Officials update progress of Patton renovations, other projects
By Karen Cresta, Staff Writer, The Times
EAST MARLBOROUGH – The agenda for the Unionville Chadds Ford School Board’s work session on Monday night went rather quickly but board member Keith Knauss added a statement that was not included in the agenda regarding courses being taken by teachers that he felt were unnecessary and fall into an ineffective category that costs the district money.
Knauss began, “I want to talk about tuition reimbursement because I got a report this month for courses taken. We spent $240,000 on tuition reimbursements for 220 courses that teachers took and, of course, the district encourages teachers to take these courses by paying the tuition because we believe it results in more effective teaching. In addition to reimbursing the tuition, we increase teacher pay when they earn advanced degrees and complete advanced coursework. So in our pay system, teachers with bachelor degrees at step 16 earn $75,000 a year, while teachers with a masters’ degree at the same level, plus 60 extra credits, would earn $103,000. Plus, there is a strong financial incentive of $28,000 increase in salary and then that also reflects the retirement payments to complete continuing education courses.”
“So there is an unspoken bargain that teachers invest the time to take additional courses so they can become more effective and we pay the tuition and increase their salary,” Knauss continued.
“By the way, this is unusual in the private sector where companies will typically pay for tuition, but a salary increase is not guaranteed,” Knauss added.
“A shadow industry has emerged to game the system. This industry offers a number of three credit courses that add little to teaching effectiveness and courses that Dr. (John) Sanville would never approve if he was not constrained by contract language. These are Tech-Ed courses with names like ‘Google Apps for Educations,’ ‘Interactive White Board Technology,’ and my favorite, a second level of the incredibly important course about movie making with the title ‘Apple iMovie Level 2’ This has to stop because 25% of the courses taken each year, comprising $58,000 in tuition reimbursement, fall into this ineffective category. I realize these technical education courses are part of the contract and thus we are obligated to let each teacher take four of these courses but I’m wondering if we should strike a bargain with the union that can be beneficial to both sides. We give every teacher 12 automatic Tech-Ed credits without having them take any courses and we, in return, save the tuition money.
“I’m going to throw that out there and let the school board directors chew on that and I’ve talked with Dr. Sanville about this and I think he will be thinking about this also and maybe we can have some further discussions at a later time,” Knauss added.
Sanville, the district’s Superintendent of Schools, responded, “I can tell you that John Nolen and Ken [Batchelor] and I look at teacher requests for tuition reimbursements and the courses that they take very closely. Where we have less prerogative in terms of what’s approved is in the technology side. Now, if I can say just one thing relative to that, there are some technology courses that make sense, especially with the pilot that we have with the (learning) management system and with one initiative at the middle school, but there are also some technology courses that I’m not sure how they might fit in with individual teacher’s responsibilities.”
Knauss concluded that he does feel that 75% are challenging courses that the teachers choose and that they do add to the effective teaching, but he said he is definitely seeing highly questionable course selections.
Sanville will also be investigating the opportunity to speak with colleges and universities to negotiate the cost of advanced courses for district teachers.
The board also reviewed the status of some of the school renovations. An update was given by the Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds, Rick Hostetler. He began by informing the board that the classroom portion in Phase 1 was completed at Charles F. Patton Middle School (CFPMS) but not until 2 p.m. the day before the doors opened.
“It’s a lot on our part to keep everything moving,” Hostetler stated.
Phase 2 of the project at the middle school which consists of the renovation of the main entrance, the main office, guidance, and the nurse’s suite is currently underway. All of the renovations should be completed by mid-December and ready for move-in over the winter break.
Hostetler disparaged the rumor that the middle school would be cancelling any activities such as its play because of renovations. He assured everyone that all activities held in the auditorium would not be affected.
In addition, Hostetler informed the board of an item in need of vote for next week’s meeting involving a change order for the middle school’s electrical work in the front of the building in the amount of $20,000 – $ 25,000. The original cost of the change was $36,000 and was disputed.
Finally, regarding the middle school, the rooftop air conditioner was installed and up and running. The unit was brought in from a school in Baltimore that never installed it and will be saving the district a lot of money. The total cost was about $14,000 to make the new unit operational.
“Sounds like the deal of the year for us,” stated the board’s Vice President Gregg Lindner.
Also addressed was Unionville High School’s auditorium roof replacement due to the excessive noise during heavy rain. A corrective design was determined and a tentative contractor was selected to do the work but it was being held up by the insurance company that is reluctant to move ahead on the $200,000 project and has not yet authorized the architect to officially hire this contractor. The school district, according to Hostetler, can issue a notice of claim to get the project moving so that the work can be projected for completion by the end of October.
John Nolen, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, provided an update on the Homework Committee. The next step is to have the faculty reflect on some of the action plans and implementing recommendations by the committee such as homework assignments over long breaks, homework journals, and Canvas assisting work that may be missed when out of school and when teachers have tests so that teachers aren’t having multiple tests on the same day for groups of students. Professional development for teachers will take place on Nov. 3, during an in-service day.
Interesting read. I don’t blame Mr. Knauss for feeling the way he does about technology in schools. I’m sure Mr. Knauss never used technology in learning and learned traditionally. As a school board member, he most likely did well in life and tested well throughout his school career. Can we blame him?
Fact: Education has changed. The world has changed. It’s 2015. Are we preparing our students for the year 1970 or 2020?
The problem I have with this article is an opinion with with no concrete substance. It’s just one person’s opinion. You simply can’t make an argument without supporting it with evidence. So I’d like to create the argument BEFORE decisions are made that will ultimately impact teachers and students.
Argument 1: Professional Development and Continuing Education is too expensive. Mr. Knauss stated $58,000 this past year for tuition reimbursement. Can someone post the amount the school district spent on printing costs this past year? I will bet my salary that it’s at least double, if not triple that amount. How much is spent on servers and hardware that are essentially FREE these days? Did you know Google offers FREE email to teachers and students? Google Drive, a 21st century tool for collaboration is FREE.
$58,000 is peanuts compared to the rich learning teachers can receive. These technology driven courses do two things: 1- they teach teachers how to use the tools, and 2- they teach teachers how to change teaching practice to maximize learning by providing rigor and higher level thinking.
When teachers take these technology driven courses, they save the district money in professional development and in some cases the purchases of devices.
Argument 2: These courses aren’t at the level taught as someone with a West Chester University PHD. He may have a point, but too what degree? Has Mr. Knauss ever taken one of these technology driven courses? (Let’s correct MR. Knuass’s language first- Although he referred to them as ed tech, they certainly aren’t. Ed Tech is a business/computer related field).
I have been through several of these courses and I can honestly say I learned more in one course than an entire graduate program. Many of those instructors were practitioners in the field and raised the bar what I was able to walk away in understanding. Also, these courses gave me practical skills sets Iw as able too implement immediately with students. Simply put- these courses made me a better teacher.
Many of these innovative technology driven courses are by design led by 21st century teaching and learning pedagogical practices. There are many great courses out there that teach blended learning using iPads, Google apps for education which foster creativity and collaboration in the classroom. When done right, and this is an important part, classroom learning can be transformed into a rich and engaging place to learn.
Please understand, I am by no means attacking Mr. Knauss. I am simply trying to inform by providing substantial evidence.
Technology driven courses are a good thing for our teachers and ultimately benefit our students. We live in a society that empowers us to do amazing things in education. It’s not a privilege to take a technology driven course, it’s a right.
What Mr. Knauss seems unaware of is the varying level of technology competency and comfort level among the professional staff. There are teachers who are very tech savvy and have the ability to navigate through the world of computers, IPADs, Smartboards, and every app and program there is. Then there are teachers who are uncomfortable with many aspects of technology except, perhaps, email and creating documents. Comfort levels using Smartboard are increasing only because of courses and continual support. New technologies that require creating websites, video/IMovie, Google presentations are new to many teachers. The programs are continually changing. When one gets comfortable with Word, the district switches to Google docs. When one can use powerpoint, that becomes obsolete. Change can be good, but there is always a learning curve with any new technology initiative. Teachers tend to take courses in areas of need because sometimes, that’s the only way to get their needed level of training. District tech training has often been too late and/or not enough for some folks. There is nothing worse than being in the middle of a lesson and some form of technology doesn’t cooperate. Trouble shooting often requires the building tech person to assist or access someone who can solve the problem. To increase a person’s comfort level with any new skill requires exposure, training and practice. The more technology is used, the more confident teachers will become. To limit the number or kinds of technology courses appears to be making the decision about someone else’s professional need. That doesn’t seem appropriate or fair. Fair is not equal but giving each person what she or he needs, and some people need more tech coursework.
I have no problem paying tuition and bumping up a teacher’s salary for a THREE credit class at West Chester University taught by a Phd professor with challenging examinations on subject matter such as Understanding the Autism Spectrum Disorders or Differentiated Instruction. .
But tech ed courses are quite different in where they are delivered, who delivers them and the testing rigor . Plus, really. A THREE credit course on white boards? A THREE credit course on iMovies? I’d have no problem accepting a half credit or maybe one credit for this subject matter, but not 3 credits. Do we think that West Chester or Penn State or UofD would ever offer these courses let alone make them part of their degree program?
I find it interesting that you have a problem accepting courses teachers are offered that teach them skills making them feel comfortable navigating and using technology in the classroom that benefits students, yet you have no problem raising an Administrator salary $15,000 per year on a 5 year contract bringing his salary to $193,199. I know this “tires you” and I’m sorry about that, but how does that expense benefit the students?
UCF could hire 4 new teachers for $193, 199. For that salary, maybe your administrators could teach technology classes to the teachers. That way, teachers could learn the computer skills necessary to teach their classes, the district saves money on college fees, and the money saved on teacher salary bumps could go to pay for activity fees, parking fees and kleenex boxes that parents have to pay out of pocket for because “there isn’t enough money in the budget.”
My fear is that the savings would go for more salary increases for Administrators. What do they do, anyway?
Yes, Mr Knauss. A THREE credit course that will impact student learning and transform the learning environment seems like a fair trade off. Since you brought it up, technology is the most impactful on students with special needs. But you probably already knew that. I suggest you bring in the experts to help you make decisions that ultimately impact students and not derive them from your own opinions. If you want to best for your students, start allocating your funds to provide the teachers with the best opportunities. Start by saving on paper! Btw, most course taught at West Chester are by adjuncts, not professors with PHDs.