|
ONE-ON-ONE - May
2003
by Ed G. Lane
'...What We Do Today Is Not Good
Enough for Tomorrow'
Kentucky's Commissioner of Education discusses the future of education
in the Commonwealth
 |
Gene Wilhoit
Gene Wilhoit was named Kentucky’s third Commissioner of
Education in September 2000. As chief executive of the Kentucky
Department of Education, Wilhoit supervises approximately 800
employees in Frankfort and across the state and oversees an
annual budget of $3.1 billion. The department provides assistance
and resources to nearly 1,300 schools across the state’s
176 districts.
A native of Tennessee,
Wilhoit began his education career as a teacher in Ohio before
becoming the program director for the Indiana Department of
Public Instruction. He was later named as executive director
of the National Association of State Boards of Education and
Special Assistant in the U.S. Department of Education. He was
chief state school officer for the Arkansas Department of Education
before coming to Kentucky in 1997 as deputy commissioner for
the Bureau of Learning Support Services.
|
Ed Lane: The 2003 General Assembly recently passed the budget for the
Commonwealth (fiscal years ending 6/30/03 and 6/30/04). Were you satisfied
with the appropriation for the Department of Education?
Gene Wilhoit: To be blunt,
no. Given the decision by the General Assembly that there would be
no new tax revenues in the short term, education was taken care of
better than most programs in state government. I want to acknowledge
that.
The education appropriation
does provide relief money in fiscal years ’03 and ‘04. That
money is targeted for increases in teachers’ salaries. There
also was a requirement to provide additional resources for the support
staff. Getting money to increase salaries was most helpful.
EL: So teachers and support
people will receive a 2.7 percent raise?
GW: That’s correct. The
pay raise is based on a $40,000 per year average salary and is $1,080.
That means a teacher with less experience would get more than 2.7
percent; a teacher with more than a $40,000 range will get less. This
formula was a deliberate decision on the part of the legislature because
they felt Kentucky was losing ground on beginning teacher’s salaries
and not as competitive as it ought to be with surrounding states.
The legislators were right about that.
Rather than being in a position
of either having to reduce jobs, increase student ratios, or move
forward with no teacher salary increases, the legislature was able
to avoid those options by putting more money into the system.
EL: In what areas do you feel
the budget will compromise the Department of Education?
GW: When the legislature made
the decision that there would be no more tax revenues, then the source
of new money had to come from somewhere. The way that money was generated
was to take it from what were judged “less critical” services.
And I think a couple of the programs that were eliminated or reduced
will have a negative long-term impact. Specifically, the legislature
did not provide funds for the rewards program that we’ve had
in place for the last few years. How much impact will that have on
the morale of schools that are working hard? The legislature also
removed resources for management assistance and regional service centers.
Eliminating programs we have had over the years will be negative,
but it’s yet to be seen how dramatic the effect will be.
EL: What is the outlook for
the next fiscal year?
GW: The first projections
from the governor’s office were that Kentucky’s economy
still lags behind expectations. I’ve advised our schools to plan
conservatively. If the state does not make its projections for revenue,
then the Department of Education stands the possibility that what
was given may have to be taken back. The revenue issues create a most
important public policy discussion: Do the citizens in the state feel
that it’s more important to find additional resources to support
elementary and secondary education than not to raise taxes?
EL: At the local school district
level, how do revenues received from the state impact the quality of
education?
GW: Kentucky’s system
of funding – Support Educational Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK)
– is a combination of state and local resources. A guaranteed
minimum amount of money goes to our schools from the state. Those
districts that have the highest level of poverty get more money. In
essence, the state equalizes educational opportunities for children
across the Commonwealth. Wolfe County, for example, gets approximately
75 percent from the state and 25 percent from the local level. On
the other hand, Anchorage would get 75 percent generated from the
local level and 25 percent from the state.
EL: Approximately, what is
the per student amount?
GW: The guaranteed minimum
base per student in Kentucky was $3,066 for the last school year,
we’re increasing that to about $3,180 this year.
EL: Is that the combined total
from local and state expended per student?
GW: No, the total amount of
money expended per child is above $6,000. That includes only state
and local money. Federal funds cannot be used to achieve the state’s
minimum commitment to education. If a community has a lot of poor
kids, children with disabilities, or depressed economic circumstances
where children receive free and reduced lunch programs, federal programs
support those efforts.
EL: How closely does the Department
of Education work on the budget with the General Assembly?
GW: Very closely. We work
with the General Assembly in terms of setting initial projections.
We are really a primary part of their deliberation. Members of our
staff are the individuals they call on to justify the figures we produce.
EL: Who are the key “go
to” people in the Kentucky House and Senate? Do you normally deal
with House Speaker Jody Richards and Senate President David Williams?
GW: We work not only with
the two leadership positions, but also with the two most critical
individuals – Richie Sanders, chair of the Senate Appropriations
& Revenue Committee and Harry Moberly, who chairs the House’s
same committee. It’s important they understand the full details.
Harry Moberly was there when they wrote the SEEK formula and knows
every detail of it. Richie Sanders has been a fast study. He’s
been a wonderful partner during the last few years.
The other principal actor
in the legislative process is obviously the governor’s office.
Our department’s first effort goes to the governor’s office
before it goes to the legislature. The governor has points of view
about all these issues and we try to reflect those in how we work
with the legislature. We also interact with his staff on a regular
basis because it’s important for us not to come forward with
something that they have no knowledge about. So, we regularly brief
the executive branch.
EL: Would you support expanded
legalized gambling if a substantial portion of the money went to the
Department of Education?
GW: Philosophically, taking
money from citizens to support education through gambling has sort
of a mixed message to our children. It’s not a dependable, long-term
source of revenue that we can count on. The issue about taxing tobacco
is easier for me to deal with. First of all, we don’t want our
children smoking as minors. A number of educational programs encourage
them to not do so. Taking tobacco revenues, philosophically, aligns
the Department of Education with where we want kids to go.
EL: Kentucky’s population
growth rate is less than one percent annually and the state’s population
is estimated to increase about 30,000 persons per year over the next
five years. Much of this growth is in Lexington, Louisville, Northern
Kentucky and Bowling Green. At the same time population is declining
in a number of rural counties. What impact is this having on K-12 education?
GW: It has tremendous impact.
In essence, we’re managing two systems of education in Kentucky.
We’ve got an expanding economy in the “Golden Triangle”
which attracts families, and an inward movement of population base.
Growth also brings with it higher demands in those communities for
high quality education and new facilities.
At the same time, we have
had a 10-year downward population trend in Eastern Kentucky. It puts
those school districts in a very different mindset. First of all,
they’re going to receive less money each year because our formula
is based on the number of students that are in the school district.
Before they begin to think about education programs, the district
is thinking about having to reduce staff and with that comes a reduction
in support services. The irony is that students in counties with declining
population are the most impacted students in Kentucky. While resources
for those schools are decreasing, the students remaining are needing
additional support. The impact of high growth and declining school
districts permeates all the decisions the department makes –
and creates additional expenses for Kentucky’s educational system.
EL: What ongoing benefit does
Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) have on Kentucky’s education
program?
GW: The environment in Kentucky
is very different than it was during the first years of the reform.
KERA concepts are well accepted at this point and are positive for
Kentucky. The first concept is that student learning is the basis
for making judgments about a school’s effectiveness. The second
is whether the system has had continuous progress or not. That leads
to a culture in Kentucky that what we do today is not good enough
for tomorrow. Having the public engaged in that conversation and educators
focused on that issue is positive.
EL: When George Bush was running
for president, his initiative was to test students to determine the
effectiveness of the educational system. That’s one of the things
KERA has been doing for over a decade. Is testing similar to market
research?
GW: Testing is very close
to the best practice in business. You assess the results of labor,
you identify specific deficits in your operational plan, you make
adjustments on a regular basis, you monitor that progress and you
put the resources where you can produce the maximum. In order to do
that, you’ve got to test. Education has got to have some objective
measure of its effectiveness.
EL: Should KERA be modified
to reflect significant changes in technology and the growth of the Internet?
GW: Our schools are not where
we want to be in terms of using technology as an instructional tool.
However, Kentucky can be proud that it has advanced in this area.
The next frontier for Kentucky
is to make sure that technology is not a fringe, but an integral part
of the thinking process.
EL: Can you envision a day
when Kentucky will have a paperless classroom?
GW: I can. In fact, I’m
talking with one of our school districts today about portable technology
for each of their students. They’re considering using laptops
as the new textbooks. Walk into our schools’ media centers today
and you will see the books on shelves and technology in the same room.
And guess where the kids are – they’re right there with
the computers. And I have never been in a school where there are discipline
problems around technology.
EL: Are there any other new
initiatives you’re undertaking to improve education in Kentucky?
GW: We’re looking at
redesigning the high school experience. Why can’t young people
access learning programs through technology? Our virtual high school
offers a whole series of programs students can engage in and receive
credit for outside the school environment. We’ve developed agreements
with the Kentucky Community & Technical College System so high
school students who are ready can move into a more advanced curriculum
much earlier than they have in the past. I envision that the junior
/ senior year is going to look very different. In fact, I’d say
it will be much less formalized in terms of the number of courses
and much more individualized as students begin to branch out for the
next level of education.
EL: Do you envision an NBA-like
draft where junior and senior high school students could be drafted
for colleges and universities because their learning skills and test
scores are exceptional?
GW: You’d always have
to consider whether younger students are ready socially to move into
that environment. But students could be kept in a high school environment
and also move into college curriculum. Little pieces of that are in
place. For example, a Jefferson County school district has a number
of students who are working directly with scientists and researchers
at the University of Louisville on real research projects. There’s
no reason why those opportunities couldn’t be available to any
child who could demonstrate a capacity to move ahead at an accelerated
level. In the same context, there are students who are bored silly
but who could be highly challenged if they got into a direct mentorship
with a corporation. Students could move into employment status with
a corporation as they advance through their learning programs.
EL: UPS’ Metro College
in Louisville creates an opportunity for students who can’t afford
to go to school – they can work for UPS and earn their way through
college.
GW: It’s a wonderful
program and has been very successful.
Kentucky has a really aggressive
community and technical college system (KCTCS) that came out of the
’97 reform. I don’t know the specifics yet, but I know that
KCTCS is open to those kinds of opportunities and expect it will create
similar opportunities in Kentucky that are going to be tremendous!
EL: What other innovations
in education do you perceive?
GW: You’re going to see
a system that assesses very early a child’s developmental levels
and intervenes if a problem is identified. Toward that end, we’re
dealing with this issue of literacy and reading capacity at the younger
ages. Daviess County has developed high technology assessment systems
that help teachers diagnose individual problems in kindergarten, first
and second grade. These assessment procedures pinpoint the difficulties
very precisely. In most cases, there’s a hearing/interpretation
problem or there’s a learning difference in that child. I recently
visited a center in Daviess county that had five different technology
instruments there where they were working with the students to overcome
learning deficiencies. In the future we may have that kind of sophistication
in every one of our schools so that we don’t pass students along
with problems that will impede their future learning.
EL: What about high school
dropouts?
GW: We know that the traditional
structure is not conducive to some students to stay in school. Kentucky
can’t afford an 18 per cent loss ratio in our student body and
that’s what we have right now. So, you’re going to see some
alternative programming structures come into place.
EL: Have you ever considered
privatization of schools or school vouchers if schools are failing to
adequately educate students?
GW: Kentucky has one of the
best systems of intervention in the country for low performing schools
and we have a good record of turning those schools around. There’s
a very small pool of schools that remain in low status over time.
We go into those schools with full-time people who have a strong agenda
for improvement. We’re seeing those turn around.
EL: How many interventions
do you have going on?
GW: We’re working with
29 schools right now that are below the level of expectation. We have
full-time staff in those schools (from the state). These are state
personnel that are assigned to those schools to bring about improvement.
EL: So that kind of takes
away the privatization or school voucher issue here in Kentucky.
GW: Kentucky has moved toward
site-based decision making. We’ve vested a lot of authority in
our schools that has traditionally rested on the district level. The
hiring of staff, control of the budget, their whole professional development
program, all of these decisions, the curriculum, instructional program
that’s developed, are site-based decisions in Kentucky. Although
we have room for improvement in a lot of those site-based councils,
the fact that we’ve moved toward vesting authority in parents
and with teachers at a school building has given parents an option
in Kentucky that doesn’t exist in other states. In fact, Kentucky
is the only state that’s given that authority to the school building.
Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants Inc. and publisher
of The Lane Report.
edlane@lanereport.com
Back to One on One Index
Back to the May Issue
|
