Students are not the only group in the WW-P district evaluated each year. The district’s teachers and administrators are also assessed, school officials said during budget discussions this month.
In its second presentation on the upcoming budget on February 8, school officials said they still did not yet know the tax implications but described their efforts to provide better efficiency while maintaining the district’s “excellence in education.”
That process involves evaluating student performance, per pupil costs, and teacher and administrative performance. Superintendent Victoria Kniewel said that the district has created a process for consistency in that evaluation process — which leads to better efficiency.
“We’re not just hiring a teacher for a building anymore,” she said. “We’re not just hiring an administrator for one building. We’re hiring for the district.”
The process for evaluation was described in depth by Russell Lazovick, the district’s assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction. There are various ways to measure the performance of teachers and administrators, broken down into “evaluation frameworks.”
It’s always about two things, said Lazovick: professional growth, which helps improve how teachers and administrators work as a team; and accountability. One of the examples he provided broke down the various levels at which teachers were evaluated.
In simple terms, teachers are evaluated based on their interactions with students and based on students’ interactions with other students. Within that, there are four categories that measure a teachers performance.
At the “basic” level, a teacher’s interaction with some students is negative, demeaning, sarcastic, or inappropriate to the age or culture of the students. Students exhibit disrespect for the teacher. Students’ interactions with each other at this level are characterized by conflict, sarcasm, or put-downs.
At the next level — “emerging” — teacher-student interactions are generally appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, or disregard for the students’ cultures.
The next two levels of teachers are what WW-P expects of its own teachers. At the “proficient” level, the teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general caring and respect. Such interactions are appropriate to students’ cultures and ages, and students respect the teacher. Students’ interactions with each other are generally polite and respectful.
The highest level is “distinguished.” At this level, the teacher’s interactions with students reflect a genuine respect and caring for individuals as well as groups of students. Students trust the teacher with sensitive information and demonstrate genuine caring for each other and monitor each other’s treatment of their peers.
“If we see excellence, we can point it out and explain why it’s excellent,” Lazovick said, explaining why the evaluation process is important. “Without saying what we want to do, it’s hard to measure how we do.”
Administrators are evaluated based on Interstate School Leaders Consortium Standards, which cover six “domains,” including vision of learning, instructional leadership, operations and management, communication and community relations, professionalism and professional development, and social and political context.
This whole process allows the board to set goals and aids in professional development.
All of this is weighed when developing the budget.
In other areas of efficiency, district officials said they are looking to enact proactive measures for the future, including implementing long-term savings solutions, increasing shared services, and going out for a referendum on the second phase of its solar initiative.
With regard to per pupil spending, the district has the lowest among similar and neighboring districts and is below the state average when it comes to spending, points out Larry Shanok, the district’s assistant superintendent for finance.
Shanok showed that the district spent $12,048 per pupil in 2008-’09, below Princeton’s per pupil cost of $16,407 and below the state average of $13,338.
“How often do you get best in class for below average numbers?” Shanok said.
In addition, the district has seen an increase in enrollment but a decline in administrators, teachers, and other staff. “With the reductions in the teaching staff, it becomes more important for us to maintain consistency in education,” he said.
Shanok said that the general fund tax levy is still unknown, but district officials just received the budget guidelines from the state last week. At first glance, it does contain some exemptions to help districts fall within the cap, he said.
However, a big concern for school officials is the increase in state-mandated pension costs, which have gone up 23 percent. “We hoped and expected that the toolkit would do something to help with this, but we will be given no help with the 23 percent pension increase,” Shanok said.
Other impacts are $2.8 million worth of contractual changes called for in this upcoming school year for staff, as well as the $800,000 the district has to allocate for the Princeton International Academy Charter School (PIACS).
“We need things to blunt these increases,” Shanok said. “We’re working very hard to get a handle on that.”
The district will have to get the budget to the county superintendent by a tentative date of Friday, March 4, with approval from the school board by Tuesday, March 29, to get it on the ballot, said Shanok. “The county superintendent will expect it to be very close to final,” when it is sent by March 4, he added.
This could mean “painful changes to programs and personnel,” Shanok said. But “we’re working hard to minimize these kinds of things,” he said.
Referendum Information. The district will also go out to referendum for the second phase of its solar project, placing solar panels at seven of its schools. The panels would be paid for through the issuance of no-interest tax credit bonds from the federal government’s Clean Renewable Energy Bonds program.
The project would require a bond referendum on the ballot in April’s school board elections. Officials are estimating that they will need to ask voters to approve $6.4 million in bonds for the project.
In the summer of 2009, the federal government approved the allocation of $7.6 million in federal tax credit bonds to cover the solar panel projects at seven of its schools. The allocation, however, comes with an expiration date of two years, and to be able to take advantage of the no-interest bonds, the district will need to take action before the summer.
Because solar energy prices have dropped since the time of the award, WW-P estimates it will only need the federal government to issue $6.4 million of the $7.6 million in bonds available to WW-P.
To get the referendum on the ballot, however, school officials will need to seek approval from the state. Although the district has applied to the state to put the referendum on the ballot, it has not yet heard back, and the deadline is approaching. The district has since sent a letter.
District officials say that the amount of money brought in by the solar panels will outweigh the money spent. Over the first 12 months of operation after installation, Shanok said the district would see positive cash flow in energy savings, sale of solar renewable energy certificates, and in debt service aid. The project would bring in about $400,000 in revenue during that year.
As reported previously, the district will save in energy costs as well as receive extra credit beyond what it saves on electricity by sending extra electricity back to the power company for distribution, officials said. By doing that, the district will receive solar renewable energy certificates, which can be sold for income, they said. That money can be used to offset costs in other areas of the general budget.
Officials also previously said that while there will be debt generated from issuing bonds for the project, the district will keep to its promise of keeping the annual debt service levy at or below $11.1 million — the promise it made to voters before going out for the $27.5 million building referendum in 2006 for improvements to the district’s schools.
Still, board member Todd Hochman said he was concerned with the financial viability of moving forward with the solar project. He said he worried that since Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) were determined by market values, the price of SRECS could decline as more become available (and there is less of a demand) — meaning that the school district could bring in less money than estimated.
“We’re relying on these SRECs to pay back the costs,” he said. “I’m concerned whether it makes financial sense to invest in solar.”
Shanok said the district incorporated the likely decline in the value of SRECs in its estimates and still found “a lot of financial benefits.”
And, “since the will decline with time, we’d rather get them earlier rather than later,” Shanok added.
Board member Randall Tucker said his company, Johnson & Johnson, is involved in one of the top five solar installation projects in New Jersey, and that he has seen the analytical models used.
He said that because utility companies are not in the business of owning land where solar projects could be developed, there is still need for those solar panels to be placed elsewhere. He said those utility companies are still interested in purchasing the SRECs to meet legal requirements. “There really is a limited area of expansion,” he said.
