needs to be given. If you ask how often one participates in truly despicable act, it implies some level of acceptance of the act, especially to the mind of a child.

The effect of a child opting out from the survey does not limit the negative consequences to the school population as a whole. The confidential treatment of the survey ends with each and every child that does take that survey. By that I mean that each child will talk about the survey and its questions with all the children in the total school population whether those other children want to hear about the survey or not.

"Why not try it? The school even admits that lots of people do it all the time!" Perhaps mature adults can cope with such an argument. But how do you think teenagers will respond when their hormones are flowing?

You may note that I specifically refer to "children" rather than "students". I do that to emphasize that the student population we are dealing with are all children. Referring to then as students tends to downplay the significance of them being impressionable children.

SURVEY PURPOSE

The specific regulation, 45 CFR 46.101(b), concerning sex surveys relates to "Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies or (b) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods."

While some questions in this survey do measure the effectiveness of the program itself, the good part of the survey is a blatant attempt to just gather data about Fluvanna children. These questions clearly do NOT deal with "education instructional strategies" nor with "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods".

NEW QUESTIONS

The biggest objections raised are with the questions involving "oral sex". Quoting from the December 15, 2009 letter sent home with the children:

"Our evaluation firm, The Institute for Research and Evaluation, was incorporated in 1986 and has never connected individual survey results with individual names. Over the past 20 years they have collected data from more than 500,000 teens, and currently collect over 100,000 surveys a year."

This statement indicates 20 years of doing surveys on "more than 500,000 teens". Let's compare that with the Evaluation Report provided by "our evaluation firm". Page 3 indicates that this firm only started with Worth Your Wait in about 2007. Furthermore it also states that they "developed a stronger survey" for the 2008-2009 school year. Skipping to page 10 we see that Fluvanna was the "first program ... that asked about oral sex".

Dr. Evans, who prepared this report stated: "I was surprised to see...." and then on page 11: "Interestingly, 83% of youth of that age...." I give these quotes to indicate just what the real purpose of this survey is general sexual knowledge about Fluvanna children.

All of the detail analysis is summarized on page 11 where Dr. Evans states: "The first thing to recognize is that you [Worth Your Wait program] are having an impact on program youth, but the effect is small." All of the "agree/disagree" questions are listed in various categories to demonstrate the simple conclusion of a "small impact".

But the questions on oral sex and actual intercourse are definitely NOT used in judging "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods". Dr. Evans states on page 10: "I wanted to know if these were the same kids who were having intercourse, so I crossed the two groups and found a higher-than-expected overlap." Apparently Dr. Evans has other uses for the data than the stated purpose for these new questions.

Certainly science will be advanced by the gathering of this data on the sexual activity of Fluvanna children. But the Fluvanna Public Schools are not the place to gather such data.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We have the right to move a survey from an "opt-out" to an "opt-in". The lowest form of permission is opt-out. Certain activities require the higher opt-in by law. But there is no prohibition for the Board on its own initiative to require opt-in when the law says opt-out is enough.

I believe that any survey dealing with sexual information be first presented to the Board for review. The Board will then decide whether or not the opt-in be required.

Furthermore I was not pleased to find that the December 15, 2009 letter was sent home with my grandson in Middle School as a simple sheet, not even in an envelope.

Any communication concerning anything of a sexual nature needs to be communicated directly to the parents without going through the hands of the children, not even in a sealed envelope. Otherwise, how could a parent "opt-out" if the child fails to deliver the document. I would consider this a "necessary cost of doing business".

Just because the law requires a survey, it does not relieve the Board of its responsibility of evaluating the survey itself. The survey must deal exclusively with the requirements of the survey and not be objectionable on its face.

In this particular survey, the survey goes far beyond the requirements in evaluating the program and, on that basis alone, should be rejected in its entirety.

This survey is also objectionable on its face because of asking sexually explicit question of the child's actual sexual behavior.

The child's actual sexual behavior is not relevant to the effectiveness of the program.

The survey asks unrelated race questions and family questions which give basis of "data mining" where sexual activities can be correlated with race and family structure. I find this not only objectionable but also racist and also very troubling.

I believe the program itself is good and should be continued with the opt-out permission requirement.

I believe further that any survey concerning sexual subjects be dealt with as a separate issue requiring a separate opt-in permission requirement.

I further believe that this survey, being recently changed, should be rejected completely and should a new survey be proposed in the future, we should evaluate that on its own terms.

For this situation this semester, we should proceed with the program without the survey.

END