An Author Visit

Chuck Schwahn, co-author of the book Inevitable: Mass Customized Learning, Learning in the Age of Empowerment, visited the school yesterday.  Chuck met with teachers involved in two pilot programs in the district that are implementing aspects of Mass Customized Learning (MCL).  The first group was at Harrison Park Elementary School and the second group was at Sunrise Elementary School.  At both schools, Chuck was given an overview of the pilot programs and interacted with students as they went through their work.  Chuck also spent some time answering questions from teachers concerning his book and vision for education.  There were two things that Chuck said that I believe are important bits of advice for our school district.  First, he told us that a great vision asks the organization to do something that is beyond their capability to accomplish right now.  This forces the organization to “stretch” beyond the confines of what they are doing currently.  Secondly, Chuck mentioned that the school system must stop “tinkering” within the existing constraints of an industrial age model of schooling and move beyond that framework.  He (and I) believes that MCL does change the paradigm of education and will provide a better educational experience for our students.  

Forgive me if I am a little too “future focused” in this blog and that I (at times) do not discuss the current reality.    I passionately believe that Penn-Trafford has the students, parents and staff to move beyond “normal” and into something spectacular for our students.  This is the reason that I spend so much time talking about “what could be”.  It is my way of helping to create a vision that may be hard to accomplish within the current constraints of the system but will move the entire district to greatness.

An Excellent Adventure

On Monday and Tuesday Mr. Inglese and I traveled with a group of western Pennsylvania educators to Downingtown School District to visit one of their schools.  The school is a S.T.E.M. (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) magnet high school.  The purpose of our trip was much more than to look at a STEM school.  As a matter of fact the STEM aspect (although interesting) was secondary to our purposes.  What we found fascinating was the instruction that was occurring in the school.  Teachers are instructing the kids using an inquiry-based instructional model.  There are very limited amount of lectures and most of the instruction revolves around students working in teams to solve a problem posed to them by their teacher. The school does not subscribe to the “show up and throw up” method of teaching where teachers pass their knowledge to students through a lecture and then the students regurgitate the information back to the teachers in the form of a test. During the course of solving the problem, students will discover and learn the necessary parts of the school curriculum.  We found that not one classroom teacher had students arranged in neat rows.  Rather, students worked in groups either in the classroom or in the hallways.  The library had a miniscule amount of books.  Actually, the library was not even called a library; it was called a “Knowledge Commons”.  The purpose of the Knowledge Commons was to provide a space for student collaboration.  The teacher in the Knowledge Commons helped students work together and gather resources from all sources, not just from books in the library.  This model of schooling is slightly on the outside of the box and offers an alternative way of looking at how students can (and should) be educated.  

Another fascinating aspect of the school was their motto: “Effort creates intelligence”.  The motto is embedded into the beliefs of the students and staff and is reflected in school policy.  For example, when I asked a student about what the motto means to her she told me that, “It does not matter [at the school] about grades…it is the understanding of the content that is important”.  I asked another student how she felt about the fact that homework was not graded.  She told me, “Removing grades from homework increased the value of homework for me and my friends”.  Very interesting indeed.  The staff believes that pedagogy and a belief in the student’s ability to understand the curriculum was more important than content knowledge of the teachers.

As Penn-Trafford moves forward to meet the non-negotiable goals of the School Board, classroom instruction that challenges students to analyze, collaborate and explore content knowledge is essential.  PT must make sure that no student becomes an accident of geography where students receive different levels of excellent instruction based on what classroom they walk in.  We must assure that all students are faced with instruction that allows them the opportunity to become critical thinkers.  Knowledge is not something that is transferred from the all knowing content specialist (the teacher) to the “empty vessel” of the students.   One of the things that I have learned throughout my life is that the more I learn about a subject, the more I realize how much I do not know about the subject.  We cannot expect teachers to know everything about their curriculum.  What is more realistic for teacher’s is that we recognize that they may have more knowledge than the students but that their job is to facilitate understanding about the subject for the student. I believe that an inquiry-based (or project based) instructional focus allows a better opportunity for this understanding to occur.  Let’s not concern ourselves with “covering” the material; let’s worry about making sure students understand the content.  

A Pension "Primer"

I have heard a lot in the news lately about how the “teacher” pension fund will bankrupt school districts across the nation. The simple fact is that there is a crisis in Pennsylvania with the pension fund, but I think it is important to understand how the pension fund got into such a dire situation. I think it is important to know some simple facts about what employees are included in the pension fund (at least as I understand it). The pension fund (the Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System), includes teachers, all support staff, state employees (and interestingly enough) Pennsylvania law makers. There are over 600,000 members (both active and inactive) currently in the pension system. For educators, the benefits include a “multiplier” of 2.5%. What this means is that once a retiree reaches full retirement age (62 years old or 35 years of service) they will receive a pension payment based on the following formula: number of years in service X 2.5, this number is then changed to a percentage. The next calculation is the average salary of the last three years of work for a retiree. Once that number is calculated, the percentage from the first calculation is applied and that is what the retiree will receive. So, for example, if a retiree is at full retirement, you multiply 35 (years of service) X 2.5 which equals 87.5. If the average salary over the last three years of service was $60,000, then calculation is 87.5% of $60,000, which is $52,500. This is what the retiree would receive in benefits. I will not get into more of the rules and penalties that are involved if someone does not reach full retirement, but suffice to say that there are penalties if one does not reach full retirement age. I believe the multiplier for state lawmakers is 3.0. So now that you understand a little bit more about what the benefits are, how did the state get into the current crisis?

The pension is funded in two ways: employee contributions and employer contributions. The employee contributes a percentage of their income to the fund and the employer contributes a percentage of the employee’s income to the fund also. The State then reimburses the local school district for half of their contributed amount. For employees within the school system, the rate of their contribution is 7.5% if you were employed after 1983 and 6.25% if you were employed before 1983. Employees have actually contributed more to the fund since 1999. The percentage that the employers contribute has fluctuated greatly over the past ten years. This fluctuation is where (I believe) the crisis has its start. State lawmakers determine what the percentage will be that the employers will contribute. This chart provides historical data showing that in 1997-1998 a drastic decrease in employer contributions started to occur. Again, this was a policy change made at the State level. It is also obvious to anyone who has tried to balance a checkbook, that if you put less money into your account eventually you will run out of money or you will have to start putting more money into the account. For awhile, PSERS investments were doing so well that those earnings masked the fact that the contribution rate was decreased. However, with the economic downturn, those investments are not doing as well. This is the risk one takes when you rely on the “magic” of the market for your income. To make up for the years when policy makers felt that the employers did not have to contribute much money to the system, school districts are now going to have to make up for that lack of contributions. The percentage rates that the school districts will have to contribute (remember half of that is reimbursed by the State) will increase dramatically over the next few years. This increase will have a distressing effect on school budgets across the State. The silver lining in all of this is that within 4 years school districts will have made adjustments in their budgets to reflect the pension increase and will be able to move forward without worrying about the “pension cliff”.

School District Budget

As the school district works through the budgeting process for the 2012-2013 school year, I thought I would share four ideas that will frame any budget decision.


1. The school district is basing much of our budgeting information on the five year budget model that has been implemented this year. The model allows the district to input various amounts of information to predict where the budget will be in five years. The model allows the school district to base decisions on actual forecasted projections.  The model shows that there are challenges in the upcoming years as increased costs meet decreased revenues.

2. The political environment in Harrisburg is a factor. The current climate in Harrisburg is not public school friendly.  This is not a complaint, just a fact.  I try not to worry too much about politicians in Harrisburg but we must keep a wary eye on them as they make decisions regarding policies toward public education.

3. The two year non-negotiable goals for student achievement and instruction will focus the school board on priorities in the school budget.  I have talked quite a bit about these goals.  They will serve as a foundation for the decisions that the Board will make regarding education in the school district.

4. The pension issue is still something that needs to be grappled with.  I will have a post tomorrow that gives a short overview of the pension crisis.  Just as a preview, the school district’s cost for the pension has increased from $500,000 last year to $1.3 million in the upcoming budget.


There are some tough decisions that will need to be made concerning the budget. I am confident that the school district will continue to focus on what is best for the children and produce a reasonable budget that will continue Penn-Trafford’s history of excellence.