Blazing New Trails - Connexions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

290 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT indebtedness of the district immediately before PTELL went into effect. Levels of debt were maintained as a certain means of providing the highest possible base level from which the extension could grow in succeeding years. The record of growth in the total taxes extended to the six school districts in the study illustrates this theme. The median percent change in the extension for the six districts ranged from a low of 3.15 % to a high of 7.15%. The percent change in the last pre-PTELL extension values ranged from a low of 6.8 % to a high of 24.9 % (Illinois Local Education Agency Retrieval Network, 2005). In only two of the six districts was there no attempt to maximize the last tax levy filed before PTELL went into effect, resulting in a less-than-maximized final pre-PTELL tax extension. Expenditures outpaced revenues. PTELL allows property tax revenue to grow in successive years by either the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban consumers (C.P.I.-U) or five percent, whichever is less (Illinois Department of Revenue, 2001). The perception in four of the six districts was that PTELL limited the growth of tax revenue to the point that it no longer outpaced the growth of expenditures. One superintendent explained, “Caps are limiting the increases in funds, yet expenditures such as health insurance aren’t capped in what increases they can have … the increase in costs don’t follow the C.P.I.” The business manager in another district explained how limiting the allowable increase in tax revenue to the increase in the C.P.I. is harmful: No matter how good your school system is, no matter how well supported, if you’re under PTELL your tax base will erode. The reason is because half of your revenue stays the same, at least in our case. You can’t run a district if your revenues only increase 1.7 to 3.4 percent. That is only half of your revenues that increase, the other half stays flat. So, you actually only get that percent in half, so it is like getting .8 to 1.7 percent more money. You can’t run a school district on that. Paper, heating costs, textbooks, contract costs for personnel, all these things go up by much greater than the C.P.I. The statement “half of your revenues” was a reference to the flat level of state aid received by the district in which the business manager worked. While not expressed in all six of the districts in the study, the majority of the participants were unequivocal in the view that, under PTELL, school district revenues became increasingly inadequate to meet the growing cost of education. IMPACT ON STUDENTS Preservation of pre-PTELL programming. When PTELL was first initiated, district leaders stated that it did not adversely impact students’ educational programs because they were able to preserve the programs and course offerings that existed when PTELL went into effect. Most of the districts in the study did not discontinue anything offered to students, a fact interpreted by school leaders to mean that students did not suffer any initial adverse effects from PTELL’s passage. Not all school district administrators shared this benign view of PTELL. The superintendent of an elementary district decried the decisions made prior to his arrival in the district to discontinue some course offerings:
Experiences with PTELL in Six Illinois School Districts: Leadership Perceptions and Student Performance 291 You can just look right here in the vocational areas we have in this school. We have an unbelievable shop area for Home Economics and Woodworking. Those areas aren’t required by the state, so they were just cut. In a blue-collar area, how do you make that cut? If you remove early vocational experiences before they go into high school, they aren’t as prepared as they should be to make some choices about their high school courses. Look at the gifted program. The state requirement for this was written off the books, so it was cut. For the great majority of school districts in the study, students did not lose any curricular choices, non-instructional programs, or extra-curricular activities when PTELL went into effect. That alone served as the basis of the perception that, in most districts, students had not suffered any ill effects due to the tax limitation. Lack of expansion of the instructional program. The reverse side of the seemingly positive outlook on what PTELL has meant for students was that there was not a great deal of growth in the instructional program in the majority of the school districts in the study. The superintendent in the only district that boasted any expansion of programming stressed that only the steady growth in EAV the district realized from new construction each year made that possible, but that still characterized any additions as “thoughtful and frugal.” For the majority of school districts, school leaders perceived resources as uncertain and limited, making impossible the expansion of any programs. School leaders reported expending a great deal of energy to provide resources to continue the current instructional and non-instructional programs for students. Anything new for students came at the price of discontinuing something that already existed. One school principal confided, “We have a curriculum rule; we don’t add a class without dropping one….so, students don’t have the options they used to have without PTELL.” Another principal said, “With the resource limitation we have, we can’t develop new programs.” School leaders focused on maintaining what was offered students while trying to build cash reserves for what they perceived as an uncertain fiscal future under PTELL. Increased class sizes. Leaders in three of the districts indicated that class sizes were larger under PTELL than before PTELL’s adoption. There was a perception that the districts could not afford to add staff, classrooms, or both. In two of the districts, student enrollment was increasing causing the overcrowding of classes. In one of those districts, a high school district near a large industrial community, classroom space was available but adding teachers was not seen as a possibility. The school leader in this district shared that most of the academic classes had rosters of 30 students and that the classes serving the students most academically at-risk had 22 to 24 students. He expressed concern that the higher than optimal class sizes would start impacting performance on the state assessment. In the other school system, which was an elementary district, the school board’s priority on low class sizes in the primary grades was ignored since there were not enough resources to pay for additional teachers in those grade-levels. Attempts in the past to keep primary class sizes in keeping with the school board’s expectations of not adding teachers led to large class sizes in the upper grades, which remained over 30 for most academic classes at the time of the study. The superintendent in this district also expressed concern over what
Page 1 and 2:
20 NCPEA 11 BLAZING NEW TRAILS: Pre
Page 3 and 4:
NCPEA EXECUTIVE BOARD 2010-2011 Pre
Page 5 and 6:
NCPEA HONOR ROLL OF PRESIDENTS, 194
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contributing Auth
Page 9:
Betty J. Alford, Stephen F. Austin
Page 12 and 13:
xii Yearbook Reviewers Kenneth Rasm
Page 15:
INVITED CHAPTERS PART 1
Page 18 and 19:
4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (3) The fed
Page 21 and 22:
Shadows and Images II 7 LIVING LEGE
Page 23 and 24:
Shadows and Images II 9 see little
Page 25 and 26:
Shadows and Images II 11 settings,
Page 27:
Shadows and Images II 13 into the m
Page 30 and 31:
16 INVITED CHAPTERS Purpose of the
Page 32 and 33:
18 INVITED CHAPTERS do not recogniz
Page 34 and 35:
20 INVITED CHAPTERS Research Proced
Page 36 and 37:
22 INVITED CHAPTERS Political maneu
Page 38 and 39:
24 INVITED CHAPTERS CONCLUSION This
Page 40 and 41:
26 INVITED CHAPTERS Johnson, R. B.,
Page 43 and 44:
Complexities in the Workload of Pri
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
47 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADER
Page 63 and 64:
Professional Learning Communities:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Special Education Director Burnout
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Superintendent Decision-making and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRITICAL ISSUES
Page 125 and 126:
Administrative Functions The Admini
Page 127 and 128:
The Administration of Special Educa
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Page 137 and 138:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING ACADEM
Page 139 and 140:
The Effective Practices and Beliefs
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Creating Shared Meaning in High Per
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
162 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING AC
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Principals and Teachers Stated Beli
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEME
Page 228 and 229:
214 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255: 240 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 289 and 290: The Social Justice Implications of
Page 301 and 302: Name Exton Gateway Experiences with
Page 303: Experiences with PTELL in Six Illin
Page 307 and 308: Experiences with PTELL in Six Illin
Page 309: Part 5 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Page 312 and 313: 298 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 333 and 334: CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADER
Page 335 and 336: Service to the Profession: The Forg
Page 339 and 340: Qualitative Data Service to the Pro
Page 343: Service to the Profession: The Forg
Page 354 and 355:
340 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
show all

Blazing New Trails - Connexions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?