Lathan's base salary: $198,000 annually; the district will pay share of her retirement pension to the state, including premiums for health, dental and optical insurance as well as a $7,403 payment annually to a tax-deferred annuity.They command six-figure salaries, often with annual bonuses and car allowances. (Generous health care and pension plans are a given.) Sometimes their employers also foot the bill for their life insurance policies.
There are very few of them, for their skill set is rare. They must be savvy politicians and managers. They must be obsessed with constant improvement.
They'll be under the bright lights of the media, so the camera shy need not apply.
No, we're not talking rock stars, pro athletes or even pro coaches.
We're talking school superintendents. Especially those of large urban districts that have struggled from time immemorial. The original rock star superintendent was Rudy Crew, who asked for -- and got -- a contract from the Miami Dade school system in 2004 that paid him upwards of $500,000 a year. He defended his salary by saying, "I think people are really hungry for leadership. We shouldn't underestimate the value of this kind of leadership. This is public servancy with highly developed skills."
The 2010-11 school year is witnessing a larger-than-usual upheaval among the ranks of urban superintendents: Ramon Cortines is retiring in Los Angeles next month, Joel Klein quit mid-year in New York City, Michelle Rhee was done after Adrian Fenty's failed re-election bid in the nation's capital last fall, Clifford Janey is out in Newark after his contract wasn't renewed, Ron Huberman stepped down in Chicago last November, Beverly Hall is leaving amidst a cheating scandal in Atlanta, Paul Vallas is moving on from the Big Easy and Jerry Weast is throwing in the towel in Montgomery County, Md.
And add Seattle to the list, as Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson was fired on March 2 after a state audit found financial mismanagement to the tune of $1.8 million.
Klein, Hall and Weast have all served eight or more years in their most recent posts, which is much longer than the three-year stay of the average urban superintendent. The trouble with filling such vacancies is that the pool from which candidates are drawn isn't deep; everyone's after the same few fish. The predictable result in a free-market economy is that districts must offer lavish compensation packages to woo, and then retain, their preferred leaders.In the case of Arlene Ackerman, who has run the School District of Philadelphia since June 2008, that has meant offering her not just a base salary of $348,140 but also an annual performance bonus of up to 20 percent her base salary and, this year, a retention bonus of $100,000. According to the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, "The bonuses are in addition to annual raises, [Ackerman's] health plan, and a $65,000-a-year contribution to an annuity. Add to that 34 vacation days, 30 days of paid consulting time (which come out of her vacation or personal days), and perks like a car and premiums toward a $1 million life insurance policy."
Such eye-popping compensation -- which more than one observer has noted exceeds the combined compensation of Philadelphia's mayor and Pennsylvania's governor -- worries some people, especially in the current fiscal crisis. Among those concerned are Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, both of whom have recently pushed for upper limits to superintendent salaries. They argue that, with few exceptions, superintendents shouldn't earn more than $175,000 a year.
But when compared to the salaries of top players in other fields -- from Wall Street to higher education -- most superintendents' salaries look, if anything, rather small. Consider, for example, the case of Cathie Black, newly appointed Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools.Black earns $250,000 a year to run an institution with a $21-billion annual budget that serves 1.1 million students. That's exactly what Matthew Goldstein, chancellor of the City University of New York, earned a dozen years ago when he assumed his current position. Goldstein's salary has now almost doubled to $490,000, which doesn't include a yearly housing allowance of $90,000. But Goldstein's system -- in terms of annual budget and number of students served -- is just one-fourth the size of Black's. And the stakes are arguably lower at the university than the K-12 level.
It's little wonder that someone like Geoffrey Canada, the revered leader of the Harlem Children's Zone, is said to have turned down Mayor Michael Bloomberg's request that he run the New York City Public Schools. The task is daunting, the compensation modest and the likelihood of unqualified success slim. Taking the job of chancellor would have meant a major pay-cut for Canada -- in 2008, he earned $494,269 as president and CEO of the Harlem Children's Zone -- and his reputation might well have suffered if the city's schools didn't show significant improvement on his watch.
The superintendent role is tricky because it generally requires expertise in three distinct arenas: 1) politics; 2) management; and 3) education. Those tapped to lead school districts from other fields -- business, politics, media, the law and the military are popular -- often have little difficulty with the first two of these. But when they're new to the field of education, teachers tend to perceive them as outsiders whose lack of pedagogical knowledge is disturbing, if not downright dangerous. Hence the decision, in New York City and elsewhere, to appoint someone with classroom and curricular expertise to a "Chief Academic Officer" (CAO) post to serve alongside the superintendent or chancellor. In New York City, that person is Shael Polakow-Suransky, a former city math teacher who worked his way up to deputy chancellor of performance and accountability before becoming CAO.
Just how long Cathie Black lasts as New York City Schools Chancellor is anybody's guess. She's indicated an intention to stay through Mayor Bloomberg's third term, which ends in 2013. But at least one pundit, Michael Petrilli of the right-leaning Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C., thinks Black will be out by Easter.
If she is, New York City will rejoin the long list of major school systems now searching for the next rock star. Source
36 comments:
Emerge are you implying that if just the right position opens up our own rock star super would be outta here?
I am curious to know why Paul Vallas as yet again been given the boot. For some reason school district's buy into his self-acclaimed star status and then his performance proves not to be so stellar.
My concern with these "rock star" superintendents is that they are always looking to "move on". We used to call them carpet-bagger superintendents, back in the Royster days....she was a PRIME example.
Vallas is a "carpet bagger" super...he's branded himself as a 'maverick' and a renegade. His formula, while innovative and chock full of buzz words, isn't meant for the long haul. The reality is that NCLB as rendered local, reality based district management obsolete. It's all about paying someone to come in and work magic. And by 'someone' I mean private, for profit entities that promise big returns on proprietary 'educational' strategies. It's all bullshit. The privatization of public schools is at hand. There's a manufactured outrage because of NCLB and the absolutely unattainable (and unfunded) mandates.
Supers of large districts should absolutely make big bucks. They should have long term contracts and they should have to be continually held accountable by not only the community but also the staff they steer.
Nice article.
Qualified superintendent candidates are artificially low because of the system by which they are developed.
Anon says:
"The privatization of public schools is at hand. There's a manufactured outrage because of NCLB and the absolutely unattainable (and unfunded) mandates."
You hit the nail on the head. The U.S. has a very diverse population. NCLB denies the reality that there is a distribution of intelligences within any society and so . . black or white, rich or poor, not everyone is going to be an academic star. School success should be measured on individual student progress, not some arbitrary level of performance decided by the Federal government.
I am so glad to see that one by one people are catching on to the absurdity of NCLB and the ultimate harm it is doing to education--and the high price tag. I truly lay most of the blame for the problems in Peoria on NCLB. I hope that sooner or later we see some superintendents and administrators willing to take some risks to blow the whistle on this travesty. However, NCLB has become a cash cow for private companies and opportunists such as Vallas--they won't let go without a fight.
"I am curious to know why Paul Vallas as yet again been given the boot."
When was he ever given the boot? He resigned from Chicago's lead position after six years at the helm (reportedly working 15 hour days). He later went to Philadelphia and committed to 5 years. 5 years later, he resigned - and promptly went to New Orleans for the unique opportunity to completely rebuild that school system after Katrina. He again is resigning - no one is forcing him out. He has stated his interest to rebuild an educational system for Haiti.
Most major reforms are done in phases. Different approaches, and often different personalities, are necessary at different times of the reform. Rare is the leader who can accomplish a major reform from start to finish (and arguably, the reform is never finished, but is constantly evolving and influenced by leaders with very different styles).
As for NCLB - as with most programs, it has its positives and negatives. Last year Obama gave his outline for revising the program. There remains an emphasis on accountability (unlike many other states pre-NCLB, Illinois has had accountability standards since 1992 - a decade before NCLB) but the Obama plan is more flexible than NCLB. In the year prior to NCLB, D150 had 51% of its students meet or exceed standards. Last year, that number had increased to 64%.
I did my own study of Vallas a while back--reading Chicago and Philadelphia accounts, etc. I stand by my statement that Vallas was fired. He may have been allowed to save face by resigning, but the ultimate choices were not his.
I am, also, satisfied with my own opinion of NCLB. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Also, I know how the deck can be stacked as far as test results, etc., are concerned. Certainly, the graduation rate is easily manipulated to make a school look good--and it's being done all the time.
My main point, of course, is that NCLB is costing taxpayers much money--and no one is complaining about that expenditure and no one is asking where most of the money goes--to all those pop up companies that are making a killing at taxpayers' expense.
Jon, these are some excerpts from Chicago papers about Vallas:
February 2001: Vallas, as the Chicago Public Schools CEO, stated, "What we've seen is five years of steady growth. We expect to see a sixth year of improvement in reading and math scores this year.” However, Mayor Daley said that he wanted to see an improvement in reading because two-thirds of Chicago students still don't read at grade level. Daley urged Vallas to open his mind to new ideas to tackle the reading dilemma.
My comment: In other words, Vallas pulled one-third of the top students out and left two-thirds behind.
March 2001: Despite $100,000 a year per school in extra help, the city's low-scoring high schools have showed "little significant change" since 1997, a new study indicated Friday.
June 8, 2001: Headline: Daley salutes Vallas Mayor, exiting schools chief mask tensions. Like a conquering hero being summoned home, Chicago Schools CEO Paul Vallas gave up the job he adored Thursday to applause from Mayor Daley, who had hastened his departure. Vallas had been the CEO for 6 years (since 1995).
From excerpts—not full articles
July 2003: Vallas got $325,279 for turning in his resignation. When Paul Vallas resigned under fire from Mayor Daley as chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools, he walked away with a check for $325,279--nearly double his annual salary. To start, Vallas got one year's salary for his going-away--$174,000. He also got $91,685 for 137 unused sick days, $58,223 for 87 unused vacation days, and $1,371 to cover health insurance costs for him and his family.
Nice excerpts – if only we all could be “given the boot” or “fired” or “allowed to resign” and receive such compensation, not to mention adulation from the boss. Here’s another excerpt from one of those Sun-Times articles you quoted after Vallas’ resignation: “Daley praised Vallas as "quite simply the best chief executive in the history of the Chicago Public Schools".
Laura Petelle once told me that an urban school superintendent, in a setting most needing reform, probably had at best a 5 year “lifespan” in that position. Every year, they will tick off 20% of the interested parties, such that in 5 years, they’ve pretty much ticked off everybody involved.
I had to chuckle at your comment that "Vallas pulled one-third of the top students out and left two-thirds behind." - as if to justify the "firing". That seems to ignore where he started from - and the "five years of steady growth". Of course, that 1/3 reading at grade level was still BETTER than what Manual was doing the year BEFORE enactment of NCLB.
But, your main point was that NCLB is most to blame for Peoria's current problems. And here I thought you had been saying the main problem today was lack of discipline. Or maybe the main point was it that NCLB is costing taxpayer's much money?
Here’s a thought – rather than continue to criticize NCLB, why not suggest how it can be changed? Do you agree with Obama’s recommendations, for example?
It was Daley, not I, who presented the information that 2/3 of the students still were reading far below grade level. And I don't know the statistics as to how many Chicago students were reading below level before Vallas started.
Vallas succeeded by cherrypicking and spending lots of money on charter schools as havens for the brightest--the ones whose scores could easily be raised when teachers weren't burdened by the students who were so much farther behind.
Yes, I still think one major problem is discipline. However, I could make a good case for saying that discipline problems were far less severe--at least in District 150--before NCLB. However, I am not sure I would go as far as to say there is a direct correlation. I believe the choice in leadership over the last twenty years has more to do with it--a mindset about allowing young people to behave without consequences and consistency.
No, with regret, I don't agree with Obama's recommendations. The Race to the Top concept of success and plans that are dependent on getting rid of the principal and/or a majority of the faculty, etc., just aren't solutions--it's just a shuffling process that makes a pretense at progress. That ridiculous solution is being pursued for Peoria High and the results will be just as disastrous as those at Manual have been.
Yes, the current life of an urban superintendent is about 5 years--there are all sorts of reasons for that, too. Again it's just a shuffling process.
However, Jon, you and I aren't going to come to agreement on any subject. I don't stand alone in my opinions and neither do you--so we will continue to appeal to our own audience. Who's right and who's wrong--that just isn't an argument either of us can win. The truth is that so far no one is finding any solutions to the problems in education--and I contend that is because no one is looking at the real causes.
Jon has never strived to "appeal to an audience", he has always just made a good us of data and facts. He has also offered many suggestions as to solutions - but they often fall contrary to the
"union", which is obviously the "audience" to which Sharon "appeals".
Anonymous, you are just one of many anonymouses--some who agree with Jon and some who agree with me. At least, Jon uses part of his real name.
These excerpts from an article to be in tomorrow's PJS are a welcome admission that NCLB has been a failure. Teachers knew that from the beginning because we are the ones who faced the problems every day--and I might add grieved over the children that we couldn't reach for so many, many reasons--reasons that NCLB has yet to address.
From the article:
The Department of Education estimates the percentage of schools not meeting yearly targets for their students' proficiency in in math and reading could jump from 37 to 82 percent as states raise standards in attempts to satisfy the law's mandates.
No Child Left Behind is broken and we need to fix it now," Duncan said in a statement. "This law has created a thousand ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed."
"We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk," Duncan said.
The 2nd edition of "Remarkable Times" TV segment focuses on Academic Excellence in various primary and middle schools. Dr. Lathan is the host. Just part of a CAPtions airing this Sunday at 5 pm, Wednesday March 23rd at 7 pm and Midnight on Comcast Cable 22.
To label NCLB a "failure" is to ignore the positive aspects that it achieved. It's like labeling Vallas a "failure" because too many CPS students are not meeting standards, even though you readily admit you don't know just how bad it was before Vallas got there. Ironic, too, since that is essentially the exact same criticism you level toward NCLB - that the AYP is too strict/unreasonable.
Obama and Duncan realize that, too, and recognize that the important thing is to show improvement toward the goal, rather than some arbitrary target. If a school was at 10% achievement and improved to 20% in a year, that would be an outstanding success - even if it didn't meet the AYP target.
Judging by your response to Obama's proposal ("dependent on getting rid of the principal and/or a majority of the teachers") you clearly have no idea what the proposal is. Here's a blueprint of it - geared especially for teachers.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/teachers/index.html
I'll try again: Rather than continue to criticize NCLB (or Race to the Top), why not suggest how it can be changed?
Jon, NCLB was wrong from the start for the very reason that Frustrated mentioned earlier. It tracked the progress or failure of schools instead of the progress or failure of students. Inner schools were doomed (just because of what we know about poverty as the cause of so many educational problems) to failure whereas Dunlap, Northmoor, Lindbergh, etc., had to do little to come into compliance. All those teachers had to do was to help students understand the format of the test--the students already were proficient in the content of the test.
Yes, you are right; I am not totally up on Obama's latest plan to improve NCLB (as stated by my Duncan excerpt). However, I know enough about Race to the Top to know that it is still following the blame the school model. It requires schools to jump through all kinds of hoops to get the funding, all of which have to do with blaming administrators and teachers. NCLB's failure was bound to be obvious as the higher AYP scores needed came into play. Now in the 80s, everyone recognizes that even the best of schools will never get to the 100% goal that NCLB tauted as a great possibility.
Jon, you are usually on safe ground and do not have to come up with better solutions because you generally buy into and defend the current program--NCLB, Johns Hopkins. .
Jon, you misinterpreted my comment. I didn't say I didn't now how badly the Chicago students were doing before Vallas--I meant to imply that I didn't know how good they were doing. I have no reason not to believe that some of the 1/3 in compliance under Vallas could also have been in compliance before Vallas. Certainly, in District 150 a good number of students could have passed the tests before NCLB, so the fact that they passed the NCLB testing has nothing to do with NCLB.
Also, because different students are tested each year, the results can vary considerably for a particular school just because the abilities of a particular group of kids can vary considerably from year to year.
"It tracked the progress or failure of schools instead of the progress or failure of students."
Agreed. So, rather than view NCLB as all or nothing, why not take a look at the individual components and recognize that some are good and some are bad? After identifying the bad ones and their original intent, why not offer solutions as to how the same goals can be reached more effectively?
"Yes, you are right; I am not totally up on Obama's latest plan to improve NCLB (as stated by my Duncan excerpt). However...." however, that's not going to prevent you from making ignorant comments, is it? Did you even bother to read the link I gave you? Or was your mind already made up about something you don't seem to know much about?
Please show me where I "buy into and defend" NCLB. Was it when I said it "has its positives and negatives"? Because I acknowledge that that are some good things about it?
And as for your comments about me "misinterpreting" what you said and your attempt to clarify it - I've read that paragraph 10 times and I really don't understand at all what you are trying to say. I'll try and make this very clear - during Vallas' tenure at CPS, the number of students meeting standards increased for 5 consecutive years. The "cherry-picking" comment makes no sense. Students who were NOT meeting standards were now meeting them (not all, of course, nor not as many or as quickly as one would prefer - but it is PROGRESS). Stop and think about that for awhile (I know math troubles you).
Lastly, you said "Certainly, in District 150 a good number of students could have passed the tests before NCLB, so the fact that they passed the NCLB testing has nothing to do with NCLB."
Agreed - but who ever said that NCLB is the reason they passed the tests?!?! Please don't tell me that you interpreted MY comments as such?!?!
And, perhaps the third time is the charm: rather than continue to criticize, can you offer solutions? Or is criticism all you've got?
Jon, you have found your audience and your defenders here--so have it. I could appreciate your points of view more if I thought any of this was really of any concern to you. I have watched up close and personal what NCLB has done to District 150. Never before was there so much animosity between administrators (central and in building) and teachers. There was never this kind of friction before. NCLB has done nothing but play the blame game and all the players have followed suit. And the kids are the losers because in the end, NCLB has told all of them that there are failures, too. It is a tragedy and if you can't see it, then you aren't close enough to the situation--just a bystander that enjoys the argument for the sake of the argument.
Sharon:
I agree, NCLB was put in place to bring about privatization of public education.
It is probably one of the most successful Trojans that the Bush Administration put into play.
It is working... bringing out the deficiencies in teachers, administrators, and parents; deficiencies that cannot be denied. Parents are running to the market for choice, at this stage in the privatization process, it is a must.
It is what it is - time to go forward and make the best of what is before us. Thanks to NCLB, we now at least have an idea of where the deficiencies lay – in teachers, administrators and parents.
Emerge, I am glad to hear your assessment of NCLB. My only disagreement is that I don't believe privatization is the answer. However, I definitely believe that was the Republican goal--a way to end the public schools. And I believe that forced integration might very well have been the deep down reason for that--people who never got over the 1960s. Therefore, their solution--privatization of schools--can't be with pure motives either.
Cynically, I believe NCLB has reached the goals of those who began the idea--the public schools are in disarray. My dream is that we will all work diligently to take back our schools--not give them to private companies. You have to know the abuses that can occur once private companies completely take over--they are for profit companies. They will do anything to make a profit--some students will have to be expendable.
Emerge, I guess I am in a hurry to go to exercise rehab, so missed some of your comments. I don't agree that NCLB has brought out deficiencies in teachers and administrations. By blaming schools, NCLB has failed to look for the real causes of student failures. Schools have become the scapegoats. However, most won't see the truth in that until ten to twenty years down the pike when, I believe, we will find that privatization will just create more problems. For one thing, the kids who really need help will be left behind. Privatization is not a way to get away from schools because of teachers and administrators--parents are using it to get away from the very problem we are discussing here--the general environment of bullying, violence, etc., brought into schools by students.
Eventually "choice" will not be possible--just look at what Vallas did in Chicago. He created "choice" schools for the elite and left the others behind. Then he tauted the successes of the schools he created--easy successes when you get rid of the poor test-takers.
Do you really have that much faith in big business? We have kept it out of schools for these many years--now the profit margin will be the guiding principle of our schools. As in the business world, money will be the primary concern. When people (students) are the product, profit should not be the way to judge the success of the "company/school."
Privatization does not equal for-profit. And Choice schools have existed long before NCLB (enacted in 2002) and in far greater numbers than now exist with for-profit public schools.
"From 1993 to 2007, the percentage of children attending a "chosen" public school (a public school other than their assigned public school) increased from 11 to 16 percent, while the percentage of children attending an assigned public school decreased from 80 to 73 percent." (The balance attend private schools and a few Bureau of Indian Education schools) Thus the % of public choice schools increased from 12% a decade before NCLB to 18% in 2007.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6
If you click on the link and look at the Table, you'll see that nearly all of that increase occurred between 1993 and 2003 and that since then the change has been almost non-existent.
In the 2007–08 school year, there were 87,190 traditional public and 3,560 public charter schools. Thus, less than 4% of public schools are charter schools. Remember that a decade prior to NCLB, 12% of students attended a choice school.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55
For-profit companies that manage schools, also called Educational Management Organizations (EMO), ran a total of 728 schools in 2009/10. As such, less than 1% of all public schools are run by a for-profit company. Less than 1%.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO-FP-09-10
Listen to the rhetoric and you might think for-profit and charter schools are taking over and that the end of traditional public schools is near. Actually look at the data and you'll see a far different picture.
Sharon said:
"Do you really have that much faith in big business? We have kept it out of schools for these many years..."
Sharon: Education IS BIG BUSINESS. They have budgets on par with top corporations. In my opinion, the Superintendent of schools should be tops in education; and the Assistant Superintendent should have more of a business management background, with perhaps a minor in education.
You say "we have kept business out of schools all of these years". I say "that's the problem". What we have before us is what you get when you run a business like a social club, where highly paid people can get in to the exclusive club for life after "x" amount of years. And then turn around and go back and peddle their wares to the club without any oversight.
Emerge, I guess there is nothing I can say or do to change your perception of teachers, tenure, etc. Admittedly, I have never before heard us described as members of an exclusive social club.
What kind of wares do teachers peddle to the club without oversight?
Yes, schools do receive and spend vast sums of money, but that doesn't make them a big business. I was speaking of businesses in the sense of "for-profit." It's the profit margin that defines big business. I agree that it might be wise to have dual superintendents--one in charge of academics and one in charge of finances. However, doesn't Dr. Kinney, the treasurer, fill that role--the one who watches over expenditures, etc?
Do you disagree that Quest is a business? That is another FOIA in the making. Quest receives not only tax money but I believe contributions from businesses and private individuals (I think???--not to mention a building for which they paid $1. How much of that money goes to the company (forget its name) as "profit" for the owners of the company? These companies are in the business of education to make money just as the Edison and Johns Hopkins companies are in it to make money.
The principal and teachers at Quest are not receiving the profit. Currently, Those teachers with 1 to 5 years' experience earn from $34,000 to $38,000 a year. Those with 6 to 10 years earn from $39,000 to $43,000 and 11 years experience earn $44,000. Teachers get plus $2,000 for having a master's degree and up to 10% of gross pay is for possible bonuses.
70% of their health, dental, and vision insurance is paid by Quest.
100% of life insurance is paid by Quest. Quest pays 9.5% of pension plan payments.
I have heard (Greg on WMBD mentioned this) that Quest students do not have any books to take home. Therefore, Quest is saving lots of money at the expense of students--I can't imagine teaching 5th through 8th graders who are not allowed to take books home). Quest saves a bundle by not having extensive extra-curricular programs (and paying coaches, etc.) Where do all those savings go?
And, of course, Quest saves much money by offering only limited special education services--certainly another way to be sure that only good test takers will apply to go to Quest. That is a disguised form of cherrypicking.
Frankly, I believe that District 150 could do as well without many of the programs for which they pay big bucks. However, I bet that Quest isn't spending its "profit" on the kinds of programs and services for which District 150 spends its money.
Emerge, did my response to your above post get lost in cyberspace?
You truly have no idea of the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit, do you? Yes, you spent 43 years working in the public sector, but you don't seem to understand anything outside of that.
Do you disagree that the Red Cross is a business? (2/3 of its revenues come from services/products, with less than 1/3 from contributions) Who "owns" the Red Cross, anyway?
Quest is run by Concept Schools, a not-for-profit organization. It has no owners. – nor does any other not-for-profit organization. It employs people in many roles who are paid wages for services provided. You can argue that those at the top make too much in wages (or too little – whatever your preference). How is that any different from another other organization, be it for-profit, not-for-profit or public.
You also realize that the D150 Foundation receives contributions from businesses and individuals and uses those funds for the benefit of students and staff of D150, don’t you? How does that differ from Quest?
“Where do all those savings go?” – I’ve explained to you over and over that Quest is educating those kids at 85% of the average D150 student expense. If you ever bothered to look at the budget Quest provided to the district in its charter application and was accessible on both the District and Quest’s websites, as I’ve suggested to you in the past, you would see exactly how that money was to be spent. Further, Quest is required to provide the District with financial statements showing exactly how that money was actually spent.
Regarding special education, you always neglect the fact that Quest is a part of District 150. Like similar D150 schools (Lindbergh, Columbia, etc.) it provides certain special education services, but does not provide everything (blind/deaf/Down’s Syndrome, etc.) although, like the other schools, those services are provided at schools that can address those unique needs. In that respect, Quest “cherrypicks” the same way other mainstream D150 schools “cherrypick”.
Sharon says "Quest saves a bundle by not having extensive extra-curricular programs (and paying coaches, etc.) "
Please elaborate - what extra-curriculars are offered at Quest? What are offered at, say, Columbia or Von Stueben? In other words, how did you determine Quest "does not have extensive extra-curricular programs"? What is that relative to?
Jon, I will respond to a couple of your points.
You say that Quest is obligated to give District 150 financial statements. Laura Patelle wrote this to me this week:
"Remember, by law, Quest is self-governing. We have almost zero oversight and they don't really have to report much at all to us. We're not even permitted to audit their financials and basically can't review their student performance until year five at the earliest. Virtually all of their (pretty minimal) reporting requirements go to the state board, not us. And even if they fail as a school and we attempt to revoke their charter, they get to appeal to the state board, and then to a court, and the whole process can take years. There's no provision in the Illinois law for effective local board oversight of charters."
I believe that District 150 is obligated to provide the special education services--at least, in the information I received through a FOIA, Quest hired no special ed teachers, and the information revealed only a minimal number of students needed special ed services. I don't know if or how much Quest pays 150 for the special ed services.
I know that Quest recently did muster up some schools such as Christ Lutheran to compete in basketball competition with its students. My impression is that all Quests clubs, etc., are led by volunteers or Quest teachers. I don't know that anyone is paid. Of course, in District 150 the middle schools do have athletic teams and paid coaches. Quest's extra-curricular situation is an idea for another FOIA--I'll probably wait, however, until the state rules on Quest's failure to respond in a timely manner to our last FOIAs.
Yes, I do know that District 150's foundation collects money from individuals and businesses that is used to benefit students. I hope that none of that money goes to pay salaries.
Also, budgets that look good to the public don't reveal how much money is actually spent and on what.
Jon, I do have another response that hasn't shown up yet.
About Concept Schools:
The idea of a college prep charter school focusing on math, science, and technology, which gave birth to a sought-after management organization, Concept Schools, was developed by two Turkish educators ten years ago in Ohio. Taner Ertekin , an educator who had started schools in Thailand and Japan, was visiting United States to recruit American teachers for the schools he had started in these countries. The charter school concept was introduced to Taner, who was an entrepreneur, by his long time friend, Ehat Ercanli, a computer technology professor at Case Western University at that time. Dr. Ercanli currently teaches at Syracuse University in New York.
The state of Ohio had just recently passed a law to allow charter schools in the state. Taner Ertekin, being an entrepreneur, realized the opportunity for making a difference in education through this concept and wanted to get involved in charter schools with Ehat Ercanli."
So Ertekin and Ercanli aren't the owners of the management company that they eventually set up.
The term "entrepreneur" is used to indicate a person who creates and manages a business, etc. I can't see any reason to call Concepts anything other than a business. In their own blurbs, I don't see the term "non-profit" mentioned.
As for the Red Cross and hospitals, in general, I have come to believe that labeling them "non-profit" might not be completely accurate. District 150 doesn't have to worry much about anyone calling it a "for profit" organization since there isn't much money left over and the end of each year--and there are no owners--other than the taxpayers
Sharon said:
"... My impression is that all Quests clubs, etc., are led by volunteers or Quest teachers. I don't know that anyone is paid. Of course, in District 150 the middle schools do have athletic teams and paid coaches. Quest's extra-curricular situation is an idea for another FOIA"
What is wrong with saving money by not paying coaches and using volunteers or teachers?
They do that at Whittier and many other schools in the District - what have you FOIAd about them? Can you give some comparisions?
What exactly is your point about "Quest's extracurricular situation"? Why is it a problem for you? What are you hoping to find in your FOIA's?
Do you have any suggestions to Quest about their extra-curricular program? Do you want it to be bigger, better, smaller - WHAT?
Laura's comments do not necessarily disagree with mine. (though I would disagree with the characterization of "not much" being reported to the D150 Board as Quest is required to submit to the Board quarterly financial reports as well as an annual audit performed by an outside independent auditor.
As usual, your "impression" about Quest's extracurricular activities is based on very little fact or analysis. Even if it were correct (and it may be), as Emerge pointed out - so what? Remember that each of the students CHOSE to go there - it offers them something that they want.
I do love this comment though: "Also, budgets that look good to the public don't reveal how much money is actually spent and on what."
Do you know the difference between a budget and an audited financial statement? Have you ever look at either? Did you ever look at the Quest budget?
You asked, "So Ertekin and Ercanli aren't the owners of the management company that they eventually set up." As I said - NO. Again, it shows your lack of understanding of what a non-profit organization is.
You keep talking about a "business" - why don't you start by defining that first?
Lastly, here's a section from Quest's own website about Concept Schools.
"Quest Charter Academy is managed by Concept Schools, NFP. Concept Schools is a not-for-profit charter management organization that manages high quality charters in the Midwest."
Emerge, I think Quest students requested basketball competition and a competition was set up against the Lutheran school and Quest won.
At the beginning, Quest said that competitive sports would not be offered. I didn't think that kids and their parents would be happy with that situation. And evidently that turned out to be the case.
No, I do not think that teachers should be asked to volunteer to coach, etc. Too many extra hours are required to expect teachers to volunteer for such duties--and I'm not sure how the extra duties would be spread out fairly among all faculty members. If it works out for parents and others to volunteer, then fine. For example, members of my church spend many volunteer hours at Irving school--providing a choir and soccer teams, etc.--things that 150 can't afford.
I don't know how much money Quest draws in, how much is spent on educating students, and how much is left over to go to the Concept Company. And I do believe that Concept does make a profit--contrary to what Jon contends.
My point is that I believe Quest should spend all its money on providing the students an education (and that, of course, includes teachers' and administrators' salaries) and extra-curricular activities--just as District 150 does.
I am just saying if Quest scrimps on the needs of students in order to have profit left over, then that is why I disagree with charter schools and programs like Edison where $800,000 a year goes to a company in New York instead of staying in District 150.
And I'm not saying that is the case--those are just questions that I think should be asked and that blogs help ferret out the truth about such matters. I do not pretend to know anything about Quest's finances (income and outgo) and, according to Laura Petelle, District 150 doesn't know much either. I think every effort should be made to find out--in the interest of transparency and the right of taxpayers to know where their money is going.
Just to clarify Whittier is not a middle school like Quest.
Sharon, when did Quest say that there would be no competitive sports offered in the beginning? In their application they said "Teams will be developed as the school grows in number of students based on the levels of student interest."
I should add that I disagree with Laura's contention that the D150 Board "basically can't review their student performance until year five at the earliest."
Quest reports its annual report card info just as every other public school in the state. As a parent, I can see just as much info on Quest, including student performance, as I can on any other school.
Another one "bites the dust".
Opening in Rockford.
http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/04/07/breaking-news-lavonne-sheffield-announces-resignation/
Post a Comment