The Illinois School Board Journal November-December 2013

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 3 Vol. 81, No. 6

Member surveys, trends

Who they are

What they think

What they want

How are we doing

PLUS: BARGAINING 2013 • 5ESSENTIALS • PRACTICAL PR • BOILER ROOM

Arecent FOIA ruling in the Fourth

District Appellate Court (Spring-

field area) addressed city council

members’ and a mayor’s use of cell

phones during meetings and study

sessions. It should serve as a reminder

to school board members and admin-

istrators that it’s the content of their

message that matters, not the device

upon which they’re sending or receiv-

ing the message, even when using

personal smartphones. That ruling

is consistent with information that

IASB Assistant General Counsel Kim-

berly Small provided in an “Ask the

staff” answer for the March April 2012

issue of The Journal, which is avail-

able at http://iasb.com/askthestaff/

ma12.cfm.

The appellate court ruling in July

reinforced reporters’ access rights to

text messages on private as well as

city-issued cell phones especially

when the messages are sent or received

during council meetings or study ses-

sions.

Esther Seitz, an attorney with

Donald M. Craven, P.C, the Illinois

Press Association’s legal counsel,

wrote about this July ruling in the

Association’s PressLines, available

at http://issuu.com/illinoispress/docs/.

The reporter was not looking for

personal information; only com-

munication about city business. And

as our office of general counsel remind-

ed board members more than a year

ago, conducting public business on

a personal account or device is sub-

ject to disclosure, just as is public

business conducted on a district-

issued phone or laptop.

The key question is “Was the

requested record prepared by or used

by one or more members of the pub-

lic body in conducting its affairs?

In addition to raising questions

of business being discussed out of the

public eye, maybe those around the

table should also consider how incon-

siderate using the phone at the meet-

ing might appear.

Technology is a wonderful thing,

but it needs to be used with common

sense and courtesy as well as with an

eye to sunshine and openness in gov-

ernment. If board members have

thoughts about an issue being dis-

cussed, they should be willing and

able to share with everyone, not just

as a text message to one or a select

group in the room. Just like a teacher

asking if the note passer has some-

thing to share with the entire class,

the idea is that if the message is so

important that it can’t wait and

demands immediate attention it needs

to be shared aloud and engage every-

one in the dialogue.

Members surveyed

Since 1993, the Illinois Associ-

ation of School Boards has surveyed

individual board members and super-

intendents in order to get a better

idea of who they are, what they think

about various educational issues,

what they want and need from the

Association and how closely they

think we come to filling those wants

and needs.

Conducted every five years, the

Association now has 20 years of lon-

gitudinal data, from 1993, 1998, 2003,

2008, and the most recent survey

conducted in February 2013. High-

lights of the latest survey are report-

ed in this issue. And while there is

much in common between the 2013

and 2008 surveys, there are signifi-

cant changes to report as well.

So how much stock should IASB

put into these surveys?

According to Denis Leonard of

Business Excellence Consulting, Boze-

man, MT, IASB should be able to say

with 95 percent confidence that the

findings from its surveys are repre-

sentative of the whole membership.

This year’s survey of board members,

conducted for the first time as an

online poll, was taken by 1,345 par-

ticipants. Using a round figure of 6,000

for the greatest possible number of

respondents, IASB would need only

about 235 to 360 responses to ensure

a confidence level of 95 percent. With

a response rate of nearly 23 percent,

chances are that comparison and

analyses closely reflect the entire

IASB membership.

Illinois school board members

are also fairly consistent with those

who hold the same office in other

states. The opinions emerging in IASB’s

latest poll compare with the Nation-

al School Boards Association survey

in 2002, “School Boards at the Dawn

of the 21st Century.” Our members

cite the same two major concerns that

worry board members nationwide:

student achievement and funding.

We hope that the results of the

2013 IASB member surveys will help

board members and superintendents

to shape local conversations about

public education in their commu-

nities. Polls can’t and don’t tell the

whole story, but they are a valuable

tool in helping us to understand these

issues in greater detail. IASB is grate-

ful to the board members and super-

intendents who took the time to

participate in these surveys.

Vol. 81, No. 6

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 3

ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL(ISSN-0019-221X) is published every other month by the Illinois Associationof School Boards, 2921 Baker Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703-5929, telephone217/528-9688. The IASB regional officeis located at One Imperial Place, 1 East22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120, telephone 630/629-3776.

The JOURNAL is supported by the duesof school boards holding active member-ship in the Illinois Association of SchoolBoards. Copies are mailed to all schoolboard members and the superintendentin each IASB member school district.

Non-member subscription rate: Domes-tic $18.00 per year. Foreign (includingCanada and Mexico) $21.00 per year.

PUBLICATION POLICYIASB believes that the domestic processfunctions best through frank and opendiscussion. Material published in the JOUR-NAL, therefore, often presents divergentand controversial points of view which donot necessarily represent the views orpolicies of IASB.

James Russell, Associate Executive Director

Linda Dawson, Editor

Gary Adkins, Contributing Editor

Dana Heckrodt, Advertising Manager

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Cover by Corbin Design, Petersburg

January/February Re-envisioning collegeMarch/April Poverty at school

COVER STORY

16 | Survey finds board members giving more of themselvesThe 2013 survey results from member districts show board members are spending more time each monthdoing their job and more years as elected officials.

Gary Adkins

17| Sidebar: Technology on the rise

24 | Superintendents mirror boards in hours, tenureJust like their board members, administrators say they spend increasingly more time on board work each month and they arestaying with a district for a fewer number of years as compared with previous survey data.

Gary Adkins

FEATURE STORIES

4 | Bargaining season 2013How the Affordable Care Act will impact Illinois districtsContract negotiations will now need to address four major areas in order to comply with federal healthcare mandates that begin in 2014.

David J. Braun

12 | Education, healthcare have similaritiesA comparison of two systems that may not seem alike to some people.

Linda Dawson

29 | Centennial crossword puzzlePuzzle Answer key found on page 31.

30 | 5EssentialsGetting a better picture of schools’ holistic health.

Whitney Pickels and Emily Modlin

31 | Sidebar: Questions to ask the superintendent about 5Essentials

32 | Fostering creativity like PixarA former Illinois teacher of the year says school districts could learn something about collaboration from the leadership of a well-known animation studio.

Joseph Fatheree

T O P I C S F O R U P C O M I N G I S S U E S

REGULAR FEATURES

Boiler Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Practical PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Ask the staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover

2 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013

F E A T U R E A R T I C L E

Iwas havin’ a cup of coffee with

Mr. Keck the other day after work,

when an interestin’ topic came up.

…forced retirement.

“I just got an e-mail from my

daughter, Gus,” Keck said. “Seems

there’s quite a controversy going on

in her small town in Indiana. It’s all

about a school crossing guard, a guy

by the name of Dick Egbert. Some

folks want him to retire because of

his age.”

“How old is he?”

“90. He’s been on the same cor-

ner since 1956.”

“Wow Mr. Keck! That’s one ded-

icated guy! Why would they want him

to retire?”

“Well, he’s got severe arthritis

and moves at a snail’s pace. You

know… with these teeny-weeny steps

… Takes him forever to escort the

kids across the street.”

“Define ‘forever,’ boss.”

“He was clocked at six minutes.”

“Six minutes? To get from one

side of the street to the other? Traf-

fic must be lined up for blocks!”

“It is, Gus. Traffic comes to a

standstill at his intersection when-

ever he’s on duty …morning, noon

and when school lets out.”

“Why don’t they just give him

his walking papers? No pun intend-

ed, Mr. Keck.”

“Well, because of who it is. He

owns Egbert’s Paint, the biggest

employer in that area. Half the peo-

ple in my daughter’s town work in

the paint factory.”

“Never heard of Egbert’s Paint.”

“I’d be surprised if you did, Gus.

They don’t sell their product in any

retail outlet. They have only one cus-

tomer. … the Department of Defense.

… You see, they only make one col-

or … olive-drab. Just about every

vehicle in the army is painted with

their product. They’ve been sellin’

olive-drab paint to the military since

World War II. The Egbert family made

a fortune on that war alone. They’re

very good to their employees, and

those folks who work in the plant are

very grateful. The family is a local

legend.”

“How’d Dick wind up bein’ a cross-

ing guard, boss?”

“Well, around 1950, Dick quit

going to the paint factory. He said he

was bored. I guess making the same

color of paint all day doesn’t stir

the imagination. He wanted to branch

out and make a second color…bat-

tleship gray… to see if the compa-

ny could land a contract with the

Navy, but the rest of the Egbert clan

wouldn’t go along with it. They said

it was ‘too bold’ a move. They’re all

major stockholders, so Dick had to

listen.”

“I see. So, what happened next?”

“Well, Gus, he started to do vol-

unteer work all over town. First, he

helped out in the town’s library, puttin’

books back on the shelves, but that

didn’t ease the boredom much. Job’s

too quiet. So, he went to work as a

school crossing guard. He really enjoys

the job. He’s escorted several gener-

ations of school children across his

intersection over the years. All the

kids know him and think he’s a great

old guy… . they sort of treat him like

one of their grandparents. The kids

show him their art projects and per-

fect test scores and even bring him

Christmas presents. He’s lived long

enough to see many of the children

grow up and have kids of their own.

“When did the trouble begin, Mr.

Keck?”

“Around 2001. Dick’s arthritis

really started to kick in. It hit his

elbows, first. He began to have trou-

ble holding up the ‘stop’ sign.”

“How’d he do his job if he could-

n’t hold up the sign?”

“The parents made him a small-

Gus, the custodi-

an at Eastside

Grammar, is the

creation of

Richard W.

Smelter, a retired

school principal,

now a Chicago-

based college

instructor and

author.

Retire? Forget it.by “Gus”

B O I L E R R O O M

er, lighter one, but someone pointed

out that the sign had to be a standard

size, so the parents fabricated a sign

of balsa wood and plastic foam.”

“I suspect there is more to the

story.”

“You’re right, Gus ... much more.

By 2006 his arthritis got worse and

moved to his legs. That really slowed

him down, especially since he no

longer drives a car. He only lives four

blocks from his assigned corner, but

it takes him more than an hour to

cover the distance. He had to leave

his house by 6:30 in the morning in

order to have time to get to his cor-

ner by 8:00.”

“That’s an hour and a half. I

thought you said it takes him an hour.”

“He stops at a convenience store

for a cup of coffee and a sweetroll.”

“Oh.”

“Well, Dick has to be on his a.m.

shift until 9:00. That means he’s not

home until 10:00. That gives him only

a half hour to eat lunch, because he

has to leave his home again by 10:30

in order to be at his corner by 11:30

to help the kids who go home for their

lunch. He’s got the same time crunch

in the afternoon. So now, he just stays

on his corner all day. … until 4:30 in

the afternoon. That really simplified

things.”

“All day? What does he do for

lunch now?”

“The parents work in rotation

making sandwiches for their kids

to bring to him.”

“What about when the weather

gets bad? Soggy sandwiches don’t

sound all that appetizing.”

“The village board voted to con-

struct a shelter for him, sort of like

those you see at bus stops. This one’s

much bigger and pretty deluxe. It’s

entirely enclosed, with vinyl siding

and a small window. It even has heat-

ing and air-conditioning, running

water, and a toilet.”

“Then, it’s a house.”

“Gee, Gus….I guess you’re right.

A long narrow house ... right there

on the parkway, next to the curb.”

“You know what’ll happen next,

boss?”

‘Yeah…they’ll put on an addition

with a bedroom ... probably with

expensive, designer wallpaper.”

“Right. Eventually, he’ll sell his

house and be in his crossing guard

shack 24/7. They’ll have to slap an

address on it so he can get his mail.

That still doesn’t help with the backed

up traffic problem.”

“Oh, his supporters have an idea

to eliminate the congestion, Gus.

They want to put up barricades a

block from the intersection which

would divert all vehicular traffic to

alternate routes.”

“Then, why would you need a

crossing guard there at all, Mr. Keck?”

“You’re forgetting one thing, Gus.”

“Oh yeah…the paint factory.”

... dedicated to my cousin,

Richard Graham, a school crossing

guard in Glenview, Illinois.

PresidentCarolyne Brooks

Vice PresidentKaren Fisher

TreasurerDale Hansen

ImmediatePast PresidentJoseph Alesandrini

IASB is a voluntary association of local boards ofeducation and is not affiliated with any branch ofgovernment.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Abe LincolnLisa Weitzel

BlackhawkJackie Mickley

Central Illinois ValleyThomas Neeley

Cook NorthPhil Pritzker

Cook SouthVal Densmore

Cook WestFrank Mott

Corn BeltMark Harms

DuPageRosemary Swanson

EgyptianJohn Metzger

IlliniMichelle Skinlo

KaskaskiaLinda Eades

KishwaukeeMary Stith

Lake CountyJoanne Osmond

NorthwestBen Andersen

ShawneeRoger Pfister

SouthwesternRob Luttrell

Starved RockSimon Kampwerth Jr.

Three RiversDale Hansen

Two RiversDavid Barton

Wabash ValleyTim Blair

WesternSue McCance

Chicago BoardJesse Ruiz

Service AssociatesSteve Larson

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 3

“My mom says I need to have a positive attitude. I’m positive

I’m going to fail this test.”



The health reform legislation

signed by President Obama in 2010

will have major implications for school

districts and their health insurance

plans beginning in 2014. Titled the

“Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act” (PPACA), the law now pro-

vides for substantial financial penal-

ties for employers that do not provide

sufficient coverage or discriminate

in favor of certain employees. Until

now, many employers have postponed

addressing much of the law for sev-

eral reasons: there were political and

legal challenges to the law, there were

no regulations to explain the law, and

it was perceived there was sufficient

time to remedy issues that may exist.

Following the United States Supreme

Court’s affirmation of the Constitu-

tionality of the funding mechanism

underlying the law, beginning in 2014

new rules (and employer penalties)

will go into effect. In other words,

schools bargaining contracts (both

administrative and collective bar-

gaining) in 2013 need to begin con-

sidering the implications of present

provisions in light of the new rules,

as well as the implications of district

circumstances on the district’s employ-

ees.

As is true for any new law and

regulatory structure, the most impor-

tant thing to do beyond understand-

ing the rules is to build trust with the

district’s staff. While the changes will

impact districts financially, it will

also impact employees individual-

ly. While many of the changes may

be beneficial, some may be painful

for employees. The best way to share

the responsibility of implementing

change is to establish or build a rela-

tionship of trust and openness, shar-

ing information, facts, and possible

solutions. The more interested per-

sons, experts, and other representa-

tives are involved, the more thoroughly

reasoned (and therefore safer) the

solutions devised will be.

The first thing for every board to

understand is that benefits conferred

under health care plans, whether or

not they are district managed, are

mandatory subjects of bargaining.

Therefore, before any discussions

regarding a change to insurance occur,

the district should consult its col-

lective bargaining representatives,

and seek input regarding their inter-

ests. Involving the union is the only

sure-fire way to build the trust nec-

essary to get agreement to make a

change which may be mutually ben-

eficial, or which may be beneficial to

the district but less so to the employ-

ees affected.

There are at least four major

issues that must be addressed by dis-

tricts in their collective bargaining

agreements in two broad areas: dis-

criminatory pitfalls and coverage

issues.

Discriminatory pitfalls

According to the regulations of

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS -

the federal agency that enforces tax

laws), there is now a penalty (called

an “excise tax”) that applies to dis-

tricts with health insurance plans

that discriminate in favor of “high-

ly compensated employees.” “High-

David J. Braun is

an attorney spe-

cializing in

school law with

Miller, Tracy,

Braun, Funk &

Miller, Ltd. in

Champaign.

Bargaining season 2013 ...

How the Affordable Care Act will impact Illinois districts

By David J. Braun


ly compensated employees” are those

employees whose compensation is

in the top 25percent of all the employ-

ees working for an employer.

In other words, if a superinten-

dent, assistant superintendent, prin-

cipal, or other highly compensated

administrator (or possibly other high-

ly compensated employee, including

teachers or counselors) receives a

health benefit that other employees

don’t receive (such as, perhaps, board-

paid family insurance benefits), the

school district may be subject to a

penalty. The penalty, according to

proposed regulations pointing to IRS

law, will be $100 per day, per employ-

ee discriminated against. 26 U.S.C. §

105(h), 26 U.S.C. § 4980D. Moreover,

the federal government, a plan par-

ticipant, or the plan administrator

itself may bring action against the dis-

trict in order to force it to provide the

benefits to all its employees. 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132. It is important to note that,

at this time, it is unclear whether any

particular benefit (such as family

insurance) will be discriminatory

under the new rules — but the penal-

ty will apply to whatever benefit might

be discriminatory.

The way each district will fix this

issue is different. Some districts may

elect to offer more benefits to all

employees, and some may elect to

reduce benefits to some employees

or all employees. Some districts may

change employee compensation struc-

tures, and many will likely alter their

insurance plans. Excluded from IRS

penalties, presently, are dental and

vision plans, but that does not mean

that the final regulations will con-

tinue to exclude such benefits.

There are a myriad other issues

as well— if a district changes the com-

pensation of an employee, the change

may result in a penalty issued by the

Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS),

as well as potentially unanticipated

tax liability. TRS’s rules (or inter-

pretation of the rules that already

exist) may change in the coming years,

and when those rules and interpre-

tations change, there may be an impact

(positive or negative) on how com-

pensation for employees is treated.

It is, therefore, important for

each school district to assess its own

plans, rights, penalties, and com-

pensation particulars. The issues

involved will affect all employees.

Administrators will be responsible

both for protecting their own fami-

lies and compensation packages, but

also (through their union) for mak-

ing sure their own packages don’t

cause a politically (and financially)

disastrous penalty for the district. It

is important for everyone to work

together. Does the district have a tax-

sheltered plan for health insurance?

Is there a way to structure the pro-

vision of health insurance to make

all employees’ benefits the same? Are

particular employees involved with-

in the pension window (where their

compensation will affect their pen-

sion costs and changes may affect the

district’s ability to avoid penalty)?

By examining a district’s partic-

ular plans, it may be possible to share

the burden of the new requirements.

Districts are well-advised to exam-

ine both their administrators’ ben-

efits as well as those of all of their

employees in order to ascertain

whether there is an opportunity to

avoid the excise tax penalty and avoid

the potentially politically costly results

of failing to address the issues.

Otherwise discriminatory plans

While the issue of administrator

benefit structures is pressing, per-

haps a more complex issue with which

districts will grapple is the larger issue

of health care plans that discriminate

generally in favor of a large class of

employees (rather than in favor of

a single employee or small group of

employees). While the rules which

apply may be the same, the issue

raised by a larger class of represent-

ed employees may be much more

complex to fix. It is unclear how

the rules will apply to district col-

lective bargaining agreements, but

there is an analogous rule (105(h))

from the IRS law regarding self-insured

plans. The IRS law illustrates the trou-

ble that exemptions (which are ref-

erenced by the proposed rules) may

create.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 105(h) (the

While the issue of administrator benefit structures is pressing, per-

haps a more complex issue with which districts will grapple is the

larger issue of health care plans that discriminate generally in favor

of a large class of employees (rather than in favor of a single employ-

ee or small group of employees).


analogous rule which presently applies

exclusively to self-insured plans),

collective bargaining agreements are

excluded from determination of dis-

criminatory benefits. Therefore,

for purposes of 105(h), the determi-

nation of discriminatory benefits

within the unit is unlikely (at the pre-

sent time) to result in discrimina-

tory penalties under 105(h). However,

because we do not yet know whether

this exemption will apply under the

rules, it is unclear whether we will

be able to rely on this exemption after

this year.

Take, for instance, a collective

bargaining agreement provision that

makes benefits payments contingent

upon salary (so that the employee’s

contribution toward his premium

is based on a percentage of his salary).

Even though this contribution sys-

tem (favoring employees with high-

er salaries) would otherwise violate

the discriminatory benefits provi-

sion, because the plan was collec-

tively bargained, it is excluded from

the discriminatory benefits penalty

under the self insurance rules. 26

U.S.C. § 105(h). However, such exclu-

sion does not apply to minimum essen-

tial coverage or affordable coverage

rules, which may, in fact, result in a

penalty. Because the rules are not yet

final, it is impossible at this time to

know whether the collective bar-

gaining agreement exemption will

apply to plans other than those that

are self-insured, it is impossible to

know at this time whether such plans

are safe at this time.

Moreover, some districts may

have multiple collective bargaining

units, each with different plans. It is

unclear, today, whether the rules will

ultimately exempt such situations

from the discriminatory plan rules

(such as, if the teachers receive a ben-

efits that custodians do not receive).

Districts should consider their

individual circumstances. What real-

ities exist in the district? Is there a

great deal of trust, or do the employ-

ees mistrust the board and/or the

administration? As with any other

paradigm-shift in employment law,

the best immunization against poten-

tial problems is communication.

Speaking openly and honestly with

employees and union representatives

about the problems and potential

solutions will build long-term trust,

and increase the likelihood that all

parties will be motivated to engage

in some sort of shared-responsibili-

ty discussion.

Coverage issues

What is Minimum coverage? Large

employers (those employing more

than 50 full-time equivalent employ-

ees) must provide minimum essen-

tial coverage to all employees. Full-time

equivalent employees (for purposes

of the IRS regulation) are those who

are entitled to be paid for 30 hours

weekly. Part-time employees may

count into the calculation of 50 full-

time employees: the number of part-

time employees’ hours in a month

over the number of hours in that

month over a period of three months

equals the number of full time employ-

ees. For example:

A district has 30 full-time employ-

ees, and 30 part-time employees. The

part-time employees work 20 hours

per week apiece. 20 hours x 4.5 weeks

in the month = 90 hours. 90 hours x

30 part-time employees = 2700 hours.

2700 hours/130 hours = ~20 full-time

employees.

Therefore, the district has 50

full-time employees (30 FT employ-

ees+ 20 FTE employees) and is, by

law, a large employer subject to the

non-discrimination rules.

Minimum essential coverage

requires employers, under the pre-

sent rules proposed, to provide health

Computing full-time employeesAn employer served by 80 employees, who are divided as follows:

35 full-time certified employees (teachers, administrators, and

counselors.

45 full-time non-certified employees (maintenance, bus drivers,

secretaries, and teaching assistants).

IASB SERVICEASSOCIATES

The best ofeverything for schools

IASB Service Associates provide quality products and services for schools.

Membership is by invitation only. A list ofService Associate firms is on the IASB website

and in this Journal.


care coverage which meets two require-

ments:

1. Bronze level coverage, which

is coverage whereby the employer

covers at least 60% premium cover-

age; and

2. The employee’s contribution

to his or her coverage may not cost

more than 9.5% of the employee’s

income.

Failure of a large employer to

offer any coverage to employees will

subject a district to a penalty in the

amount of $2,000 for each full-time

employee in excess of 30.

Failure of a large employer to

offer sufficient coverage (that is, min-

imum essential coverage) to employ-

ees will subject a district to a penalty

of up to the amount of the lesser of

$3,000 per employee who is not cov-

ered or $2,000 for each full-time

employee in excess of 30.

In the collective bargaining agree-

ment covering all staff, each certified

employee is fully covered by health

insurance, with a fully employer-paid

premium, and each non-certified

employee is compensated for 50 per-

cent of his health insurance costs.

Non-certified employees typically

contribute 15 percent of their W-2

Box 1 income to pay their health care

insurance premiums. W-2 Box 1

income, however, is taxable income.

It does not include tax-sheltered ben-

efits, such as TRS payments, 403b

retirement annuities, or section 125

tax-sheltered health contributions.

Box 1 income may be substantially

less than what is commonly recog-

nized by an employer as the employ-

ee’s “salary.”

In the foregoing example, the dis-

trict would owe a penalty of up to

$30,000 per year (45 employees not

adequately covered – 30 employees

= 15 employees. 15 employees x

$2,000 = $30,000).

If, in the foregoing example, all

employees were covered by the same

plan as non-certified employees (50

percent coverage), the penalty would

instead be up to $100,000 (80 employ-

ees not adequately covered – 30

employees = 50 employees. 50 x

$2,000 = $100,000).

The purpose of the penalty is to

subsidize the government’s ability to

pay the employee’s insurance cov-

erage procured on the open market.

The “penalty” is paid to the govern-

ment, while the government will pay

STAFFOFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORRoger L. Eddy,Executive DirectorBenjamin S. Schwarm, Deputy Executive Director

Meetings ManagementPatricia Culler, Assistant to the Executive Director

Carla S. Bolt, Director-designee

Sandy Boston, Assistant Director

Office of General CounselMelinda Selbee, General CounselKimberly Small, Assistant General Counsel

Executive SearchesDonna Johnson, DirectorDoug Blair, ConsultantThomas Leahy, ConsultantDave Love, Consultant

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESJennifer Feld, Associate ExecutiveDirector/Chief Financial Officer

ADVOCACY/GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSBenjamin S. Schwarm, Deputy Executive DirectorDeanna L. Sullivan, DirectorSusan Hilton, DirectorZach Messersmith, Assistant Director

AdvocacyCynthia Woods, Director

BOARD DEVELOPMENT/TAGDean Langdon, Associate Executive Director

Board DevelopmentSandra Kwasa, DirectorNesa Brauer, ConsultantAngie Peifer, Consultant

Targeting Achievement through GovernanceSteve Clark, Consultant

COMMUNICATIONS/PRODUCTION SERVICESJames Russell, Associate Executive DirectorGary W. Adkins, Director/EditorialLinda Dawson, Director/EditorialJennifer Nelson, Director, Information ServicesHeath Hendren, Assistant Director/CommunicationsKara Kienzler, Assistant Director/Production ServicesGerald R. Glaub, ConsultantDiane M. Cape, Production Services Consultant

FIELD SERVICES/POLICY SERVICESCathy A. Talbert, Associate Executive DirectorField ServicesLarry Dirks, DirectorReatha Owen, DirectorPatrick Rice, DirectorJeff Cohn, DirectorBarbara B. Toney, DirectorLaurel DiPrima, Director

Policy ServicesAnna Lovern, DirectorNancy Bohl, ConsultantBrian Zumpf, Consultant

IASB OFFICES

2921 Baker DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62703-5929217/528-9688 Fax 217/528-2831

www.iasb.com

One Imperial Place1 East 22nd Street, Suite 20Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120630/629-3776 Fax 630/629-3940


a subsidy to the employee in order

to assist the employee in getting cov-

erage on the open market.

Operation of penalties

If, in the foregoing example, only

10 employees actually access the

insurance market and purchase insur-

ance outside the district, the penal-

ty would be $30,000 (10 employees

drawing subsidy x $3,000 per-employ-

ee penalty = $30,000).

The “penalty” in this case (unlike

the penalty applicable to discrimi-

natory benefits plans) is not a penal-

ty, but rather a premium credit that

will enable those employees to use

the public insurance exchanges to

buy insurance. The employer man-

date that will begin in 2014 says

employers with more than 50 employ-

ees must provide for minimum essen-

tial coverage or pay for the employee

to go get that coverage on the open

market. The only way to guarantee

avoiding such “penalties” is to offer

minimum essential coverage to all

employees.

Again, there are several matters

to consider. First, the unusual defin-

ition of “full-time” under ACA (an

employee entitled to be paid for 30

hours per week) means the district

may have many more “full-time”

employees than previously antici-

pated in other contexts. Second, the

cost of health care may or may not

exceed the cost of the penalty — in

other words, it may be financially

beneficial for a school district to pay

the penalty. However, as this is a mat-

ter for collective bargaining, such a

solution may be both legally and polit-

ically impossible.

Some districts may find it ben-

eficial to cut the number of hours of

employees who work near the 30-

hour threshold. However, two prob-

lems arise: first, reducing a group of

employees’ hours is a mandatory sub-

ject of bargaining (where the employ-

ees are represented) and cannot be

accomplished without a reduction

in force. Bargaining such a reduc-

tion may prove to be very difficult

when a union is in place, particularly

when it becomes clear that the pur-

pose is to defeat the requirement to

provide insurance. Second, if there

is no union, reduction in hours may

create distrust among employees —

districts are well-advised, even where

no union covers employees, to care-

fully consider their options before

removing rights from employees, par-

ticularly where such change may be

designed to avoid health care provi-

sion requirements. Such an approach

may achieve the short term goal of

fixing the insurance problem at the

long term expense of encouraging

unionization.

What is Affordable coverage?

“Affordable” under the proposed rules

means that the employee need not

spend more than 9.5 percent of his

total household income on health

insurance. Because it may not be pos-

sible for employers to assess every

employee’s household income (spous-

es and others may contribute sub-

stantially to the income of the

household), the IRS has offered a

“safe-harbor.” As the rules are present-

ly proposed, an employee’s W-2 Box

1 income may be used to calculate

9.5 percent of any employee’s income

for purposes of determining whether

minimum essential coverage is being

offered.

Much like “minimum essential

coverage,” an employer who fails to

provide “affordable coverage” sub-

jects itself to required subsidiza-

tion of health insurance for

under-covered employees. Again, the

penalty is the lesser of $3,000 per

employee seeking open-market insur-

ance, or $2,000 per employee (more

than 30) who is not offered “afford-

able coverage.”

Conclusion

Employers should consider their

individual facts and circumstances

on these matters. While the rules are

complicated, the solutions are not

reached unilaterally. As collective

bargaining on these matters is required,

districts are best-advised to bring

both the decision-makers and those

impacted by the decisions into the

room early in order to invest every-

one in the solution as well as the out-

come.

engagement process itself must be

well-planned and nurtured over an

extended period of time, the prepa-

ration of materials for district gov-

erning teams to use will take time to

develop and explain, so think of both

community engagement and its tools

as processes rather than single events.

The work is important but the pay-

off can be tremendous.

If you have any questions regard-

ing the report or the work of com-

munity engagement, please contact

Cathy Talbert, IASB associate exec-

utive director for field services and

policy services at ctalbert @iasb.com

or by calling either 630/629-3940 or

217/528-9688, ext. 1234.

Ask the staff continued from inside back cover


P R A C T I C A L P R

They” say that you are supposed

to survey your community to

find out what they think about your

school district. You tell yourself, “My

community members ARE NOT shy

about sharing their opinions, espe-

cially when they perceive something

is wrong. Why should the district

spend time and resources asking for

more opinions?”

“They” say that it is important

to understand your parents’ motiva-

tions, staff members’ interests and

students’ feelings. You think to your-

self, “I know when they enroll their

children. Why do I care about any-

thing else?”

“They” say they can tell you

within one standard deviation how

stakeholders will respond to a new

referendum campaign or curriculum

plan. You wonder to yourself, “What

the heck is a standard deviation?”

Market research is often the most

neglected tool in the district’s mar-

keting tool box. There are many rea-

sons for that. First, many school leaders

who understand about marketing and

communications don’t really under-

stand the processes or the terminolo-

gy of research. Second, market research

often seems to gum up the works and

slow things down. We just want to

get started and research seems to delay

things with no tangible payoff. With

research, not only do you have to take

time for the survey, but you have to

analyze the results and hope that the

results don’t indicate a change in plans.

It seems easier to avoid it.

But ultimately, the primary rea-

son market research is so often skipped

may be that school leaders often don’t

see the value. They have a view of the

district with which they are com-

fortable and they don’t want to risk

disrupting that view with research.

As Nate Silver says in his book The

Signal and the Noise, “We focus on

the signals that tell a story about the

world as we would like it to be, not

how it really is. We ignore the risks

that are hardest to measure, even

when they pose the greatest threats

to our well-being. We make approx-

imations and assumptions about the

world that are much cruder than we

realize.” Well-crafted research can

help refine those approximations and

assumptions.

Marketing is primarily about

building and nurturing relationships.

Those relationships can be with par-

ents, staff, suppliers, the media, oth-

er educators, the public, politicians,

the local community, and regulators.

The importance of developing and

maintaining relationships with each

of these groups waxes and wanes

depending on what is going on with-

in the district. The reality is you are

better off if you keep your finger on

the pulse of all of them, all of the time.

Understanding stakeholders’

views and feelings about the district

can help the board communicate

what it is doing and how those actions

meet or exceed their demands and

expectations. A simple, well-crafted

survey of parents, students, com-

munity or staff can help the board

break through the myopia that Nate

Silver was writing about and see

the world, and the local district, as

stakeholders see it.

Ultimately, the district needs

market research information because

board members need to know what

“they” say: about the district, about

its successes and about their needs.

Bill Clow is direc-

tor of community

outreach for Har-

vard Community

Unit School Dis-

trict 50 in

McHenry Coun-

ty and a member

of the Illinois

chapter of the

National School

Public Relations

Association.

District health requires taking the community’s pulse

By Bill Clow

“

Columns aresubmitted bymembers of

Market research is

often the most

neglected tool in the

district’s marketing

tool box.



Some may think the only thing

schools have in common with

hospitals is that they both are large

buildings in a community. But on

closer inspection they have many

similarities.

Both are often among the largest

employers in the community with a

wide range of employee skill sets need-

ed. Both employ administrators as

well as maintenance and food service

personnel, whether they are hired

and supervised directly or as work-

ers contracted through a private com-

pany.

When it comes to people who

work at each institution, they can

have varying levels of education.

Doctors nurses and teachers all can

be specialists or generalists. While

the public tends to use the title broad-

ly, doctors today are more likely to

have a specialty area rather than

being a general practitioner. Nurs-

es also specialize by working in spe-

cific areas like the neo-natal unit or

geriatric care. The same is true for

teachers. Teachers have specialized

in subject areas for years, especial-

ly in the middle school grades and

above. But recently some teach-

ers also are choosing reading and

math as specialty areas in lower

grades.

Behind closed doors

When you walk down a school

hallway the doors to individual class-

rooms can be closed— a practice often

interpreted as teachers trying to main-

tain privacy about what is going on

with their teaching in that classroom.

In some cases it may be just to keep

hallway, noise and distractions out.

In a hospital hallway doors also remain

closed but usually to afford the patient

privacy as well as to cut down on dis-

turbances and noise that might inter-

fere with recuperation.

Comparing those who are served

by each system, patients come to a

hospital to get better whether because

of illness or injury, and then they are

discharged, hopefully to lead pro-

ductive lives in a better condition

than when they entered. Students

actually come to school to be “made

better” as well. Both transformations

involve a great deal of testing along

the way. The educational system

wants students to learn as much as

they can before they graduate so they

can go on to a higher level of educa-

tion or to lead productive lives in a

career of their choice.

Containing costs

Both of these institutions also

take a lot of money to operate.

Schools depend on tax dollars, but

they also depend on parents, teach-

ers and, often, school foundations

and fund raisers for some of the

extras. It has been said that the

amount of taxes most people pay in

their lifetime could not adequately

cover the actual cost of their edu-

cation. Hospitals rely on payments

from patients and their insurance

companies, but most of them also

rely on their own foundations to

conduct fund raisers for special

needs like new construction and

expensive pieces of equipment.

Languages and acronyms

Both education and healthcare

are infamous for having their own

languages, especially when it comes

to abbreviations and acronyms. For

the general populace, medical lin-

go became more familiar after tele-

vision shows set in hospitals and

emergency rooms became popular.

Most current “educationese” has

not found its way into America’s

common vocabulary except as

excerpts on the nightly news. Con-

sider the CAT scan,ICU and NICU,

then think about RTI, NCLB, ISAT,

and PSAE, and both healthcare and

education deal with HIPPA and FRpa,

to name a few.

Linda Dawson is

IASB director/

editorial services

and Journal

editor

Education, healthcarehave similarities

By Linda Dawson


Red tape and paperwork

Both systems seem mired in

paper despite computerization of

many functions, including patient

and student records. Vital statis-

tics are now entered into laptop com-

puters that can be easily accessed by

doctors and those working the next

shift. Grade books may no longer be

a fixture on the teacher’s desk and

student grades are now often acces-

sible for viewing by parents on a com-

puter instead of waiting for a report

card to come home It’s imperative

for both to maintain records of per-

missions and procedures including

the professional development activ-

ities of staff. Doctors, nurses and ther-

apists must be educated, licensed

and recertified to maintain levels of

patient care, just as teachers must

be educated, licensed and complete

professional development to main-

tain their standard of instruction.

Food service

Both schools and hospitals often

struggle with food service demands.

Both sometimes elicit stories about

quality, including mystery meat and

rubber Jell-O. Schools are under man-

dates to make meals healthier because

of childhood obesity rates even as

some factions complain that active

students are not getting enough to

eat. So the new rules are being

tweaked. Hospitals are changing food

service ideas, too. For many years

they served basically the same meal

option to all patients at a specific

time, but now many hospitals are

adopting a room service menu, where

patients have a choice of entrees,

sides and snacks, even down to choic-

es on a liquid diet At some facilities

patients can request the time when

the meal will be delivered. Schools

Come celebrate IASB’s Centennial

Join your IASB staff hosts atthe IASB Information Room(Comiskey Room) from 8:30a.m., to 3:30 p.m., Friday,Nov. 22, and from 8:30 a.m.to 3 p.m., Saturday, Nov. 23.

❖ Enjoy a free cookie

❖ Enjoy a free soft drink, water, coffee, or tea

❖ Sign our giant IASB Centennial Anniversary Card

❖ View highlights of each decade in IASB’s 100-Year History on a stunning wrap-around mural

❖ View video greetings from local school board members

❖ Meet and talk with IASB staff members and the IASB board of directors

❖ Learn more about IASB products and services

❖ Enter drawings for one of four IASB souvenir gift baskets

❖ Meet and talk with members of the Illinois State Board of Education

Everyone with a Joint AnnualConference badge is welcome atthe IASB information Room. Please,only one cookie or beverage perperson. The gift basket drawing will be held at the end of the conference. Winners will be notifiedand no purchase is necessary.

The Comiskey Room is located in the concourse level of the Hyatt Regency West Tower

Muddy Board of Education for sev-

eral years.

Daniel M. Koons, 69, died August 19,

2013. He served on the Hey-

worth/Ben Funk School Board.

Mary Katherine (Stegall) Lawton, 84,

died September 20, 2013. Lawton

served the Bunker Hill communi-

ty on the local school board.

Mary Jo McBride, 74, died August

4, 2013. She was a former mem-

ber of the Dixon Unit SD 170 Board

of Education.

Charles F. McGee, 94, died August

23, 2013. He served on both the

Catlin high school and grade school

boards.

Edward C. Murphy, 92, died Sep-

tember 9, 2013. He was a school

board member in the Lewistown

School District when the present

grade school was built.

Peter A. Nick, 78, died July 22, 2013.

He was a former member of the

Aptakisic Tripp CCSD 102 school

board in Buffalo Grove.

Randy J. Pope, 57, died September

4, 2013. He had served on the Pan-

handle School Board for 16 years,

two of which he served as presi-

dent.

Robert Russell “Bob” Postlewait, 82,

died August 9, 2013. He served on

the Bement school board and was

chairman of the Bement Founda-

tion since its inception in 1997.

Bill Thomas Samples, 80, died July

19, 2013. He was a past president

of the school board of Wood Riv-

er-Hartford ESD 14.

Tom Schmitz, 73, died July 24, 2013.

Schmitz served on the Batavia

school board from 1987 to 1993,

including two years as president.

John C. Shelton, 78, died September

23, 2013. He formerly served on

the Rondout School Board.

Herman Kelly Sutton, 84, died Sep-

tember 5, 2013. He formerly served

nine years on the Marseilles School

Board.

James E. Taviner, 77, died Septem-

ber 22, 2013. He was past presi-

dent of the Calhoun Unit 40 Board

of Education.

Robert Ritchey Teel, 86, died August

24, 2013. He was a past president

of Schuyler Unit District 1 Board

of Education.

The Illinois School Board Journalwelcomes news about or from Illinoisschool leaders. News may include butneed not be limited to accomplish-ments, changes in position or duties,retirement, death and other milestonesrelated to board/district duties. Formore information about submittingnews items, phone the Communica-tions Department at 217/528-9688,ext. 1138, or e-mail [email protected].


transitioned many years ago from a

single hot lunch offering when many

added an ala carte line.

Sometimes healthcare and edu-

cation adopt an attitude that things

need to be done a certain way because

that’s how they have always been

done. New technologies are chang-

ing some of those practices, but ear-

ly adopters can feel the wrath of

the public if ideas are not well

explained, especially in schools. Tax-

payers question things like the cost

of installing smart boards and pro-

viding laptop computers for all stu-

dents, because those items were not

necessary for learning before. A favorite

comment is often, “this school was

great when I went there and kids can

still learn there without all this new

technology; give them a book.”

The same arguments are not usu-

ally present for hospitals because, in

the case of healthcare, patients are

more likely to question why a new

treatment or procedure isn’t offered,

thinking it should be.

Because hospitals and schools

operate in the public eye as public

institutions, even if they are privately

run, they will both always be subject

to public scrutiny, and as Abraham

Lincoln noted: “You can please some

of the people all of the time, you can

please all of the people some of the

time, but you can’t please all of the

people all of the time.”

That would seem to be the best

mantra for hospital boards of direc-

tors as well as school board members

to remember.

Milestones continued from page 36

“I’d like to be frozen until insurance willcover my pre-existing conditions.”


C O V E R S T O R Y

School board members today

give more of themselves in hours

of service to their local schools than

board members did five years ago.

They expend more time on board

work and serve a greater number of

years on school boards, according to

the latest survey of school board mem-

bers in Illinois.

The Illinois Association of School

Boards conducted its fifth member

survey in 2013, updating the sur-

vey previously sent out in

1993, 1998, 2003, and

2008, but with a few

updates.

In addition to answering

questions about how much

time they spend on

board work

and the number of years they have

served, board members participat-

ing in the survey answered questions

about their demographics, their dis-

trict, their reasons for running for

the board, their views of education,

and many other questions designed

to elicit preferences for receiving

information and professional devel-

opment from IASB.

The most startling change shown

in the 2013 survey response is in

length of service. The number of board

members serving more than 10 years

rose markedly, from 20 percent in

2008 to 26.7 percent today. Likewise,

the length of mid-level service (between

four and 10 years) jumped from 30

percent to 37.5 percent. Meanwhile

the biggest reduction went to those

serving less than four years, which

fell from 49 percent of board mem-

bers five years ago to 36 percent of

board members today.

While some

might argue that the

survey does not rep-

resent a complete pic-

ture of all of the nearly

6,000 board members to

whom it was sent, the 2013

survey had a good response rate of

22 percent. Survey experts say that

level of response provides about a 95

percent assurance of accuracy through-

out the entire board member popu-

lation surveyed.

Despite the demands of the job

in terms of additional expenditure of

hours and added years in board ser-

vice, the survey found many school

board members would run again.

Gary Adkins is

director / editori-

al services and

editor of Illinois

School Board

Newsbulletin

Survey finds boardmembers givingmore of themselves

By Gary Adkins


Board members with terms that

would expire in April 2013 were asked

to answer questions about their elec-

tion plans. Of the 1,307 overall respon-

dents, 52 percent indicated they would

be up for election. Of those whose

terms were due to expire in 2013, 81

percent said they were running for

re-election.

Board members with terms that

would expire in 2015 also were asked

to answer questions on their election

plans. Of 658 respondents whose

terms are due to expire in 2015, 40

percent said they expect to run for

re-election. But, with the election

still a couple of years ahead, perhaps

it’s not surprising that 35 percent said

they were undecided on running for

another term.

Although the numbers have

changed on their length of service

and whether they want to run again,

the top reason given for not running

again remained unchanged: time to

step aside (53 percent in 2013 vs. 48

percent in 2008). But the second-

most common answer to this ques-

tion has changed since the last survey.

The latest survey found 19 percent

of those planning to retire from board

service cited the need to spend more

time with family and/or jobs. The

2008 survey, in contrast, showed the

second-most common reason for step-

ping aside then was excessive demands

on schools (19 percent), which was

still a significant factor in 2013 (14.4

percent).

Board service is valued

The top two reasons citizens

choose to run for the school board

have not changed from five years ago:

they value public education and they

want to make a specific improvement.

In fact, those answers were even more

common than in the previous sur-

vey, at 43.9 and 20.9 percent, respec-

tively this time, up from 39.1 and

19.7 percent, respectively, in 2008.

The next two highest reasons to

run for the school board were to help

their children get a good education

and to fulfill their civic responsibil-

ity, both coming in at 14 percent.

While they seem to run for school

board for the same reasons, once elect-

ed, the number of hours members

devote to board service has been steadi-

ly increasing. Starting at the low end

in hours spent, 18 percent of board

members in 2008 said they spend five

hours or less a month on board busi-

ness. By 2013, that percent had fall-

en to 16 percent. Contrast that with

the 55 percent of respondents who

gave that response in 1993.

Less dramatic is the growth in

the number of board members spend-

ing six to 10 hours a month, which

inched upward from 40 to 41 percent

between 2008 and 2013. But while

the number of those spending 11 to

15 hours a month on board work actu-

ally declined from 23 percent to 21

percent, the number spending 16 or

more hours took a step up, rising from

19 percent to 22 percent. Most star-

tling of all, however, the latter per-

centage had been just 1 percent in

2003.

Does the increased time demand

change overall satisfaction with serv-

ing on a board? Surprisingly, no.

Despite an increased time commit-

ment, board members still over-

whelmingly find their board experience

satisfying. Those respondents devot-

ing five or fewer hours to board work

actually were less likely to find the

job “very” or “moderately” satisfy-

ing (16 percent) than those putting

in more hours. A high rating for “very”

satisfying came from board members

who reported spending six to 10 hours

a month on board work (41 percent).

But 43 percent of those putting in 11

hours or more a month found their

work either “very” or “somewhat”

satisfying.

Conversely, the biggest percentage

(40 percent) who have been “down-

Technology use on the riseNowhere do changes in the past 20 years seem more pronounced than in asking board

members questions about their use of technology. Wording in the 1998 survey sounds quaint

if not archaic when asking board members how often and where they accessed the World Wide

Web

By 2003, 55 percent of board members reported having Internet access both at work and

at home, as compared to just 22.2 percent in 1998. By 2008, the number accessing the Inter-

net at work and at home had grown to 63.4 percent. In 2013, 66.9 percent of board members

said they accessed the Internet both at home and at work.

In 2008, 27 respondents or 1.6 percent said they did not have Internet access, but they

planned to acquire it soon. That number had shrunk to just .1 percent in the most recent sur-

vey or just one respondent in 2013. As another indication of changes in technology, 50.4 per-

cent of respondents in 2013 reported that they had Internet access via a mobile device (smartphone

or tablet).


right disappointed” in board service

said they put in six to 10 hours a

month on board work. But those

putting in under five hours a month

only reported a “disappointment”

rate of 10 percent.

More students, more work

It may come as no surprise to

board members that the hours devot-

ed to board service increase propor-

tionately with the number of students

in the district. Board members with

fewer than 500 students in their dis-

trict were more likely to report spend-

ing 10 hours or less a month on board

meetings and preparation (79 per-

cent) compared to just 2 percent

reporting they spent more than 20

hours. (See Table A.)

The highest percentage who

reported spending more than 20 hours

a month on board work came from

board members in districts with 5,000

or more students (31 percent), as

compared with just 21 percent in the

largest districts saying they spent 10

or fewer hours a month.

Women were slightly more like-

ly to spend more time on board work

per month than men, with 11 per-

cent of women saying their board ser-

vice was 20 hours or more, while men

reported 20 hours or more 9 percent

of the time. In all other five-hour

increments, however, the percent-

ages for hours served were more sim-

ilar for men and women.

Job satisfaction

What impact on their level of sat-

isfaction can be observed from the

fact that board members spend more

time attending and preparing for meet-

ings? There really seems to be little

correlation.

Approximately 86 percent of

board members overall described

their experience on the board as either

“very” or “moderately” satisfying. Of

these members, in fact, the num-

ber describing their board service as

very satisfying has risen to 53.9 per-

cent from 46.3 percent in 2008.

As was true in 2008, in 2013 the

top two things board members named

as the most positive features of board

service were seeing students gradu-

ate and continue to grow (42 per-

cent), and involvement in important

public discussions and decisions (35

percent).

Far and away the most negative

thing about being a board member is

dealing with state mandates and a

lack of funding, which has remained

unchanged since the 2008 survey.

But that negative perception has

grown much more widespread, with

that answer coming from 70 percent

of board members today as opposed

to 60 percent five years ago.

Impact of

professional development

Overall, the number of board

members attending a new board mem-

ber workshop was down slightly from

five years ago, but down markedly

from the rate in 2003 when approx-

imately 75 percent reported attend-

Table A - Time spent of board workPercentage of school board members reporting amount of time spent per month on all aspects of board work, includingmeetings, by district enrollment and type of community:

District Size Less than 10 hours 10 to 20 hours More than 20 hours2013 2008 2003 2013 2008 2003 2013 2008 2003

Fewer than 500 students 79% 77% 78% 19% 20% 19% 2% 3% 4%

500 to 999 students 68% 66% 59% 28% 29% 36% 5% 5% 5%

1,00 to 2,499 students 51% 56% 48% 39% 38% 45% 10% 5% 8%

2,500 to 4,999 students 41% 34% 33% 42% 54% 56% 17% 12% 11%

5,000 or more students 21% 21% 16% 49% 43% 55% 31% 36% 29%

Type of CommunityLarge City 27% 42% 25% 45% 32% 52% 27% 26% 24%

Suburban 44% 50% 36% 39% 45% 51% 6% 5% 13%

Small City 59% 47% 48% 34% 41% 44% 16% 12% 8%

Rural 52% 67% 65% 27% 28% 31% 5% 5% 5%

some totals to not equal 100 percent due to rounding


ing a new member workshop when

first elected. As with the 2008 sur-

vey, a very low percentage, just 2 per-

cent (28 respondents) said they

thought no particular training is nec-

essary to be a board member. In 2008,

1 percent (21 respondents) said so.

But in both the 2013 and 2008 sur-

veys, fully 88 percent said they believe

board members need professional

development.

The vast majority of board mem-

bers and their superintendents believe

in professional development for board

members. Just 2 percent in both sur-

veys said serving on the board “does

not and should not” require any par-

ticular training. Another 9 percent

of board members said it would be

“helpful” but “is not usually essen-

tial,” while just 10 percent of super-

intendents responded that way.

When asked about possible

mandatory training for board mem-

bers, 46 percent said it should not be

required, but they would support and

encourage board members to seek

professional development voluntar-

ily. Superintendents responded that

way 29 percent of the time.

Board members and superin-

tendents also agreed that workshop

topics and content, as well as the

opportunity to network with other

board members and superintendents,

were the most positive features of

IASB workshops.

Views on education

Now that we have looked at board

service and professional develop-

ment, how do responses compare on

board members’ view of education

issues, both in their own district and

in the state? (See Table B.) Overall,

Table B - Feelings about the futurePercentage of school board members and superin-tendents who said they were very optimistic orsomewhat optimistic about the future of education:

Percentage optimistic about the future of education in their districts

Board Members Superintendents2013 80% 80%2008 86% 90%2003 78% 75%1998 89% 90%1993 80% NA

Percentage optimistic about the future of education in the state of Illinois

2013 24% 20%2008 37% 40%2003 37% 32%1998 57% 68%1993 32% NA


80 percent of board members were

either “very” or “somewhat” opti-

mistic about the future of education

in their own districts. That’s down

from 2008 levels, when 86 percent

responded with those answers. A total

of 3.7 percent of respondents in 2013

said they were very pessimistic because

of a lack of resources or inadequate

plans for improvement, but that is an

increase from 1.8 percent of respon-

dents in 2008.

That’s in stark contrast with the

way they feel about education in the

rest of the state. Only 24 percent of

respondents were optimistic about

education generally in the state of

Illinois and 73 percent are pessimistic.

Of the latter percentage, 37.7 were

very pessimistic. Those levels of opti-

mism are far below those of the 2008

survey, which found 37 percent were

optimistic about education gener-

ally in the state.

A closer look reveals that opti-

mism for their own district and pes-

simism for education in the state as

a whole were pervasive throughout

the state. Those responses seem to

mirror the latest Phi Delta Kappan

Gallup poll, released in September

2013, on the public’s views of their

own schools as compared with schools

nationally. According to that poll, a

majority of Americans give the pub-

lic schools in their community an ‘A’

or ‘B’ — the highest rating ever record-

ed by this poll — but fewer than one

of five would give the schools nation-

ally a ‘B’ or better.

The PDK poll shows that even

more parents give high marks to the

schools their children attend; 71%

give them an ‘A’ or ‘B’, the highest

percentage in 20 years, and up from

68 percent in 2008.

The IASB survey shows that, by

enrollment, those board members

with the fewest students in their dis-

trict were the least optimistic about

their own district. While 72 per-

cent of respondents in districts with

fewer than 500 students answered

either “very” optimistic (26 percent)

or “somewhat” optimistic (46 per-

cent), all of the other enrollment cat-

egories answered with totals of 82,

85 or 80 percent “very” or “some-

what” optimistic.

Women board members were

slightly more optimistic about their

own district than men board mem-

bers in 2013. Women respondents

weighed in with 82 percent saying they

were “very” or “somewhat” optimistic

about their district, while men weighed

in with 79 percent giving that view.

Respondents in the Northeast

region also were more likely to say

they were “very” optimistic about the

future of education in their own dis-

trict. Overall, 87 percent of those in

the Northeast region said they were

“very” or “somewhat” optimistic about

education in their district. That com-

pares with 78 percent who answered

the same way in the Central region,

81 percent in the North region and

72 percent in the South region.

Turning to the future of educa-

tion in the state, those in the South

and North were more likely to be pes-

simistic about the future of educa-

tion in Illinois, and the highest overall

percentage of those with a “very” pes-

simistic view came from those in the

South region: 45 percent.

Governing issues and processes

On the questions of board process

issues and relationships with the

superintendent, there still seems to

be a disconnect between how much

time board members think they spend

talking about their own processes

and performance and what their super-

intendents think.

While 75 percent of board mem-

bers say they talk about their own

process and performance for 20 min-

utes at least once a year (and at least

27 percent feel they do so at least

every two or three months or more

frequently), just 57 percent of super-

intendents say their board members

talk about process issues at least once

a year and just 11 percent report that

Table C - Rating the SuperintendentPercentage of school board members giving their superintendents a satisfactory perfor-mance rating on various factors in 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2013:

2013 2008 2003 1998 1993Curriculum and instruction matters 88% 87% 87% 84% 78%

Financial affairs of the district 88% 88% 87% 88% 84%

Relations with the school board 86% 84% 86% 84% 80%

Relations with the community 77% 73% 73% 69% na

Relations with the staff 78% 77% 76% 73% na

Leadership in creating staff and community support for the district’s mission 75% 71% 71% 69% 70%

Providing a proper role model in ethical values 87% 85% 85% 85% 84%


those conversations of 20 minutes or

longer occur once every two or three

months or better.

The same was true in 2008 when

77 percent of board members said

they spoke about processes and per-

formance at least once a year or more

often, but 64 percent of superinten-

dents said they observed those levels

of conversation. Keep in mind, how-

ever, that in both sets of survey data

the superintendents and board mem-

bers who responded were not neces-

sarily from the same school districts.

Board members’ perception of

their superintendent’s performance

has not varied since the first survey

was conducted in 1993. Consistent-

ly, board members gave their super-

intendent 84 percent or above on

issues of curriculum, finances, rela-

tionship with the board and ethics.

Although slightly lower, they still rat-

ed their superintendent’s performance

at 70 percent or better on relations

with the community and staff and

leadership that creates support among

the staff and community for the dis-

trict’s mission. (See Table C.)

A typical board member

Overall, the picture of an Illinois

school board member has changed

very little since IASB began survey-

ing its members in 1993.

Respondents in the 2013 survey

create a picture of a typical board

member as slightly younger, slightly

better educated, more likely to be

married than single, definitely more

techno-savvy and earning more, but

less likely to have children in school

than in 2008. The face of that board

member is still more likely to be Cau-

casian (90.6 percent) but is more like-

ly to be female (42.6 percent) than

when the survey began in 1993.

While board members taking the

survey still are predominantly Cau-

casian, the number of African-Amer-

ican respondents has risen by more

than two percentage points from 3.2

percent to 5.6 percent. Representa-

tion from those identifying them-

selves as Hispanic on the board has

also risen slightly, from 1.2 percent

to 1.4 percent.

ExecutiveSearchES

ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

The Gold Standard of Executive Searches

Three Reasons to Choose IASB1. Boards are our priority — We approach the entire process from your point of view, with your

needs in mind. We offer a personal approach that’s tailored to your district and its particular needs.

2. Resources and Experience — Tap into the resources of your entire association. We havedecades of experience conducting searches and we advise you in every facet of the selectionprocess, including reaching consensus on the many decisions that must be made during an effec-tive superintendent search.

3. Value — When you choose IASB, you put the entire strength of your dues dollars to work. IASBoffers a complete service with cost below most firms. Let us do the paperwork and the legwork –while you make the decision!

For information contact:

2921 Baker Drive One Imperial Place

Springfield, IL 62703 1 East 22nd Street, Suite 20

217/528-9688, ext. 1217 Lombard, IL 60148

630/629-3776, ext. 1217

www.iasb.com/executive


How the survey was conducted

Unlike the 2008 IASB survey, the

2013 survey was conducted entirely

online, with one survey instrument

for board members and another for

superintendents. Survey responses

were received from 1,354 board mem-

bers and 429 superintendents for par-

ticipation rates of approximately 22

percent and 50 percent, respective-

ly.

The response rate represents

considerably fewer board member

participants than in previous years.

The 1993 survey elicited 2,748 board

member responses, compared with

2,469 responses in 1998, 2,008 in

2003, and 1,668 in 2008. In contrast,

superintendent rates of response were

up a bit as 47 percent of district lead-

ers (404) responded to the 2008 sur-

vey.

For survey purposes, the state

was divided into four regions to tab-

ulate results. The regions were divid-

ed along IASB division lines: Northeast:

West Cook, North Cook, South Cook,

Lake, and DuPage; North: Blackhawk,

Kishwaukee, Northwest, Three Rivers,

and Starved Rock; Central: Western,

Central Illinois Valley, Two Rivers,

Illini, Abe Lincoln, and Corn Belt;

South: Wabash Valley, Southwestern,

Kaskaskia, Egyptian, and Shawnee.

As a whole, board members from

the Northeast and Central regions

were slightly more likely to answer

the survey, and women were more

likely than men to answer the sur-

vey. IASB’s database shows board

members are split 61 percent men

and 39 percent women in 2013, a

change from the 64:36 ratio in 2008.

Since the first survey in 1993,

the number of female respondents

has increased by 6 percent, from

37 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in

both 1998 and 2003 and finally to 43

percent in 2008 and 2013.

Thank you

IASB is grateful to the school

board members and superintendents

who took the time to complete and

return the lengthy surveys.

IASB will celebrate its 100th anniversary this fall. This milestoneevent would not be possible without the support of local memberschool districts.

That’s why we want you to join the celebration.

We are inviting each member district to submit a 30-second video-taped greeting that will be posted on IASB’s YouTube page and fea-tured at the 2013 Joint Annual Conference. This greeting is not onlyan opportunity to recognize the Association’s centennial; it also willhonor local board members and the history of their local district.

The local videotaped message should intro-duce each board member, the superintendent, name of the district, and the date or year it was chartered.

More information and instructions are avail-able by visiting the IASB centennial websiteat: http://www.iasb.com/centennial/.

We look forward to seeing you on TV!

Help celebrateIASB’s 100 yearsand your local

district’s history


C O V E R S T O R Y

Comparing earlier surveys with

the 2013 survey of district

superintendents shows that, like board

members, superintendents are spend-

ing more time on board work and not

staying in the same district for near-

ly as long as they once did. Nor do

most superintendents report job sat-

isfaction as excellent any more, a

change from the past two surveys in

2008 and 2003.

For comparisons’ sake, the 2013

survey of school board members

revealed many board members are

putting in more hours on the job and

are serving more years than board

members surveyed in earlier years.

The past five years have seen an uptick

in their years of service, reversing a

long trend toward fewer years of ser-

vice.

Superintendents have seen a lev-

eling off over the past five years in

the heavy amount of time spent on

board work, and their years of ser-

vice have increased.

In 1998, 60 percent of superin-

tendents reported spending 10 hours

or fewer each month with school board

meetings and other interactions with

the board. Just 18 percent said they

spent more than 16 hours on board

work a month. The other 22 percent

said they spent between 11 and 15

hours a month on board work.

In 2013, the hours spent on board

work were dramatically higher. Just

8 percent of the 416 superintendents

who returned surveys said they spent

fewer than 10 hours a month on board

meetings and interactions with board

members. The number spending

11 to 15 hours was nearly constant

at 22 percent. But the number who

said they spent more than 16 hours

a month with board dealings, which

had skyrocketed to 72 percent in

2008, remained nearly that high in

the latest survey, at 71 percent.

These calculations take into con-

sideration a slight difference in word-

ing for the questions. In 1998,

superintendents were asked about

their hours beginning with incre-

ments of five hours or fewer a month,

six to 10 hours, 11 to 15 hours and

then 16 or more hours. And they were

also asked separately about “meet-

ings” and “other interactions.”

In 2013 (and in 2008), super-

intendents were queried about hours

with increments of 10 hours or less,

Gary Adkins is

IASB

director/editorial

services and edi-

tor of Illinois

School Board

Newsbulletin

Superintendents mirrorboards in hours, tenure

By Gary Adkins


11 to 15 hours, 16 to 20 hours, 21 to

30 hours and more than 30 hours in

a single question. To make the com-

parison valid, responses from the two

earlier questions were combined,

divided by two and then percentages

were computed based on the 577

respondents in that survey.

Mobility issues

Regarding longevity with dis-

tricts, superintendents seem to be

slightly more mobile than 15 years

ago, while the age of serving super-

intendents overall is still edging up.

In 1998, 48 percent of superin-

tendents said they had been with their

current district more than five years.

That stood at 45 percent in 2013 after

plummeting to 28 percent in the 2008

survey. The number of superinten-

dents who reported less than a year

in their current district has jumped

from 11 percent in 1998 to 18 per-

cent today. Those who had been on

the job between one and five years,

however, fell from 41 percent to 38

percent.

As to the age of the superinten-

dents, approximately the same per-

centage are younger than age 30 as

in past years (the under-30 figure was

.2 percent in 1998 and it is .2 percent

in 2013). But the number of super-

intendent respondents who said they

were between 30 and 39 grew from

just 2 percent in 1998 to 7 percent

in 2008 and it was up to 8 percent in

2013. Meanwhile the number of super-

intendents who indicated they were

older than 60 has settled back down

a bit after a precipitous rise, going

from 6 percent in 2003 to 17 percent

in 2008 to 14 percent today.

This concludes a long-term trend

among superintendents that was evi-

dent in the 2003 superintendent sur-

vey and 2008 survey compared to

1998. In 1998, nearly 30 percent of

superintendents were between 40

and 49 years old and 62.5 percent

were 50 to 59. By 2003, an aging pop-

ulation shifted the numbers to 17 per-

cent in the 40-49 category and 73

percent who were 50-59. By 2008,

21 percent of superintendent respon-

dents said they were 40-49, and 55

percent said they were between 50

and 59. But in 2013, 38 percent of

superintendents indicated they are

between 40-49, and 40 percent said

they are between 50 and 59.

While the numbers were static

in the lower two age brackets (under

39) between 1998 and 2003, the 30-

39 age bracket’s numbers fell in 2013

to 8 percent. That was after dropping

from 29.4 percent in 1998 to 17 per-

cent in 2003, then bouncing back up

to 21 percent in 2008.

What might this mean for school

districts? Initially, they have a lot of

years of experience to draw from

when it comes to superintendents

who may be available if they need a

new one. However, just as was stat-

ed five years ago, districts may face

a big challenge in the next five to

10 years as the superintendents in

that upper age bracket start retiring.

Job satisfaction

The 2013 survey of superinten-

dents shows that while a great many

superintendents continue to be very

happy with the jobs they have cho-

sen, the majority are not. While those

who reported being “very satisfied”

with their experience on the job was

constant at 60 percent in 2003 and

2008, that number tumbled to 42 per-

cent in 2013.

The number reporting that their

job was “moderately satisfying” showed

a slight decline from 32 percent to

27 percent between 2003 and 2008,

but it jumped to 39 percent in 2013.

Meanwhile, however, the “not as sat-

isfying as expected” response also

rose, rising from 8 percent in 2008

to 15 percent in 2013 after being

reported at just 6 percent back in

2003. Both the “downright disap-

pointed” and “undecided” respons-

es increased in the last five years,

rising from 1 percent to 2 percent

from 2008 to 2013.

When analyzed by age, general-

ly the older or younger the superin-

What might this mean for school districts? Initially, they have a lot

of years of experience to draw from when it comes to superinten-

dents who may be available if they need a new one. However, just as

was stated five years ago, districts may face a big challenge in the

next five to 10 years as the superintendents in that upper age brack-

et start retiring.


tendent, the more likely they were

satisfied with their job, but those in

their middle years were not as like-

ly to be satisfied. Of the 57 respon-

dents who were 60 or older, 88 percent

found their job “very” or “moder-

ately” satisfying. Those responses fell

to 81 percent for those age 50 to

59, and to 77 percent for those 40 to

49. Satisfaction levels were high in

the age 30 to 39 category, where 84

percent found their job “very” or

“moderately” satisfying, and the one

respondent who was under 30 report-

ed the job as “very satisfying.”

As superintendents were asked

to choose whether certain sources of

disappointment were relevant to their

feelings about their jobs, few changes

were apparent among and between

the 2003, 2008 and 2013 surveys.

Less than five percentage points of

difference appeared in most ques-

tions, with some even less.

However, one notable increase

appeared when superintendents were

asked about “partisan or personal

politics” being a cause of disap-

pointment. While just 38 percent

answered “yes” in 2003, the number

jumped to 47 percent in 2008 and

it continued rising to 52 percent in

2013.

When looking closer, politics

seemed to be more of a disappoint-

ment for superintendents with more

than 2,500 students in their districts

and for those who had served five

to nine years, as well as respondents

in the North and Northeast regions.

In addition, when the question was

analyzed by the type of community,

nine of the 15 respondents, or 60 per-

cent, from cities larger than 50,000

people expressed partisan or personal

politics as a “cause of disappoint-

ment.”

Another notable change, this one

an increase, appeared when the super-

intendents were asked whether hav-

ing “inadequate resources” was a

disappointment. The “yes” respons-

es rose by 20 percent went from 56

percent in 2008 to 76 percent in 2013.

When coupled with the informa-

tion that shows an aging superin-

tendent profile, this significant increase

could mean that district administra-

tors are growing weary of trying to

do more with less and are increas-

ingly disappointed when finances

remain scarce.

School improvement

Opinions about district perfor-

mance vary little between superin-

tendents and board members and

those opinions also have been fair-

ly constant over the past 10 years

with two notable trends:

The level of satisfaction with com-

munity involvement in setting dis-

trict policies and standards has shown

a notable increase and the level of

local tax effort for schools is now in

decline. (See Table D)

In the 1998 survey of superin-

tendents, 60 percent said they were

satisfied with the way their commu-

nities were involved in setting board

policies and standards. That number

fell to 55 percent in 2003 and fell

again to 48 percent in 2008 but

Table D — District RatingsPercentage of school board members and superintendents who gave their district a satis-factory rating on various local conditions:

Board Members Superintendent1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013

District wages and workingconditions necessary to attractcapable principals and teachers 80 % 82% 82% 88% 76% 73% 77% 78%

Standards that administratorsand teachers have for themselves and for students 75 80 80 82 83 86 81 89

Community involvement in settingdistrict policies and standards 55 48 44 49 60 55 48 53

Local tax rate for schools 70 60 66 64 71 58 64 53

“Myron always has places to go and people to sue.”


bounced back to 53 percent in 2013.

That may signal that increasing the

level of community involvement may

be possible after all, increasingly a

goal of school improvement plans.

A similar wave of falling and ris-

ing satisfaction was noted among

board members during that same

time span, although their levels were

not as high to begin with. In 1998,

55 percent of board members thought

their district performance was “sat-

isfactory” in terms of community

involvement. That number dropped

to 48 percent in 2003, and 44 per-

cent in 2008. But it bounced back

to 49 percent in 2013, still lower

than in the earliest surveys, but sig-

naling a trend toward greater satis-

faction.

In 1998, 71 percent of super-

intendent respondents thought the

district performed satisfactorily with

its local efforts to finance its schools.

While that dipped to 58 percent in

2003, the number was back up to

64 percent in 2008, but it fell again

this time to 53 percent. From board

members’ perspectives, the satis-

faction index on tax effort went from

70 percent in 1998 down to 60 per-

cent in 2003, but it was back up to

66 percent in 2008 before slipping

a bit to 64 percent in the latest sur-

vey.

Superintendents and school

board members were asked addi-

tional questions regarding their Inter-

net use, contacting IASB and

readership of various Association

publications. If you would like to see

the actual questions and response

numbers from IASB school board

member and superintendent surveys

from all four survey years, go to

http://iasb.com/ services/survey-

menu.cfm.

Development – Policies that provide for good board processes, a strong board-superintendent relationship, appropriate direction and delegation to the superintendent, and district ends.

Updating – Policies that are current with legal requirements and provide for effective board governance.

Review – A process that assures board policy continues to accurately support the board’s mission, vision and goals.

Monitoring – A process that assures board policy is being followed and is having the intended effect.

Communicating – A process that allows easy access to current board policy by theboard, staff, students, parents and the community.

If your board needs assistance in any of these areas, contact IASB Policy Services today!630/629-3776 or 217/528-9688Ext. 1214 or [email protected] or [email protected]

IASB Policy Services IASB Policy Services Provides custom, in-district services and workshops

to assist your board with all aspects of its policymaking role:

IASB Centennial Crossword PuzzleThis game is just for fun. Try to fill in as many of the missing words that you can. Hint: All of the answers to these current orhistoric references can be found throughout IASB’s website. The answer key to the puzzle can be found on page 31.

Thanks for helping to celebrate IASB’s Centennial!Lighting the Way for 100 Years: 1913-2013

Across1 Title of IASB book on effective board meetings: ____ to Order3 Name of person who followed Wayne Sampson as IASB president in

1988: Barbara ____4 This Free Library provided IASB’s first home 8 The mission of IASB is excellence in local school ____ in support of

quality public education11 This policy-setting gathering is a regular event at Conference:

Delegate ____12 IASB Executive Director 1979-1989: Hal ____13 The first president of the Association was J.W. ____14 IASB’s Policy Reference Education Subscription Service is known by

this acronym 18 IASB award program that recognizes participation and service is

known as Master Board ____20 The first issue of this IASB periodical was published in November 1943 22 Owen Marsh was elected to this IASB post in November 196425 In 1919, the Annual Conference was held in this city 26 The name of current IASB Vice President: Karen ____27 Current IASB Executive Director is Roger ____28 lASB’s first full-time executive director was Robert M. ____29 President of the Chicago Board of Education was a 1956 Conference

speaker and later vice presidential candidate: ____ Shriver

Down2 Peoria hotel that was the site of the annual conference in 1929: Hotel

Pere ____5 This division met for the first time in April 1946 in Moline 6 IASB executive director 2000-2012: Michael D. ____7 Namesake of Outstanding Service Award for Board Secretaries ____9 IASB program for districts in Corrective Action is known as Targeting

____ through Governance10 Name of the suburb where lASB’s Chicago office is located 12 Name of the IASB Associate membership available to firms 15 IASB built a new office in this city in 2003 16 Reorganized structure resulted in 17 of these for the fall 1959 meet-

ings 17 IASB executive director from 1969 to 1973: B.B.19 Name of current IASB President, Carolyne ____21 Name of the U.S. President in the Association’s founding year ____23 The name of the street (Drive) where Springfield headquarters are

located 24 Title of IASB book on school law, Illinois School Law ____25 This city first hosted Annual Conference in 1937 at the Congress

Hotel



Test scores alone are not a holis-

tic measure of school health.

The recent survey taken by Illinois

students and staff, called the “5Essen-

tials,” will provide superintendents

and board members with a more

robust picture of school climate. By

making good use of the data from

5Essentials, school boards should be

able to move their schools from good

to great.

The survey, administered by Illi-

nois schools from February to March

this year, provides insight into how

schools perform across five critical

components: school leadership, staff

collaboration, family relationships,

school environment and classroom

instruction. The survey pulls infor-

mation from several perspectives —

students, teachers, and parents —

and offers administrators and school

boards a clear structure to interpret

the results.

Reports could be accessed by dis-

trict leaders and principals starting

in June. A summary of each school’s

results on the components were

released publicly online in October:

https://illinois.5-essentials.org/

2013/.

Why is this a useful tool?

The 5Essentials is an early indi-

cator of later student achievement.

Schools strong in three or more of

the 5Essentials are 10 times more

likely to improve student learning in

reading and math compared to schools

weak in three of the 5Essentials, based

on more than 20 years of research

by the University of Chicago Con-

sortium on School Research on schools

and what makes them successful.

Strong school boards want to

monitor a small number of mean-

ingful measures to gauge the health

of their districts. But, as Tim Knowles

at the University of Chicago notes,

“Schools are awash in a sea of data,

but not much of it is useful for dri-

ving improvement. So, what is use-

ful about the 5Essentials is that it

provides teachers, school leaders

and parents with really good, fine-

grain information” to help schools

improve.

Specifically, the survey’s five

components break down into 19 mea-

sures of school climate. The results

can be viewed at the aggregate level

or in detail, depending on how a prin-

cipal, superintendent or school board

member would like to examine the

data.

Survey results from this year can

best be used as baseline information,

a look at the current learning condi-

tions in schools. Future surveys, pro-

posed to be administered annually,

will allow principals, superintendents

and boards to identify progress against

this baseline.

How to apply the data

Data from the 5Essentials sur-

vey can help districts develop long-

and short-term strategic plans tar-

geting student learning and organi-

zational effectiveness by informing

which goals to set and which indica-

tors to use to assess progress.

As Knowles indicates, “The

[5Essentials] framework is … designed

for people who have a broader set of

lenses. If I’m responsible for a set of

schools, or if I’m responsible for

the whole district, I can detect what

the levers I should be pressing are.”

Once the results are received, it

is critical to review the data with key

stakeholders and develop a strategic

plan to determine focus areas. While

it may be tempting to tackle every-

Whitney Pickels

and Emily L.

Modlin are Mas-

ter of Public Poli-

cy candidates at

the University of

Chicago’s Harris

School of Public

Policy. Pickels

previously

worked as a prin-

cipal consultant

at PA Consulting

Group doing

strategy and poli-

cy analysis for

the federal gov-

ernment. Modlin

previously

worked in family

and child policy

research for

MDRC, a non-

profit social poli-

cy research firm

in New York.

5Essentials …Getting a better pictureof schools’ holistic health

by Whitney Pickels and Emily Modlin


thing at once, a realistic plan would

devote enough time to a specific area

in order to see growth the next time

the survey is administered.

The survey will give district lead-

ers informational indicators that

should provide a great entryway for

meaningful, strategic conversations

that can drive school improvement.

For example, the 5Essentials can

assist school boards in their impor-

tant role in developing the superin-

tendent and other school leaders. As

IASB notes in the fourth of its Foun-

dational Principles of Effective Gov-

ernance on delegating authority:

“Ultimately, the school board is respon-

sible for everything, yet must recog-

nize that everything depends upon a

capable and competent staff.”

By combining feedback from

teachers, students and parents around

school health, the survey results can

be a powerful professional develop-

ment tool for principals. While ana-

lyzing her school’s reports, Chicago

Public School Principal Assata Moore

honed in on one section in particu-

lar for her own development: “The

effective leadership section. I look at

that section as the one that I own.

The online survey helped me see what

our rating was and let me laser focus

on which elements I was going to

focus on first, like program coher-

ence, and then branch out into oth-

er areas … like how to support

collaborative teaching.”

The 5Essentials data has the

potential to empower principals,

administrators and school boards by

giving them an even clearer picture

of their schools. And, with a clearer

picture of schools’ holistic wellbeing,

these leaders should be better equipped

to guide their schools toward an even

healthier year.

Questions to ask the superintendent about the 5Essentials:• Do you understand the survey is intended to provide infor-

mation and is not designed or validated as an evaluation

tool?

• How will you use the results from the 5Essentials survey?

• Is there a district plan in place to explain the survey and

explain the results to teachers, families and the community?

• Do you plan to review the data and prioritize areas for school-

wide improvement with each principal?

• Are you considering how you can use the information to

support professional development for principals during the

next school year?

• Could pairing a principal from a school that is strong in one

area with a principal of a school that is weak in that area be

an effective way to help each other improve over the next

school year?

IASB Centennial Crossword answer Key



Joseph Fatheree

is an instructor of

technology at Eff-

ingham CUSD

40. He was

named Illinois

Teacher of the

Year in 2007 and

received the

National Educa-

tion Association’s

National Award

for Teaching

Excellence and

the cable indus-

try’s Leaders in

Learning Award

in 2009.

Fostering creativitylike Pixar

By Joseph Fatheree

It’s no secret that schools all across

Illinois are feeling pressure from

recent changes in the law. The adop-

tion of Common Core State Standards

and changes in the evaluation sys-

tem have left school leadership scram-

bling for answers.

Administrators are charged with

creating a system that promotes cre-

ativity and innovation at the highest

level, while empowering students

with the college and career readiness

skills they need to find success in the

21st century. Unfortunately, one of

the issues with the current system is

that it has done little to encourage

collaboration.

Over the years, great teachers

have had few opportunities to share

best practices with colleagues or

administrators. Instead, they have

been forced to teach in silos where

their voices are rarely heard.

One of the positive things to come

out of recent changes in the educa-

tional landscape is the willingness of

leadership to think differently and

look for new ways to create a change

in school culture.

A friend of mine shared a mod-

el with me that is filled with possi-

bility and worth considering. It is a

nontraditional approach based on

one of the most successful business

platforms in the history of animation.

The Harvard Business Review pub-

lished “How Pixar Fosters Collective

Creativity” in December 2008. The

article featured an interview with

Pixar co-founder Ed Catmull and

focused on the discussion of what

is more important: a great idea or

people.

I have read and reread that arti-

cle many times over the course of the

past couple years. Each time, it has

left me wondering what a school would

look like if Ed Catmull were at the

helm. I haven’t had the pleasure of

meeting him yet, but I think a school

under his tutelage would resemble

something like the following.

First, I believe Catmull would

recognize directives like IDEA, NCLB,

the Performance Evaluation Reform

Act (PERA), and the Common Core

State Standards as what they are:

guidelines.

I believe he would look at new

mandates and laws with a “glass half

full” perspective and see them as a

way to create a myriad of endless pos-

sibilities for the students and staff

under his watch and care.

He would make sure that staff

members were not bogged down in

an endless sea of red tape. Instead,

he would meet with each staff mem-

ber to outline expectations and then

give them permission to dream big

and push the envelope. Together, they

would develop professional goals and

hold one another accountable.

Second, he would create a cul-

ture where the free exchange of ideas

was encouraged. He would set sched-

ules where teachers had time to work

together. Teachers would have the

opportunity to team teach and devel-

op lessons together. They would thrive

in a school that asked for their input

on how to solve tough issues.

Through meetings, classroom

visits, emails, tweets, videos and out-

side dinners at the local pizzeria, Cat-

mull would build a collaborative

environment where teachers want-

ed to come to work. In fact, one of

his biggest problems would be the

need to turn applicants away.

I know this all sounds too good

to be true. However, that’s exactly

the way it is at Pixar. The leadership

recognized the importance of great

talent and worked hard to build a

company where the best in the world

want to work. The rest is history.

As a former Teacher of the Year,

I was blessed to have the opportuni-

ty to travel to countless schools around

the United States. I can tell you from

continued on page 35

Mandatory Training for School Board Members

Professional Development Leadership Training

Train at the Pre-Conference WorkshopRegister for a pre-conference workshop on Friday, November 22, 9:00 a.m.to 3:00 p.m., in the Chicago Sheraton Hotel. Continental Breakfast and lunchis included. Participants must remain to the conclusion to receive their certifi-cate of completion. For more information contact Judy Williams at 217-528-9688, ext. 1103.

Train at Annual Conference Panel SessionsBy attending three specific, required panels at conference, participants willfulfill their training obligation. Once registered at conference, they may pickup a PDLT Mandatory Training Attendance Sheet. Only the specific panelslisted on the sheet will meet the requirement. After initialing attendance atthe appropriate panels and returning the signed sheet prior to the end of conference, they will receive a certificate of completion. For more information contact Judy Williams at 217-528-9688, ext. 1103.

Train in your districtIASB staff will facilitate a concise, information-packed 4-hour workshop in your district for your board or for board members from several districts. It covers all the required material, and consists of a video presentation and interactive activities. For more information, contact your field services director today.

IASB gives you options to receive your

Every school board member newly-elected or reelected in 2013by law MUST complete this training within one year of taking theoath of office. It includes instruction in education and labor law,financial oversight and accountability and fiduciary responsibilities.Additionally, it will fulfill the requirement for PerformanceEvaluation Reform Act (PERA) training.

Every school board member newly elected in2013 also must complete

Open Meetings ActTraining within 90 days oftaking the oath of office.This training is availablefrom the IASB Online

Learning Center athttp://www.iasb.com/

training/onlinelearning_courses.cfm


A Directory of your

IASB ServiceAssociates

IASB Service Associates are businesses whichoffer school-related products and services andwhich have earned favorable repu tations for qual-ity and integrity. Only after screening by theService Associates Executive Committee is abusiness firm invited by the IASB Board ofDirectors to become a Service Associate.

Appraisal ServicesINDUSTRIAL APPRAISAL COMPANY — Insurance

appraisals, property control reports. OakwoodTerrace - 630/827-0280

Architects/EngineersALLIED DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. —

Architectural programming, site planning & design,architectural and interior design, and constructionadministration. Springfield - 217/522-3355

ARCON ASSOCIATES, INC. — Full service firm spe-cializing in educational facilities with services thatinclude architecture, construction management, roofand masonry consulting, landscape architecture andenvironmental consulting. Lombard - 630/495-1900;website: www.arconassoc.com; e-mail: [email protected]

BERG ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. —Consulting engineers. Schaumburg - 847/352-4500;website: http://www.berg-eng.com

BLDD ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architectural and engineering services for schools. Decatur - 217/429-5105; Champaign - 217/356-9606; Bloomington -309/828-5025; Chicago - 312/829-1987

BRADLEY & BRADLEY — Architects, engineers andasbestos consultants. Rockford - 815/968-9631; web-site: http://www.bradleyandbradley.net/

CM ENGINEERING, INC. — Specializing in ultra effi-cient geo-exchange HVAC engineering solutions forschools, universities and commercial facilities.Columbia, MO - 573/874-9455; website: www.cmeng.com

CORDOGAN CLARK & ASSOCIATES — Architectsand engineers; Aurora - 630/896-4678; website:www.cordoganclark.com; e-mail: [email protected]

DESIGN ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architecture, engi-neering, planning and interior design. Hillsboro -217/532-5600; East St. Louis - 618/398-0890; Marion- 618/998-0075; Springfield - 217/787-1199; e-mail:[email protected]

DEWBERRY ARCHITECTS INC. — Architects, plan-ners, landscape architecture and engineers. Peoria -309/282-8000; Chicago - 312/660-8800; Elgin -847/695-5480; website: www.dewberry.com

DLA ARCHITECTS, LTD. — Architects specializing inpreK-12 educational design, including a full range ofarchitectural services; assessments, planning, feasi-bility studies, new construction, additions, remodel-ing, O&M and owner's rep services. Itasca - 847/742-4063; website: www.dla-ltd.com; e-mail: [email protected]

ERIKSSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LTD. —Consulting civil engineers and planners. Grayslake -847/223-4804

FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES, INC. — Schoolplanning and design with a focus on K-12 schools.Park Ridge - 847/292-1039

FGM ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. — Architects.Oak Brook - 630/574-8300; Peoria - 309/669-0012;Mt. Vernon - 618/242-5620; O’Fallon - 618/624-3364;website: http://www.fgm-inc.com

GREENASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture/construc-tion services. Deerfield - 847/317-0852, Pewaukee,WI - 262/746-1254; website: www.greenassociates.com; e-mail: [email protected]

HEALY, BENDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Archi -tects/Planners. Naperville, 630/904-4300; website:www.healybender.com; e-mail: [email protected]

HYA EXECUTIVE SEARCH, A DIVISION OF ECRAGROUP, INC. - Superintendent searches, board andsuperintendent workshops. Rosemont - 847/318-0072

IMAGE ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architects. Carbondale- 618/457-2128

JH2B ARCHITECTS — Architects. Kankakee - 815/933-5529

KLUBER ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS — Buildingdesign professionals specializing in architecture,mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and fireprotection engineers. Batavia - 630/406-1213

LEGAT ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architects. Chicago -312/258-1555; Oak Brook - 630/990-3535; Wauke -gan - 847/263-3535; Crystal Lake - 815/477-4545

LZT ASSOCIATES, INC./LARSON & DARBY GROUP— Architecture, planning, engineering. Peoria -309/673-3100; Rockford - 815/484/0739; St. Charles,MO - 630/444-2112; website: www.larsondarby.com;e-mail: [email protected]

MELOTTE-MORSE-LEONATTI, LTD — Architectural,industrial, hygiene and environmental service.Springfield - 217/789-9515

PCM+D — Provide a full range of architectural ser-vices including facility and feasibility studies, architec-tural design construction, consulting and related ser-vices. East Peoria - 309/694-5012

PERKINS+WILL — Architects; Chicago - 312/755-0770; website: www.perkinswill.com; e-mail: [email protected]

RICHARD L. JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. —Architecture, educational planning. Rockford -815/398-1231

RUCKPATE ARCHITECTURE — Architects, engi-neers, interior design. Barrington - 847/381-2946;website: http://www.ruckpate.com; e-mail: [email protected]

SARTI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. —Architecture, engineering, life safety consulting, inte-rior design and asbestos consultants. Springfield -217/585-9111; e-mail: [email protected]

WIGHT & COMPANY — An integrated services firmwith solutions for the built environment. Darien -630/696-7000; website: http://www.wightco.com; e-mail: [email protected]

WM. B. ITTNER, INC. — Full service architectural firmserving the educational community since 1899.Fairview Heights - 618/624-2080

WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture andconstruction management. Metamora - 309/367-2924

Building ConstructionCORE CONSTRUCTION — Professional constructionmanagement, design-build and general contractingservices. Morton - 309/266-9768; website: www.COREconstruct.com

FREDERICK QUINN CORPORATION — Constructionmanagement and general contracting. Addison -630/628-8500; webite: www.fquinncorp.com

HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. — Fullservice Construction Management and GeneralContracting firm specializing in education facilities.Swansea - 618/277-8870

MANGIERI COMPANIES, INC. — Construction man-agement and general contractor capabilities. Peoria -309/688-6845

POETTKER CONSTRUCTION — Construction man-agement, design/build and general contracting ser-vices. Hillsboro - 217/532-2507

S.M. WILSON & CO. — Provides construction man-agement and general construction services to educa-tion, healthcare, commercial, retail and industrialclients. St. Louis, MO - 314/645-9595

THE GEORGE SOLLITT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Full-service construction manage-ment general contractor with a primary focus on edu-cational facilities. Wood Dale - 630/860-7333; web-site: www.sollitt.com; e-mail: [email protected]

Computer SoftwareSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. — Administrative

Software. Tremont - 888/776-3897; website: http://www.sti-k12.com; e-mail: [email protected]

Environmental ServicesALPHA CONTROLS & SERVICES, LLC — Facility

Management Systems, Automatic TemperatureControls, Access Control Systems, Energy SavingSolutions; Sales, Engineering, Installation,Commissioning and Service. Rockford, Springfield,Champaign: toll-free 866-ALPHA-01 (866-252-4201);website: www.alphaACS.com; e-mail: [email protected]

CTS-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY & SOLUTIONS —Performance contracting, facility improvements and energy conservation projects. St. Louis, MO -636/230-0843; Chicago - 773/633-0691; website:www.thectsgroup.com; e-mail: [email protected]

ENERGY SYSTEMS GROUP — A comprehensiveenergy services and performance contracting com-pany providing energy, facility and financial solutions.Itasca - 630/773-7203

GRP MECHANICAL CO. INC. — Performance con-tracting, basic and comprehensive building renova-tions with a focus on energy and mechanical mainte-nance services. Bethalto - 618/779-0050

HONEYWELL, INC. — Controls, maintenance, energymanagement, performance contracting and security.St. Louis, Mo - 314-548-4136; Arlington Heights -847/391-3133; e-mail: [email protected]

IDEAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, INC. —Asbestos and environmental services. Bloomington -309/828-4259

RADON DETECTION SPECIALISTS — Commercialradon surveys. Burr Ridge - 800/244-4242; website:www.radondetection.net; e-mail: [email protected]

SECURITY ALARM SYSTEMS — Burglar and firealarms, video camera systems, door access systems,door locking systems, and alarm monitoring. Salem -618/548-5768


Financial ServicesBERNARDI SECURITIES, INC. — Public finance con-

sulting, bond issue services and referendum support.Fairview Heights - 618/206-4180; Chicago - 312/281-2014

BMO CAPITAL MARKETS/GKST, Inc. — Full servicebroker/dealer specializing in debt securities, includingmunicipal bonds, U.S. Treasury debt, agencies, andmortgage-backed securities. Chicago - 312/441-2601; website: www.bmo.com/industry/uspublicfi-nance/default.aspx; e-mail: [email protected]

EHLERS & ASSOCIATES — School bond issues; ref-erendum help; financial and enrollment studies. Lisle- 630/271-3330; website: http://www.ehlers-inc.com;e-mail: [email protected]

FIRST MIDSTATE, INC. — Bond issue consultants.Bloomington - 309/829-3311; e-mail: [email protected]

GORENZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. — Auditing andfinancial consulting. Peoria - 309/685-7621; website:http://www.gorenzcpa.com; e-mail: [email protected]

HUTCHINSON, SHOCKEY, ERLEY & COMPANY —Debt issuance, referendum planning, financial assis-tance. Chicago - 312/443-1566; website: www.hse-muni.com; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

KINGS FINANCIAL CONSULTING, INC. — Municipalbond financial advisory service including all types ofschool bonds; school referenda, county school salestax; tax revenue forecasts/projections. Monitcello -217/762-4578

ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO., INC. — Financial consult-ing; debt issuance; referendum assistance. St.Charles - 630/584-4994; Web Site: http://www.rwbaird.com; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

SPEER FINANCIAL, INC. — Financial planning andbond issue services. Chicago - 312/346-3700; website: http://www.speerfinancial.com; e-mail:[email protected]

STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC. — Full ser-vice securities firm providing investment banking andadvisory services including strategic financial plan-ning; bond underwriting; and referendum and legisla-tive assistance - Edwardsville - 800/230-5151; e-mail:[email protected]

WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY — Bond issuance,financial advisory services. Chicago - 312/364-8955; e-mail: [email protected]

WINTRUST FINANCIAL — Financial services hold-ing company engaging in community banking,wealth management, commercial insurance premi-um financing, and mortgage origination. Willow -brook - 630/560-2120

Human Resource ConsultingBUSHUE HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. — Human

resource, safety and risk management, insurance consulting. Effingham - 217/342-3042; website: http://www.bushuehr.com; e-mail: [email protected]

InsuranceTHE SANDNER GROUP CLAIMS MANAGEMENT,

INC. — Third party administrator for worker's compand insurance claims. Chicago - 800/654-9504

Superintendent SearchesHAZARD, YOUNG, ATTEA & ASSOCIATES, LTD —

Superintendent searches, board and superintendentworkshops. Glenview - 847/724-8465

Annual board self-evaluation ____

Clear mission, vision and goals ____

Solid community connection ____

Productive meetings ____

Strong board-superintendent relationship ____

Does your score add up? ____

Contact yourIASB field services director today!

100%

Springfield217/528-9688

Lombard630/629-3776

A system of EVALUATION starts at

the TOPwith theSchoolBoard!

How do you score?

experience that great teachers want to work in a stim-

ulating environment where both their work and voice is

valued. They would love to work at a school where the

foundation was based on collaboration and teamwork.

Finally, Catmull would find a way to eliminate bureau-

cracy. Over time, most schools have developed a “chain

of command,” which everyone is expected to follow to

the letter. In fact, failure to do so in some schools is

ground for dismissal.

At Pixar, the leadership believes that everyone should

have the ability to talk to everyone. It is one of the fun-

damental reasons behind their success.

I believe Catmull would remove those boundaries

and encourage teachers and administrators to work

together by sharing, discussing and challenging one

another to do their best. Everyone at Pixar knows who

is in charge, but they are also encouraged to challenge

leadership, poke holes in plans, develop solutions and

offer new ideas.

Their collective goal is to make Pixar the most suc-

cessful animation company in the world. And in the ani-

mation industry, Pixar is the standard by which all others

are judged.

Wouldn’t it be great if the schools in Illinois became

the standard for education? Ed, thanks for the inspira-

tion.

Pixar continued from page 32

Susan Rasmus

has been named

by the Indian

Prairie Educa-

tional Foundation

as its first execu-

tive director. She

previously served for four years on

Indian Prairie CUSD 204’s Board of

Education, including a term as pres-

ident. Rasmus worked most recent-

ly as director of business development

for Washington-state-based All for

Kidz, Inc. Rasmus has given time and

energy to many community organi-

zations. She is a past PTA president

and a former substitute teacher. In

her new role, Rasmus will be respon-

sible for planning and implementing

a comprehensive development pro-

gram to complement and provide

financial assistance to the district.

Kent Duncan, foundation chairman

described Rasmus as passionate about

education. “We are very fortunate to

have a person of Sue’s background

and experience who can step into this

role,” he said.

Nolan H. Baird,

Jr. joined the

board of directors

for Artis—Naples,

Florida, to help

oversee the Naples

Philharmonic and

a museum. Artis—Naples also hosts

more than 300 concerts, performances,

exhibitions and educational events

for children and adults each year.

Baird is a former president of the Glen

Ellyn SD 41 school board, and is pres-

ident and CEO of Kensington Capi-

tal Management LLC. He was

previously a portfolio manager at

William Blair & Company, a global

investment bank and asset manage-

ment firm based in Chicago, after 35

years at Stein Roe & Farnham, where

he was executive vice president, a

member of the executive committee

and headed its largest portfolio man-

agement team. Baird also has been

chairman of the board of trustees

of the College of DuPage, and presi-

dent of the United Way of Subur-

ban Chicago.


Milestones

M I L E S T O N E S

Achievements

In memoriamRussell “Buck” Boeman, 91, died

August 15, 2013. He was a past

member of the Crete School Board.

Wayne Wilson Britton, 101, died

August 8, 2013. He previously

served on the Mt. Zion CUSD 3

school board.

James Ray Buckman, 66, died Sep-

tember 23, 2013. He served on the

Spoon River Valley CUSD 4 Board

from 1973 to 1987.

Earl L. Bull, 82, died September 8,

2013. He formerly served on the

Riverdale CUSD 100 school board.

Howard S. Carley, 99, died Septem-

ber 3, 2013. He was a former mem-

ber of the Neponset Board of Edu-

cation.

Joseph M. Eigsti, 91, died September

3, 2013. He previously served as

a school board member at Willow

Springs SD 108.

James D. Ford, 84, died July 28, 2013.

He served nine years on the

Minonk-Dana-Rutland School

Board.

Howard G. “Hod” Getz, 79, died Sep-

tember 29, 2013. He served four

terms on the Morton District 709

School Board.

William D. Greek, 74, died Septem-

ber 21, 2013. He was a former Hen-

ry School Board member.

George L. Jarbo, 64, died August 9,

2013. He was a former school board

member for Norwood SD 63, Peo-

ria.

Eldon Johnson, 78, died August 17,

2013. He served 13 years on the

Rossville-Alvin CUSD 7 school

board.

Kim K. Kearby, 66, died September

19, 2013. He was a current mem-

ber of the Round Lake CUSD 116

Board of Education.

R. LaVern Knepper, 85, died Sep-

tember 30, 2013. He served on the

continued on page 14

The question for

this issue is

answered by

Linda Dawson,

IASB director/

editorial services

and Journal

editor.

Community engagement isan IASB work in progress

by Linda Dawson

A S K T H E S T A F F

Question: In early September,

our board president and the

superintendent received a memo from

IASB Executive Director Roger Eddy

and an executive summary of a report

on community engagement. How can

we learn more in order to get start-

ed?

Answer: Your next opportunity

will occur at Joint Annual Confer-

ence in November. IASB staff who

worked on this report will present a

panel session at 1:30 p.m. on Satur-

day, November 23, in the Columbus

E/F Ballroom, Hyatt East Tower.

The full report is online at http://

iasb.com/training/connecting.cfm

in both a pdf and digital format,

Meanwhile, IASB staff are begin-

ning to develop regional and in-dis-

trict workshops to support member

school boards interested in pursuing

this work. Much care and prepara-

tion are going into the next steps that

will bring community engagement

processes and tools to member school

districts in Illinois.

The purpose of this report, “Con-

necting with the Community: the

Purpose and Process of Communi-

ty Engagement as part of Effective

School Board Governance,” is to help

school boards and superintendents

understand what community engage-

ment is, why it is critical, what boards

can expect to accomplish, and how

to evaluate the results.

Why are we doing this? Quite

frankly we are very concerned about

what happens when or if school boards

don’t engage in this vital work. Pub-

lic education and boards of educa-

tion in the United States are under

attack. State and federal education

agencies are demanding more of local

schools. The stakes in student per-

formance on mandated testing are

rising. State and federal lawmakers

are putting strings on education fund-

ing as an incentive to change. Cor-

porations and their privately funded

think tanks and philanthropic orga-

nizations are crusading for “educa-

tion reforms.” And communities

whose taxpayers are straining under

tightening household budgets and

higher property taxes are question-

ing the return on investment for their

education tax dollars.

School board members who are

elected to represent these commu-

nities know that meeting ever-increas-

ing demands for accountability is a

difficult job. But the general public

does not understand how these attacks

threaten the very existence of pub-

lic education and local school gov-

ernance. That’s why efforts to take

back and retain local control must

come from an engaged community.

Frank discussions about what com-

munities expect from their schools

are valuable, but of equal importance

is what the community is willing to

support to meet those expectations.

Who better to connect with the com-

munity over local issues of education

than school board members? Who

better to connect with the commu-

nity over local issues of education

than school board members? Who

better to address the problems in edu-

cation than elected community mem-

bers who are most aware of the

problems?

This effort begins with the local

governance team — school board and

superintendent.

With the aid of effective and ongo-

ing community engagement, we believe

that the district governing team is in

the best position to determine how

resources are invested and delivered.

This new report provides a strong

foundation that will begin the process

of enabling school boards to take back

and retain the control that so many

are trying to take away from local

school districts and their communi-

ties. Community engagement is not

easy work, nor can it be done quick-

continued on page 8

2921 Baker DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62703-5929

Address Service Requested

NON-PROFITPRST STANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDILLINOIS

ASSOCIATION OFSCHOOL BOARDS

www.iasb.com

“A man who wants something

will find a way; a man who doesn’t

will find an excuse.”Stephen Dolley Jr., North Carolina attor-ney, 1929-2011

“The ultimate goal of the edu-

cational system is to shift to the indi-

vidual the burden of pursuing his own

education. This will not be a widely

shared pursuit until we get over our

old conviction that education is what

goes on in school buildings and

nowhere else.”John W. Gardner, Secretary of HealthEducation and Welfare under PresidentLyndon Johnson, 1912-2002

“Discipline is learned in the school

of adversity.”Mohandas Ghandi, father of the Indiannation,1869-1948

“Education would be much more

effective if its purpose was to ensure

that by the time they leave school

every boy and girl should know how

much they do not know, and be imbued

with a lifelong desire to know it.William Haley, British newspaper edi-tor,1901-1987

“School boards… must learn to

manage change, to exercise leader-

ship to help guide education into the

future. If we lie back and let others

lead school boards could go the way

of the dinosaur.”Hal Seamon, IASB executive director, TheIllinois School Board Journal, Septem-ber/December 1973

“The secret to high performance

and satisfaction at school at work and

at home is the deeply human need to

direct our own lives to learn and cre-

ate new things and to do better by

ourselves and our world.”Daniel Pink, Drive: The Surprising TruthAbout What Motivates Us, 2009

“Ethics and

equity and the

principles of

justice do not

change with the

calendar.”

DH. Lawrence, Englishnovelist, authored

Sons and Lovers in 1913

IASB Centennial

FROM 1913●

●

●

●

“The principal said we saw each other so often I deserved my own spot.”

Date post:	13-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	iasb-communications
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

The Illinois School Board Journal November-December 2013

Documents