---

School Board News Bulletin
October 2002

---

25th Annual Superintendents' Conference

IASB's Johnson criticizes NCLB implementation

Plans and topics detailed for three remaining fall division meetings

Principals Appreciation Day proclaimed by governor

IASB launches LeaderShop board development program

'Highly qualified teacher' guidance approved by ISBE

DEVELOPMENTS IN SCHOOL LAW

Drug screens of extracurricular participants

Appellate Court ruling invalidates some impact fees in 13 counties

NEWS FROM IASB

President Coleman shares ideas on EFAB funding reform

Johnson named to blue-ribbon panel on Illinois standards

Robert M. Cole Awards go to ten newspapers

25th Annual Superintendents' Conference

State Superintendent delivers first major address
Schiller pledges to do things better, turn state agency around

Robert Schiller, Illinois' new state superintendent of schools, pledged to listen more, do things better, and "turn around" the state agency he came to head just seven weeks earlier.

As the opening keynote speaker at the 25th Annual Superintendents' Conference in Springfield, September 19-20, Schiller said educators in Illinois "need to demonstrate to naysayers that we're on the road" to increasing student achievement.

He also urged those in attendance to create "a groundswell of support" for new funding initiatives so that there is enough money to accomplish what is demanded by the No Child Left Be-hind Act. Saying school funding and ISBE are at a crossroads, Schiller also told superintendents that up to 150 ISBE employees would be retiring within the next year, out of a possible 639.

"Together, we're going to build a new team," Schiller said, although he admitted that turning things around "is like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier on the Sangamon River."

Schiller, who already has consulted with IASB leaders more than the last two state superintendents, also sketched out his vision for Illinois schools, based primarily upon the ISBE's standards-guided approach. Excerpts of his remarks at the Superintendents Conference can be heard on the ISBE Web site at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ .

As another keynote speaker at the Superintendent's Conference, the deputy director of Title I for the U.S. Department of Education outlined what an NCLB-designed school might look like. It would be based on flexibility, parental choice, accountability and best practices, and built with a highly qualified staff, scientifically based research, professional development, and technical assistance.

With No Child Left Behind, added Jacquelyn Jackson, Illinois educators have been given the opportunity and the challenge to do what's right for all the state's children.

"If you look at the intent and purpose (of NCLB)," she said, "all of us would want what (it) is trying to get at."

Jackson also laid out a timetable, detailing the impact and sanctions NCLB will have on local schools as well as their districts if goals in annual yearly progress are not met, including the most severe sanctions: replacing staff or turning the school over to the state. But, she said, "if a school is chronically low performing, maybe it is time for us to take a drastic action."

"The opportunity is here, the challenge is here," Jackson said. "You have to decide whether you will go the extra mile to ensure that all our children are not left behind."

The use of state-funded feasibility studies on Illinois school district reorganization was part of a Friday morning breakout session at the ISBE Superintendents Conference.

Last year, the state financed 22 studies for districts interested in reorganization, according to Becky Harms, a consultant for ISBE's School Business and Support Services. But with funding slashed by one third, only 12 such studies have begun so far in 2002.

"ISBE is reorganizing and with the impending retirements of many on our staff, this will hamper the efforts to sustain this program," added Gary Ey, Manager of ISBE's school funding and finance section.

Feasibility studies, whose financing is calculated by the number of districts and the combined enrollment of the proposed reorganization, are now limited to a maximum of $7,500. Previously, the state paid up to $10,000 per study.

Harms said the criteria for any reorganization remain the same: is the new or proposed district of sufficient size, does it represent the best interests of the area, and are the participating districts compact and contiguous.

Each study tries to answer eight areas of concern, according to Dr. Robert Hall, an education administration professor at Western Illinois University, who has chaired many feasibility studies. These eight areas are: 1) enrollment, 2) demographics, 3) curriculum, 4) finances, 5) facilities, 6) staffing, 7) transportation, and 8) extra-curricular activities.

Hall said the studies, which rely on district data and Census projections, are "an academic exercise for me," but he also recognized the emotional issues at the local levels. Depending on their current structure, districts have five potential choices for reorganization: 1) consolidation, 2) annexation, 3) cooperative high school attendance centers, 4) unit district conversion, and 5) high school deactivation.

Michael Lane, Superintendent of Virginia C.U. Dist. 64, also addressed the thorny issues of reorganization from his own experience. "In the end, the question is, does your district and board want to be pro-active or reactive?" he said. "Those involved have to be able to check their egos at the door, and remember to focus on what's best for the kids."

Consecutive breakout sessions at the 25th Annual Superintendents' Conference focused on legislation that adds mentoring as a new component to the teacher recertification process.

For the past five years, ISBE and the Teacher Certification Board have been developing models for a statewide Induction and Mentoring (I & M) program. Mike Long, Division Administrator for Professional Preparation and Recruitment, said the program is designed to: a) increase retention of new teachers and; b) accelerate development of skills.

"It's the intention of ISBE to be flexible; we have no intention of telling districts they have to redesign their existing induction and mentoring program in order to get appropriations for it," he said. To qualify for funding, however, local programs would have to be approved by the state board.

The legislature has appropriated $8.1 million for local I & M programs, but no money has been released. Long said that although funding could be made available after the fall veto session, the prospects remain dim.

House Bill 1436 establishes the criteria for local I & M programs, which would ultimately be used to qualify candidates for a Standard Teaching Certificate. Long added that the ISBE is still in the process of developing submission standards. He expects the state program to be ready by late fall or in early 2003.

IASB has opposed legislation mandating mentoring programs and stipulating how a district would set them up. H.B. 1436 does not require that teachers must receive induction or mentoring, or that a school district must provide it. It does, however, offer I & M to teachers who want to receive continuing education credit for recertification.

The Regional Offices of Education (ROE) and Intermediate Service Centers (ISC) have developed a multi-tiered training program; one for local administrators and teacher leaders, another that provides training and technical assistance to mentors; and a third for coaches and district mentors.

"We feel strongly about this program," added Vicki Hensley, Assistant Regional Superintendent, ROE 32, Iroquois-Kankakee. "(Mentoring) is as beneficial for the mentor as it is for the new teacher and the district."

This sentiment was echoed by Mary Ronna, an 8th grade teacher in Milford C.C. District 280. She has been a local mentor for four years. "The training has been good for me and my own professional growth," she said. "I would have loved 25 years ago to have known this."

Local district support for her program comes in the form of extra prep time, availability of a substitute for the new teacher, and a mentoring stipend. One of her protégés, Bridgett Schroeder, was also on hand to discuss how the local I & M program has helped her. She said the program was one reason she accepted a teaching position at the Iroquois County district. "One of the biggest selling points to this is that it is designed to lead you from an Initial to a Standard Teaching Certificate," the new P.E. teacher added.

Also participating in the session were representatives from the Consortium for Educational Change, which uses a commercial I & M program model in several Illinois districts.

Table of Contents

IASB's Johnson criticizes NCLB implementation

IASB executive director Michael Johnson appeared on WGN radio on October 2 to explain why some school leaders are disappointed with the state's accelerated approach to implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

"A big part of our concern would be how the state is choosing to implement this act," Johnson told afternoon show host John Williams. "We have suddenly jumped into year three of a five-year cycle, rather than starting out with year one." Johnson also said ISBE is implementing "a number of things that the state legislature had voted down."

Johnson warned that some Illinois schools may be shut down and teachers fired because no one is paying attention to problems with the misapplication of the state's standardized testing system. He said the test is being used for purposes other than those it was designed to address.

He noted, for example, that severely handicapped kids are being tested with their regular education peers, with their scores included in their school's overall score. That is not proper, he charged, nor is it proper for such scores to be used in identifying schools as "failing."

Williams asked Johnson what people should do to try to rectify problems with the way the NCLB Act is being implemented in Illinois. Johnson said people should "contact their legislators to try to give lawmakers a chance to review this," and put it right. Johnson also asked concerned citizens to respond in support of fixing NCLB shortcomings by sending e-mail to IASB at nclb@iasb.com.

Table of Contents

Plans and topics detailed for three remaining fall division meetings

A wide variety of hot topics are featured at this year's remaining fall dinner meetings in three IASB divisions. They include:

Kaskaskia Division
Wednesday, October 23
Hillsboro C.U. District 3
Program: Current Legal Issues, Presenter: Chris Miller, Attorney, Miller, Tracy, Braun, Funk & Guenther, Ltd.; School Consolidation, Presenters: Becky Harms, Consultant, ISBE; and Superintendent Marilyn Bayley, appearing with school board members, Okaw Valley C.U. Dist. 302; No Child Left Behind, Presenter: John Allen, Executive Director, Illinois Learning Partnership; Changing the Scene, Improving Academic Performance and Lifelong Health, Presenter: Lana Campbell, MS, RD., LD., Illinois Nutrition Education and Training Program.

Three Rivers Division
Tuesday, October 29
Syl's Restaurant, Joliet
Program: Electronic Board Meetings; Presenter: Artie Ioannides, President, Emerald Data Solutions, Marietta, Georgia. Topics include: Meeting agenda creation - Maintenance and publication of meeting minutes and voting records - Open records requirements.

South Cook Division
Wednesday, October 30
Holiday Inn Select Hotel and Convention Center, Tinley Park
Program: School Funding: Where will future education dollars come from?, Presenter: Bert J. Docter, Member, Illinois State Education Funding Advisory Board, South Holland.

Choose the division meeting or meetings you would most like to attend from this list. For more information on plans for these division meetings - including directions, starting time and schedule, fees, and other details - visit the IASB Web site at http://www.iasb.com/calendar .

Table of Contents

Principals Appreciation Day proclaimed by governor

Friday, October 25, will be observed as Principals Day in Illinois. The day is set aside to recognize the good work done by school principals, assistant principals, and deans. For more information, contact: David Turner, Executive Director, Illinois Principals Association, Springfield, at 217/525-1383.

Table of Contents

IASB launches LeaderShop board development program

IASB will use the Joint Annual Conference in November 2002 to launch a new professional development program for school board members.

School Board LeaderShop is a series of workshops and networking opportunities that will provide:

• The knowledge, skills, and resources board members need in order to grow both personally and in their ability to provide sound school district leadership, and;
• A coherent path to higher levels of competency and performance for school boards that promises satisfactory results for a modest investment of time and money.

School Board LeaderShop has been designed for both the veteran board member looking for district improvement and the new board member anxious to understand basic roles and responsibilities. Workshops will be offered in two categories:

Core programs that directly relate to principles of effective school governance. These include workshops on:

• School district governance, an overview.
• School law and finance.
• School board's role in a democracy.
• Detecting district ends with community engagement.
• Monitoring district performance with accountability to the community.
• Board/superintendent roles and relationships.
• Effective board processes.

Elective programs that focus on additional board and board member skills to promote effective school district leadership. These include such workshops as:

• Collective bargaining.
• Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory.
• Communications skills.
• Meeting management.

Programs in both categories will be offered at regular intervals in four-year cycles coinciding with the typical four-year term of office. Some programs will be offered every other year to accommodate board turnover following each biennial election, while others may be offered every year.

School board members who participate in this continuous learning and professional development program will be able to earn and maintain membership in the School Board LeaderShop Academy. This designation promotes and recognizes board members who work their way through the School Board LeaderShop curriculum.

More material about School Board LeaderShop will be available at the pre-conference workshops at next month's Conference in Chicago. You may also direct questions to Field Services staff or the IASB Director of Board Development.

Table of Contents

'Highly qualified teacher' guidance approved by ISBE

All Illinois teachers - some sooner than most - will have to meet the federal definition of a "highly qualified teacher" under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, according to the State Board of Education. ISBE recently approved a guidance document on this topic for dissemination statewide.

Teachers newly hired this school year to work in programs supported by federal Title I funds will have to meet the federal definition immediately, while all other existing public school teachers in any of the core curriculum areas will have until the end of 2005-2006 school year to comply, according to ISBE. The core areas are English/ language arts, mathematics, science, civics, government, economics, history, geography, foreign language, and fine arts.

The state board, therefore, is asking local districts to look at the federal guidelines to determine whether current teachers in Illinois meet the federal definition of highly qualified. The state board voted September 18 to offer guidance on what it deems full state certification; the board apparently is looking to establish an objective, uniform state standard of evaluation to determine "competency" in teachers' subject matter.

According to ISBE, Illinois teachers would be deemed "highly qualified" if they meet all the certification criteria for early childhood, elementary or secondary or special (or special pre-K through age 21) certificate; and hold the certificate(s), and are teaching in the corresponding subject(s) and grade level(s). Under NCLB, states must set specific qualifications that are consistent with the federal definition.

The NCLB law also contains new notice requirements for school districts to meet in order to inform parents about teacher qualifications. According to ISBE, schools receiving Title I (Part A) funds must give parents "timely notice" when their children have been assigned or taught, for four or more consecutive weeks, by a teacher who is not "highly qualified." For example, if a person with only a substitute teacher's certificate teaches a class for longer than four consecutive weeks, the notice must be sent.

In addition, districts receiving Title I funds must annually inform parents that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their children's teachers.

Sources: ISBE, news release, September 18, 2002; and Cynthia Woods, IASB Assistant Director for Advocacy.

Table of Contents

---

DEVELOPMENTS IN SCHOOL LAW
By Melinda Selbee, IASB/s general counsel

---

News reports from around the country described the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last summer approving a drug testing policy for student participants in extracurricular activities. The decision was not an endorsement of drug screening. Rather, it approved a tool - drug screening of extracurricular participants - schools may use to deter drug use among students. This decision makes it timely for school officials to review their schools' drug prevention efforts.

Some background: The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects individuals from "unreasonable searches and seizures." What is "reasonable" in the school context differs from other contexts because of the school's custodial and protective responsibility for children. In the mid-1980s, the Supreme Court provided guidance on this. Searches of public school students, it held, must be supported by reasonable suspicion that a particular student violated school rules.

Thus, conducting a random drug screening of the entire student body would be a highly questionable practice because of the lack of particularized suspicion. However, in 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the drug testing of student athletes who were not under any suspicion. The test results were not given to law enforcement and did not lead to suspension or expulsion, or to any academic penalty. A positive test result only limited the student's privilege of participating in athletics.

Cases involving drug screens since 1995 have focused on whether, in order to be reasonable, a school must demonstrate a drug epidemic exists and limit the screening process to athletes. This summer, however, the Supreme Court disagreed: the constitutionality of drug screening extracurricular participants does not depend on the existence of a pre-existing drug problem or on limiting the program to athletes. The challenged policy applied to participants in all extracurricular activities, although in practice it was it applied to only participants in competitive extracurricular activities. The Court, however, was not persuaded that these students had a greater expectation of privacy, saying that the distinction between athletic and non-athletic was not the determining criteria. The Court found school officials need not wait until they can prove a drug problem in their schools. The need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of childhood drug use provided the justification for the drug screening policy.

With this latest decision, school officials have a better understanding of the constitution's constraints on their drug detection efforts. As always, one size does not fit all - simply adopting another district's drug screening policy will not guarantee good results. Whether reviewing an existing drug deterrence program or designing a new one, school officials should consider and discuss these issues:

1. What amount of time, money, and effort will be devoted to a drug prevention and deterrence program (answering this is board work)? What amount of time, money, and effort is needed for an effective drug prevention and deterrence program (staff work)? What constitutes an effective program - a totally drug-free student body or will something less than 100% be tolerated (board work)? How can the board's desire be implemented (staff work)? How can the program be monitored to determine its effectiveness (board and staff work)?

2. Is there evidence of drug use among students and, if so, what is it? This "monitoring" function is board work, performed on the basis of staff data collection. The information helps school officials determine the amount of time, money, and effort to needed to ensure drug-free schools and students. The more intrusive a drug detection program, the greater the need for evidence of widespread drug abuse. This need arises not necessarily out of legal constraints, but from community and parent perception and expectations.

3. Will drug screening student participants in extracurricular activities further the objective of drug-free schools and students? Or will it be a morale buster? Are the procedures reliable (staff work)?

Are extracurricular participants required to conduct themselves at all times as good citizens and exemplars of their school? If the district does not have a drug-screening program for extracurricular participants, are there other means to ensure good citizen rules are enforced? Can a student be punished for constructive or presumed awareness, that is, without actual evidence that the student was aware of activity in violation of the extracurricular conduct code?

4. Which students, if any, should be subjected to drug screening - just athletes, participants in competitive extracurricular programs, or participants in any extracurricular program? The constitutional guarantees of equal protection and free speech prohibit a discriminating classification without a rational basis. Thus, for example, a drug screening program that "profiles" is very suspect. Should the drug-screening program be extended to students who have the privilege of parking their vehicles on school property? Does it make sense to have a "drug-free" club whose participants voluntarily submit to random drug screens?

5. What other detection programs further the end of drug-free schools and students? What about the use of drug-sniffing dogs, locker searches, and vehicle searches?

6. Do board policies reflect board thinking (board function)? Are there well-drafted policies in place regarding student rights, search & seizure, student discipline, disciplinary procedures, and bus conduct? Is the policy language easily understood or are the terms vague? Every student conduct policy or rule should have three clearly stated components: description of prohibited conduct, a jurisdictional statement (i.e. where and when the conduct is prohibited), and possible consequences.

Does the student handbook need updating (staff function)? Does it adequately provide notice of the school's conduct rules, extracurricular and athletic participation requirements, and other important information. All staff-drafted disciplinary rules must be consistent with the district's disciplinary policies.

7. What sanctions are appropriate for a student who violates drug rules? The available sanctions depend on the rule violated, i.e. whether it was a student discipline rule applicable to the entire student body or whether it was a rule that applied to only extracurricular participants.

Student discipline codes typically prohibit "using, possession, distributing, purchasing, or selling illegal drugs, controlled substances, ‘look-alike' drugs, and drug paraphernalia" by students on school grounds or at school activities. When should drug rehabilitation be offered instead of suspension or expulsion? How are repeat offenders treated? Are sellers treated more severely?

Rules applicable only to participants in extracurricular activities can apply around the clock, seven days a week. A ban on drug use with an accompanying drug screening is only minimally intrusive, provided violators face no academic sanction. Thus, the punishment for a student who has a positive drug screen is limited to denying the student the privilege of participating in the extracurricular program. How long should the participation be interrupted? Note that inconsistent "coach's rules" can sabotage the enforceability of a sanction.

8. Are due process procedures up-to-date and are they used correctly? This staff function is critical to the success of any disciplinary program. The U.S. Constitution and State law mandate certain suspension and expulsion procedures.

In most cases involving a student's removal from a team, courts have ruled that participation in extracurricular athletic programs is a privilege rather than a right. The deprivation of a privilege does not trigger the Constitution's due process provision. Consequently, unlike school attendance, students generally have no constitutional right to participate in extracurricular programs. Nevertheless, participants who violate the conduct code should be allowed to give an explanation before being removed from the activity.

9. School officials must be careful of using jargon such as "zero tolerance." There is no common understanding of what this terms means. Additionally, use of "zero tolerance" may damage the discipline program's credibility because school officials cannot keep the implied promise. Indeed, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and student records laws prevent school officials from even explaining the reason some students are treated differently.

10. Would a school liaison police officer contribute to the goal of drug-free schools and students? How can the contribution be maximized? According to a 1996 Illinois Court of Appeals decision, the search of a student by a school liaison police officer is tested using the same Fourth Amendment standard as that of a search conducted by a school official. However, if the police request school officials to search a student for law enforcement purposes, the search must be supported by probable cause.

11. In what ways can law enforcement and school officials work together to ensure drug-free schools and students? Are procedures followed regarding reciprocal reporting of criminal offenses committed by students?

12. How effective is the district's drug prevention program? How does one measure and monitor "effectiveness?"

IASB ARCHIVES HOME

Illinois Association of School Boards

2921 Baker Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62703