School Board Election Q & A with the Candidates

By Megan O’Neil

Oct. 26, 2011 12 AM PT

A diverse field of four candidates — including a 20-year-old Princeton University student and a La Cañada Unified matriarch — has made the 2011 school board election the most exciting in recent memory.

The campaign has been fueled by hot-button items including the integration of four non-student professional development days into the 2011-12 school year, the use of teacher evaluations and the analysis of standardized testing data. A candidates’ forum on Oct. 17 drew 250 community members, more than twice the crowd at a similar event two years earlier.

With election day less than two weeks away — voters head to the polls Nov. 8 — incumbent Jeanne Broberg and challengers Ernest Koeppen, Ellen Multari and Andrew “AJ” Blumenfeld have shared with the La Cañada Valley Sun their positions on several major issues.

----------

Andrew Blumenfeld

Valley Sun: What is your stance on the four additional non-student professional development days that were worked into the academic calendar this year?

Blumenfeld: My entire campaign can be summed up quite simply — student achievement has got to be our first and most important goal. This makes our students and parents our most important stakeholders.

In this context, the four-day issue is particularly egregious. All the research and common sense in the world tells us we could hardly do more to adversely affect student achievement than to take students out of the classroom, and to reduce instructional days. So losing these days was a classic example of special interests winning the day.

Concessions were made to adult interests (teachers’ union), at the direct expense of students and families. It could not be more textbook “status quo,” and simply could not represent an easier call for me: bring back those days, and continue to extend instructional days/time.

We would hope that the community’s frustration might alert the school board to the need for a more open and accessible process, if nothing else. And yet most elementary parents in the community still do not know that two additional half-days were removed from the schedule. Our students and families lost five instructional days and this has yet to be communicated adequately to the community. We need to get back all of these days, and work to increase instructional time, not reduce it.

Further, the district should always be looking to justify its actions in terms of student achievement. If we need more staff time beyond the numerous days available in prior years, what metrics and goals will be established to determine if long-term student value outweighs the loss in instructional days?

Q: Should the district introduce student and/or parent surveys as a means of evaluating teacher performance? Why or why not?

Blumenfeld: The district needs to introduce research-based customer satisfaction surveys for parents and students to be completed for each teacher and course. The results will help teachers become more effective, and will inform the evaluation process. Taken together with value-added scores and the evaluation process, customer satisfaction surveys will provide a valuable resource for improving the effectiveness of our teachers, for every child, in every course.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has found that when asked the right questions students as young as fourth grade can accurately identify the effectiveness of their teachers as well as any other accepted metric for teacher quality. We need to take the research that has already been done, and make it work for us in La Cañada.

After voting against this for years, the school board recently voted to form a committee on this subject. While I’m happy to see my campaign’s efforts have effectively made the board take preliminary action on this, I am skeptical about the outcome of this committee. The board has a history of creating “committees” on campaign topics that ultimately run out of steam when the pressure of the upcoming election has dissipated. We can’t let this happen this time.

Districts around California and the country are using this important tool to improve their service, and La Cañada needs to catch up in this regard.

Q: Do you feel that the district should pursue an additional parcel tax as a means to stem its deficit spending? Why or why not?

Blumenfeld: Before asking for another parcel tax, the district needs to demonstrate a real commitment to improved management. After the last parcel tax, we continued to evaluate most teachers only once every four years, the community was rewarded with five fewer instructional days, and we still haven’t implemented customer satisfaction surveys or enrolled any teachers in improvement programs. The district isn’t ready to ask for another parcel tax.

While Sacramento continues to cut per-pupil dollars, La Cañada also faces declining enrollment which poses a significant threat to our financial stability. We have to take a look at the cause of this problem, rather than jump to the conclusion that the solution is in raising taxes.

Every year our public schools lose students to private schools. A quick glance in the student directories of surrounding private schools will reveal that 100-200 students have opted out of our public system. This costs our district up to around $1 million in revenue (about $5,200 per student). The current parcel tax brings in less than that, at about $890,000.

Some of these families have specific needs for their students that La Cañada won’t meet (i.e. religious affiliation), but many are worried younger siblings will have the same poor performing teacher as an older sibling, or otherwise feel that La Cañada schools have let them down.

We need to start making progress on these crucial issues before we ask the community to pay even more.

Q: What are your thoughts on increasing the number of out of district students — which currently stands at about 13% — as a means to curb decreasing enrollment figures?

Blumenfeld: As mentioned above, we are losing in-district families to private schools. However, stemming that loss will not solve the whole problem. We need to evaluate the available data when considering the appropriate level of out-of-district (aka “permit”) students.

Importantly, the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation announced that families of permit students contributed as much or more than the average in-district family. Even more importantly, the district demonstrated that- almost across the board- permit students performed as well or better than the general student population on standardized tests, especially in the elementary grades.

Against that backdrop, we need to consider how permit students help all students in the district. The additional revenue allows us to afford more teachers, meaning smaller class sizes for everyone. The additional students allow us to field a full day of courses, rather than only a few sections a day for some teachers. This is particularly important at the high school, where fewer sections mean we risk losing talented teachers to larger districts that can offer full time placement. More than electives are at stake. The number of AP courses will be reduced under the projected declining enrollment, and student opportunities will shrink.

We must do everything we can to retain in-district families. We also need to maintain our rigorous and dynamic program — we have one of the best in the region. Future students and property values are depending on us.

Q: There are some La Cañada families who feel put upon by the numerous requests for money, including the $2,500-per-family donation encouraged by the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation last year. Do you feel such requests are reasonable and appropriate? Would you have an alternative suggestion?

Blumenfeld: Many La Cañada families are willing to give generously to their children’s education. But they are rightly concerned about the efficacy of their donations. In an effort to fill the gaps, many parents have forked over thousands of dollars for tutors and multiple Hillside courses, and even put some of their children in private schools full time. Families aren’t upset at the idea that they would have to contribute to their child’s education. They just feel they already have.

This is a prime example of how we can address the volume of our financial issues, by talking more about value. Families don’t want to hear that their money is needed to get them more of the same, because they’re paying huge sums to address the same problem teachers who let down their older children years before. That our school district remains ranked No. 2 on standardized exams is little consolation.

As the district prioritizes quality instruction, collects customer satisfaction surveys, and conducts its business in a more open and accessible manner, I am confident parents will see their tutoring and Hillside expenses decrease, leaving many receptive to requests for contributions to LCUSD.

Q: If you are not elected to the school board, how will you remain involved with local schools?

Blumenfeld: I will continue to follow the school board closely, and incorporate La Cañada into my research. In doing so, I will actively contribute to the community dialogue around major innovations, and the ways in which we can make the appropriate reforms applicable to our local schools.

This campaign has already demonstrated a substantial benefit from these ongoing conversations. For example, after years of lagging math scores, we now see concern expressed by the board, but only after this campaign made math a central issue.

----------

Jeanne Broberg

Valley Sun: What is your stance on the four additional non-student professional development days that were worked into the academic calendar year?

Broberg: Our school district must never stop efforts to improve instruction. At the request of the school board and the administration, and through contract negotiations, teachers this year, 2011-12, are dedicating four days to that end.

Unlike other districts who have confusing varied schedules, I asked, as a practical matter, for families to have four full student-free days.

On the first collaboration day, Sept. 13, teaching teams completed work products revising instructional calendars to better meet student needs, developing lesson plans to target the student learning gaps revealed by the student achievement data, and creating or adjusting assessments based upon the growth areas needed.

Examples of the agendas for Oct. 19 included eighth grade English language arts teachers revising the literature units and seventh grade pre-algebra adjusting the pacing guide, particularly the second quarter benchmarks. There were also opportunities for vertical teaming across grade levels. Such rigorous efforts are vital if we want to sustain and improve our high performance.

Knowledge gleaned through the use of Illuminate software has helped the administration and teaching staffs more precisely analyze test scores and more effectively collaborate and devise ways to respond to student academic needs.

At the Sept. 6 board meeting, I requested that the superintendent form a committee of parents, teachers, administrators and the board to brainstorm regarding necessary collaboration for 2012-2013 and a suggested schedule. The recommendations of that committee will be reported to the board. The board will deliberate and direct the administration in negotiating with the teachers.

Q: Should the district introduce student and/or parent surveys as a means of evaluating teacher performance? Why or why not?

Broberg: Surveys of parents and students as part of the formal evaluation process run the risk of unreliability. Instead, teachers are encouraged to obtain feedback from parents and students for their own use, not for evaluation.

Constructive evaluations are based on administrators observing in the classroom. By contract, a formal evaluation of each certificated employee, previously required every four years in some cases, is now required every two years. First, the teacher, with the administrator, sets personal goals according to established district standards. After two extensive visits to the classroom, the teacher and administrator together evaluate progress toward the goals and a follow-up memo signed by both parties is placed in the teacher’s file.

Last year 65 certificated employees had their formal evaluations. Informally, administrators are in classrooms regularly. Evaluation has high priority in the responsibilities of a principal and figures heavily when the principals themselves are evaluated.

That said, at the Sept. 6 school board meeting, the board expressed interest in conducting community/parent surveys district wide to gather information regarding each school’s climate, physical plant and delivery of service. A committee is being formed to address the particulars. The survey is to be administered to parents and students in time to have results reported publicly before the end of this 2011-12 school year.

Let me add that I take parent input very seriously. That input is not anonymous. I have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. That kind of dialogue is what keeps our schools strong.

Q: Do you feel that the district should pursue an additional parcel tax as a means to stem its deficit spending? Why or why not?

Broberg: We all currently find in our “bills to pay” our property tax bill. Among the direct assessments is $150 for La Cañada USD. As you see on that same bill, some 90% of our property taxes go through the county to the state to be dished back to school districts at the whim of Sacramento. Gone are the days, before Prop 13 and Serrano v. Priest, when school districts set their budgets and property taxes approved by local voters were their direct revenues.

Unlike the 90%, the $150 parcel tax comes directly to our district. It provides about $900,000 each year. It expires after 2013-2014.

I seek reelection to address a careful balance of budgeting what is appropriate as a parcel tax, as well as the appropriate number of out-of-district permits augmented by the huge efforts of our La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation and dedicated support groups to keep the curriculum and breadth of program our students deserve. All the while we maximize our resources through frugal spending and profits from our leasable facilities.

We the board have chosen to survey the community regarding our parcel tax. If you are called, please take time to listen and carefully answer the questions. Think what is appropriate and comfortable for you so we can have honest input from the community.

Q: What are your thoughts on increasing the number of out of districts students — which currently stands at about 13% — as a means to curb decreasing enrollment figures?

Broberg: Properly managed, out-of-district students represent one more revenue source taking pressure off other sources. Our goal is to have district enrollment sufficient to offer a broad curriculum capable of igniting a passion for learning in all students.

Community members have expressed fears that out-of-district students might lower our district or school API scores. Hearing that concern we used the Illuminate software program to analyze this year’s API scores. Twenty-three out of district fourth graders entered Palm Crest last year. Results of their API English language arts tests showed that 19 of those scored advanced, the highest possible. In math, 18 scored advanced. The numbers show that students in the elementary grades are not lowering our scores, but are helping to keep them up!

Prompted by the uneven number of out-of-district students assigned the three elementary schools as indicated by the Palm Crest example above, the board asked for a study of whether our elementary boundaries should be altered in any way. Mrs. Cindy Wilcox is to be thanked for doing this. She reported that after plotting the addresses of the in-district students she found no reason to alter boundaries at this time.

I intend holding near 15%. Whatever our overall percentage goal is, I want to make sure our out-of-district students are placed as evenly as possible throughout the district.

Broberg: In the auditorium at Back to School Nights, I almost want to hide my head as I hear each plea for funds. Then when we get to individual elementary classrooms, there sits yet another one-check order form!

As a tribute to what all our support organizations mean to the schools, I wrote a newspaper guest column this June entitled “Volunteer Support Helps LCUSD Thrive.” I know all of those dollars come from our family budgets, which can be a great strain. We can’t bleed a stone. We all need to feed our families, pay the gas bill, and save for college.

I appreciate those who can and do contribute $2,500. But I equally appreciate the family who donates $250 or volunteers in the classroom. I appreciate families doing whatever they can to support their schools. There can be no better model for our children than to see their parents valuing and working to improve their schools.

We budget frugally. We lease available facilities. We have a sparse district office team. For example, right now, rather than an assistant superintendent over business services, we have an excellent consultant. In fact as you visit school board meetings, you might think Dr. Stephen Hodgson impolite when he gathers his books and coat and is out the door immediately after his agenda item. However, we pay him by the hour. Given that, we appreciate him going off the clock immediately.

Q: If you are not elected to the school board, how will you remain involved with local schools?

Right now, I am spending all my time and energy on LCUSD. My first focus is the ongoing responsibilities of school boarding which already fill the days. My second focus is entirely on reelection. I am appreciating input as I visit daily with dedicated La Cañadans. I have learned much. I look forward to being on the team that stands by Wendy Sinnette as she conducts the business we in La Cañada are all about — our families, our schools and our community.

----------

Ernest Koeppen

Valley Sun: What is your stance on the four additional non-student professional development days that were worked into the academic calendar this year?

Koeppen: I believe that the open communication process that I am advocating would have prevented this issue from becoming the contentious issue that it has. We need to keep dialogue open between all district stakeholders. Specifically to the four days as they are currently established, I want to see them returned to our student’s bank of instructional time. I also believe the teachers should have this time available to them. Therefore I would advocate for extending the school year by these four days and pay the teachers. We absolutely should not be reducing instructional time. Decisions with such broad impact on student instructional time and parent/family scheduling should at a minimum be communicated to the parents (before a decision is made). Crisis management is not a productive use of time; and in this instance it also has advanced a divisive component to our stakeholder relations.

Q: Should the district introduce student and/or parent surveys as a means of evaluating teacher performance? Why or why not?

Koeppen: I believe this a valid point that should be included in future and continued planning and development of our district’s goals and standards. Our current financial situation, and our declining match/science scores are, in my opinion, more urgent at this point. Proper prioritization of tasks and issues is critical. Our universe of teachers is excellent and it should be expected that we maintain a quality metric to constantly assure our standards are consistent. Priority must first be directed to our financial state.

Q: Do you feel that the district should pursue an additional parcel tax as a means to stem its deficit spending? Why or why not?

Koeppen: The financial state of our district is the top priority and most sensitive issue affecting us all. Our primary source of income — funding based on average daily attendance — is constantly being reduced (sometimes more than once in a year.) While the state may someday repay us, we simply cannot count on it. Given the fact that we are at the point we are at, we have fewer and fewer options to protect our primary asset. As a personal opinion, I would be opposed to any new taxes. From a practical and fiduciary responsibility to the district I would have to support it. However, such support must come with caveats of responsibility. That is, given that our hand is effectively being forced at this point, any new tax solution must be sufficient (so as not to constantly return to the proverbial well to ask for more) and also understand that this is a stop-gap action; with the relief time acquired by this action the board must use this time wisely to seek alternative and/or additional avenues of relief. This includes keeping an open dialogue and seeking constructive input from our sophisticated community.

Q: What are your thoughts on increasing the number of out of district students — which currently stands at about 13% — as a means to curb decreasing enrollment figures?

Koeppen: I support this action fully. Indeed in the last school board election, this was a point I initiated and it was subsequently adopted by the current board. We have a choice when it comes to student capacity. If we have school facilities with excess capacity due to the economy, then we can either fill the capacity (with out of district students) or we could consolidate and close down one of the elementary buildings. One way increases our enrollment — and therefore our ADA ; the other approach reduces expenses to (hopefully) match our revenue. This is another perfect example of gauging the temperature of the community. There will be debate on both sides. I am open to this dialogue — indeed I encourage it. I merely state that my personal starting position is toward increasing enrollment. There are two sides to each issue. Out of district students would not be legally subject to paying the parcel tax or paying into our bond. Is this fair? Can we ask for voluntary contribution? How many would do it, how many not? What bottom-line works best for all concerned?

Q: There are some La Cañada families who feel put upon by the numerous request for money, including the $2,500-per-family donation encouraged by the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation last year. Do you feel such requests are reasonable and appropriate? Would you have an alternative suggestion?

Koeppen: The ever present demand for revenue to keep our schools in the top class is clearly our most pressing issue. I fully understand the seemingly endless requests for funds. The continuous requests are an exhaustive mental pressure. It is akin to death by a thousand slashes. Longer term forward thinking might suggest we inform all concerned of the trend in reduced revenue. Let’s determine what we really need for more than the next few months; let everyone weigh in and understand the total reality of need and where funds go to. Then if we need to ask for funds from the community (which is not an “if”) let’s seek an amount that makes sense and can sustain a longer term plan. Additionally, determining root causes of certain recurring issues is a board responsibility. It would not be acceptable to ask for funds that merely patch an issue today that will re-occur tomorrow, without first determining whether or not we can address the root occurrence. Could we explore the option of structured “borrowing” of funds from the community rather than simply seeking donations? Since, in some theoretical future, the state will become solvent and reimburse backlogged revenue to school districts, might it be possible to reimburse those that have kept the ship afloat in the interim? (I do not know that answer to this, however I would like to explore it.) If plausible, I would posture that whatever funds we collected might then be spent more judiciously knowing it was a loan to be repaid.

Q: If you are not elected to the school board, how will you remain involved with local schools?

After the last election I immersed myself in pressing for getting students exposure to the industrial arts via the Engineering Club. That club (now in only its fifth year) has successfully climbed to eighth place out of over 4,000 international teams. We have gone from seven student participants to over 85, the colleges these students get into is no less than remarkable, and it is consistent. This club, its enthusiasm, its ability to succeed on its own financially, and the dedication of its teacher — Steve Zimmerman are a collective example of what can be done when we communicate and participate and focus. The model for this club, and its instructor should be the model for every other club to clone. Can we extrapolate this model’s success upward throughout the district?

Yes I will remain involved. If you don’t see me on the board you and your students can find me in the hottest club in town, or in the biggest smallest shop in town — my garage. Come by and let’s make something!

----------

Ellen Multari

Valley Sun: What is your stance on the four additional non-student professional development days that were worked into the academic calendar this year?

Multari: I have followed this issue very closely from the start, both as a candidate for the board and as a parent with students still attending La Cañada schools. While initially opposed, after carefully reviewing the facts, I believe this move will improve teaching effectiveness and student and teacher assessment.

Our board should have solicited community input before reaching a final decision on how this program was to be implemented. The lack of communication allowed for much misinformation and confusion. Understandably, our community felt disenfranchised and resentful.

The new software program, Illuminate, allows us to compare student performance against state standards. Many of us have been asking for this type of data analysis to help assess student performance and more importantly, teacher effectiveness. The first of the collaboration days has already helped identify learning gaps and the need to re-teach certain curriculum strands. A presentation of the program and how our teachers will use the data is available on the district website.

Ultimately, however, data is worthless if it does not positively impact student performance. In evaluating the viability of the program, the board must prove that the loss in instructional time is offset by the positive benefits afforded to our children. Additionally, they will need to show that this program requires four full days, rather than weekly or bi-weekly minimum days throughout the school year. If the case cannot be made in a clear and compelling manner to the parents of this community, then the instructional calendar should be immediately restored to the 2010-11 standards.

Q: Should the district introduce student and/or parent surveys as a means of evaluating teacher performance? Why or why not?

Multari: Absolutely. A comprehensive teacher evaluation should include classroom observation, data analysis of student performance and feedback from students and parents. The “customer satisfaction survey” can be an important tool to help identify teaching practices that improve or harm student performance. Presently, we have some teachers who are not well regarded by their students, and yet those students consistently test well. Similarly, we have some teachers who are well-liked by their students but fail to achieve acceptable student performance standards. These kinds of variances can be identified by a survey that can provide performance improvement strategies. We deserve teachers who conduct themselves as consummate professionals — and get results

Q: Do you feel that the district should pursue an additional parcel tax as a means to stem its deficit spending? Why or why not?

Multari: California’s economic outlook is bleak, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. We can expect anywhere from $260 - $330 per student in additional funding cuts in the upcoming year. This is on top of the more than $800 per student we have already lost since 2007. Last year, through the efforts of the La Cañada Flintridge Education Foundation and the District Task Force, we received a gift of $2 million that allowed for the restoration of class size reduction standards in K-3 as well as 9th grade math and English. Thirty new teachers were hired, bringing class sizes down throughout the other grades as well. But now the effort starts anew for the 2012-13 school year, putting hallmark programs at risk for next year and beyond. We must identify a sustainable source of supplemental funding that allows us to maintain our enriched program without increasing our dependence on permit students. So, yes, I support the exploration of an additional parcel tax, a real estate transfer tax or the collection of developer improvement fees. Our entire community benefits from the high caliber of our schools. We must be willing to share the cost of this great asset. It truly is an investment that repays us all many times over.

Q: What are your thoughts on increasing the number of out of district students — which currently stands at about 13% — as a means to curb decreasing enrollment figures?

Multari: I believe we are at our maximum level right now. At present, the 15% number is concentrated at certain campuses and in certain grade levels, going as high as 40% in a fourth grade PCY class. This disparity leads to very different experiences for many of our families, who feel like they have lost the essence of a community school that brought them to La Cañada in the first place. That said, we have to face some tough realities. At present, we offer a high caliber education to motivated permit families who bring in an additional $3 million in state funding. We must offset this funding through other sources — public or private. There is no alternative funding source. So, in setting limits on future permit student enrollment, we must factor in the availability of sustainable supplemental funding or restructure our district and our school programs to accommodate a reduced student population.

Multari: As a third year director of the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation, I am an advocate of private donation to offset state funding shortfalls. Virtually every high achieving public school in the state of California has a private foundation and/or a parcel tax to supplement the cost of an enriched school program. Most private schools also maintain active fundraising to support both their operating budgets as well as capital campaigns. I strongly believe that our families should make the financial support of our schools a priority to the level that they can. No contribution is too small and we have encouraged our families to give in the way that makes sense for them. Personally, my family makes a monthly donation as that is more manageable for us. Next year, our schools face a state funding loss of up to $1,000 per pupil vs. 2007. A community- based solution is the only kind that will fully meet the needs of our students.

Q: If you are not elected to the school board, how will you remain involved with local schools?

Multari: At present, I remain involved with several school organizations, including the foundation, LCHS Site Council and the Bond Oversight Committee. I will continue to serve in these positions if I am not elected to the school board. Additionally, I am my older son’s very affordable private college counselor. I will continue in this role regardless! I’m also highly focused on my younger son’s progress as he prepares for his transition to the high school next year. No matter what happens with this election, I intend to continue serving our school community as I have been for years — as a volunteer, a fundraiser and above all, as a parent.

School Board Election Q &amp; A with the Candidates

School Board Election Q & A with the Candidates