ABOUT US

COMMUNICATIONS

ADVOCACY

BOARDSMANSHIP

RESEARCH AND DATA

A MESSAGE FROM NASB'S PRESIDENT

Last month I commented on an article by Doug Reeves, “The Board’s Role in Innovation,” that appeared in the January 2010 issue of The American School Board Journal. I am very pleased to announce that Dr. Reeves has agreed to be one of the keynote speakers at NASB’s 2010 Conference in November in Las Vegas. More about that on page 2.

The article mentioned above focused upon the role of an implementation audit that involves the local school board asking three essential questions about initiatives that have been begun in the school district:

  • What is our initiative inventory?

  • What is the range of implementation for each initiative?

  • What is the relationship between implementation and student results?

This month I want to develop this idea further using the fundamental principles that Dr. Reeves has put forward. As a reminder, Dr. Reeves is founder of the Leadership and Learning Center which provides professional development services, research, and solutions for educators and school leaders who serve students from prekindergarten through college.

After extensive research, Dr. Reeves discovered that there are two basic ways that initiatives in school districts are regarded:
1.  “The central office believes initiatives are in process, but teachers and principals are unfamiliar with them.
2.  “Teachers and principals pursue some initiatives with diligence, even though the central office believes they have been abandoned.”

As I mentally review some of the initiatives in the school district where I serve, I can see that Dr. Reeves has isolated what seem to be the two types of implementation.

Dr. Reeves goes on to suggest that each board with its superintendent and senior administrative staff should create a scoring to demonstrate the successful implementation of any initiative. 

After conducting the implementation review using the scoring rubric adopted, each board then can respond to policy questions related to our school district budgets.
1.  How can we justify spending the same money for data analysis for a school that is “exemplary” or “high achieving” as we spend for a school that has been several years “in need of improvement”?
2.  How can we assist administrators at our most at-risk schools by relieving them from initiatives that compete for their time, resources, and leadership attention?

As we move through this process, we must focus on the relationship between implementation and student results. Dr. Reeves calls this the “acid test for every national, state, and local policy.”  Although I cannot believe that any school board member ever supported an educational mandate that they thought would harm boys and girls in our classrooms, I can believe that we have unknowingly sometimes supported policy requirements that have been inversely related to improved student achievements.

I suggest that the implementation audit is a preliminary process for local boards to use in what we are all facing as the next round of budget reductions. This is a way for us to act on the realization that there are too many priorities and not enough time for educators to attend to all of them.

“Rather than cut 15 percent from every budget, boards and leaders should identify some programs for 100 percent cuts, and others for increases,” Dr. Reeves recommends.

As we make difficult and often wrenching decisions about resource allocations, I encourage each of you to engage in an implementation audit as one avenue for deriving information about what is impacting student achievement and what isn’t. 

I want to take just a moment to thank each of you who took time to telephone legislators or to send them email messages during the recent Special Session of the Nevada Legislature. A number of you also telephoned the Governor’s office in support of his signature on Senate Bill 2 that removes the statutory barrier in NRS 386.650 so that Nevada school districts can use student assessment results in staff evaluation and the State is eligible to apply for Race to the Top funds.

Special thanks to Sharla Hales [NASB Past President, Douglas] who testified on behalf of Nevada’s 107 school board members in support of flexibility and autonomy for local boards to make decisions about budget cuts that are appropriate for their local communities. We also appreciate the efforts of Bob Burnham [NASB Legislative Chair, Eureka] who traveled over 480 miles to/from Carson City to advocate on the same points. School board members Chris Miller [NASB President Elect, Storey], Nancy Hollinger [Washoe, Liaison to the NASB Executive Committee], and Estela LeVario Gutierrez [NASB Director, Washoe] also attended hearings during the Special Session. 

And, of course, NASB’s Executive Director, Dr. Dotty Merrill, responded to numerous questions from legislators, represented NASB concerns, kept us informed, and generated communication to legislators from school board legislative representatives and school board members across the State. She also testified in support of Assembly Bills 5 and 6 that eventually provided flexibility for local boards in the areas of class size reduction requirements for grades 1, 2, and 3 as well as the minimum expenditure requirements.

Several legislators were critical in moving the anticipated cuts for K-12 from the initially anticipated $175 million to $115 million, or about 6.9% for the Biennium. This reduction is especially important because a number of districts must make additional budget cuts due to lower revenues expected from local sources that will not be back-filled through the guaranteed State support.

Senate Majority Steven Horsford [Clark] and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley [Clark] were clearly instrumental in minimizing the impact of cuts on both K-12 and higher education. Assemblywoman Debbie Smith has been a consistent advocate for K-12 and continued her assistance during the Special Session by championing flexibility as embodied in Assembly Bills 5 and 6. 

Please join me in communicating your appreciation to these three legislators as well as their colleagues when you next meet them in the grocery store, at the DMV, or elsewhere in the community.

Now is the time for each of us to work collaboratively in providing the most thoughtful and data-driven policy leadership that we can to our school districts and the children we serve.

NASB President
775/841-3687

Corporate Friends

NASB Headquarters
549 Court Street
Post Office Box 14855
Reno, NV 89507-4855
Telephone (775) 657- 8411
or (775) 443-5988
Fax (775) 453-1017
or (775) 324-5579