Sue Flicop

On Wednesday night, The Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) presented in more detail a method to evaluate our long-range financial situation here in Newton.   The spreadsheet lays out some of the variables that we can consider when talking about tradeoffs–a starting point for discussion.  Of course we can add variables to the model in the future.

As an example, one scenario involved reducing salary increases to 1.5% a year and reducing school staff by 3%, both changes each year for five years.   A 3% reduction means about 30 teachers laid off each year, for a total of 150 teachers over five years, out of about 1000 teachers and 1700 overall staff.

As I wrote previously, the numbers can inform our decision-making but cannot be the sole criteria.   We need to really delve into what these reductions would mean–what are the effects on class size?  on how we recruit and retain teachers, etc.?  How would education need to change with these reductions?  Are we willing to accept the consequences of such actions?

These are certainly difficult questions to consider, but we must address them as a community.  As the CAG presentation made clear, we as a community need to accept that there need to be changes–the current level of expectations and funding cannot continue.    And we need to elect leaders who are willing to address this situation.

Just some quick thoughts regarding Monday’s meeting where the CAG discussed the capital cost structure report. I’ve been disturbed by the process the report outlined for how school maintenance is actually scheduled, performed, and paid for. As the report describes, it is very inefficient and leads to a system where no single department is accountable for the work. We end up with less maintenance work in the schools for the money.

The CAG recommendation is to merge both departments and house the new group on the municipal side. This will create administrative efficiencies as well as increased accountability since one group will be directly responsible for all the work. In the end, we should have a better system for maintenance for our dollars—and would better be able to figure out where any problems are. As usual, the devil is in the details, but we can surely start making this change where the schools will certainly benefit.

At Monday night’s public discussion of the Citizens Advisory Group report on performance management, I was part of the group focused on pay-for-performance. It was an interesting discussion that I hope will continue in the future. An important distinction for us all to consider is the difference between a pay-for-performance systems and cost reduction methods in education. While in the private sector, increased performance and productivity might lead to the ability to cut staff, this is not necessarily the case in education. If a teacher is very successful on all the performance measurement points, we are not then going to add more students to the classroom, or reduce supports from coaches and professional development resources. The focus of performance evaluations in education is on performance, not on cost reductions.

For almost a year, I’ve been reading up on pay-for-performance in public school systems as part of my research for the Strategic Planning Group. In this group, I have advocated strongly for a 360º evaluation system, which would include feedback from all those people who interact with the employee being evaluated. For example, parents should have an opportunity to evaluate teachers and principals, and teachers should be able to evaluate their superiors. A strong evaluation system that gathers feedback from a variety of sources is an essential part of any pay-for-performance system in Newton.

Overall, I’ve found there are two main elements we need to include no matter what the details of the merit program are: a collaborative relationship with the unions and resources to help institute the system.

First, we need to work collaboratively with the teacher’s union to develop a system that teachers, administrators, and parents understand and embrace. This includes working together to determine how to measure an excellent education—do we use MCAS scores and/or SAT scores and/or other quantitative measures? What qualitative factors do we include? How do we measure the performance of teachers whose subject areas aren’t covered by tests, like art and PE? Do we focus on performance at the school, group, or individual level? These are thorny and quite possibly contentious issues that require input and agreement from the school system and from the community.

Second, we need to have the resources to institute a reward system and make improvements when performance falls short. I don’t just mean the costs of any monetary rewards, but also the costs associated with instituting a strong evaluation system and professional development. Evaluators must be properly trained and supported to create substantive and meaningful feedback that will lead to better performance and honest assessments. Without a way to evaluate staff and to help them improve their performance, a pay-for-performance system will be ineffective at improving our children’s education.

At tonight’s meeting, the School Committee had a sobering discussion about the CAG report with members of the CAG Education Committee. Questions focused on the structural deficit, the decline in education here in Newton, best practices and communities we should emulate/investigate.

The idea of better communication with the public was mentioned several times. Recommendations on how to do this included better use of the website and a more transparent decision-making process that clearly delineates the trade-offs that need to be considered. I would also add the need to educate Newton residents about our education system.

In order to fully understand the complexity of each decision, people need to learn more about the different parts of Newton Public Schools and how they interact and affect each other. Regarding methods, we need consistent, frequent, and direct communication. If NPS could gather families’ email addresses along with emergency numbers at the beginning of each year—an idea I hear floated by parents frequently—it could send regular (every two to three weeks?) information and updates directly to parents, as well as keep a library of these emails on its website. Armed with more information, we can all better understand and participate in discussions of priorities and values.

I’ve been pouring over the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) report on School Cost Structure since its presentation. The CAG members were very thorough in their investigations of school costs, METCO, the school lunch program, and transportation. The result is that the CAG found the main drivers of school cost increases to be health benefits, SPED costs, and utilities, and made the following recommendations:

• Health Benefits: The City of Newton should consider joining the Commonwealth’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC). This is the State’s health insurance program that has, over time, experienced less of a cost increase than Newton’s health insurance program. Any shift to the GIC needs to be approved by the unions in Newton. The CAG also recommended a review of the insurance cost split (currently 80% for the city and 20% for the employees). While these changes require discussion with the unions, I do feel that both changes need to be explored in contract negotiations.
• SPED Costs: The School Committee should perform an outside analysis of the SPED program by professionals to see if we are providing the best services for our children in the most effective and cost efficient way possible. Just as with regular education, I hope such a review would outline the choices we have as a community in providing SPED services as well as the State and Federal mandates that are required. Since both cost and the SPED population are increasing quickly, I feel we should do this type of review far more regularly in the past—possibly every 6 – 7 years.

• Utilities: The CAG report did not contain a great deal of information on how to address these costs. As a former Stand for Children member and ESCO advocate, I do know that the schools, along with the City, are entering into ESCOs, energy services contracts that leverage future cost savings to pay for improvements to the schools that improve energy usage.

The CAG found that the salary increases in the teachers’ contract was not a major factor in creating the structural deficit (where revenues will not be enough to maintain the system as the previous year.)

One theme that runs through the report is the need for a community-wide discussions about what we value most in our school system and what type of trade-offs we are willing to make. I think teacher quality and professional development should be at the top of our values list. Research shows that the quality of a teacher has the most impact on a child’s education—parents instinctively know that an excellent teacher in a larger classroom of 27 kids is better than a mediocre teacher in a classroom with 23 or 24 students. [An international study by McKinsey & Company is available by link on the “more information” page.] We need to focus our resources on creating, supporting, and retaining high-quality staff in our school budget and in the policies that the School Committee creates.