review of administrative and supervisory · pdf filereview of administrative and supervisory...
TRANSCRIPT
Review of Administrative andSupervisory Organization
January 2009
Prepared byJeffery H. McLeIlan, Executive Director, CASDASam Shevat, Educational Consultant, CASDA
1ASDACAPITAL AREA SCHOOL DEVELOPMENTASSOCIA11ON
University at Albany, East Campus5 University Place-A409Rensselaer, NY 12144
aCENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
C
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword 1
Introduction 2
Cuffent Organizational Structure 5
Similar Schools Comparative Data 7
Recommendations 13
Summary 15
CAppendices
A- 2006 Administrative Review
B- Interview Questions
C- Enrollment Trends
D- About CASDA
E- Similar School District Locations
FOREWARD CIn the fall of 2008, the Guilderland Central School District requested the Capital Area School
Development Association (CASDA-Appendix D) to submit a proposal to conduct an organizationalstudy of administrative configuration within the district. One purpose of the study was to determine ifthe current configuration continued to support the mission and vision of the district.
Upon acceptance of the proposal, CASDA reviewed past administrative studies and audits conductedfrom 1979 to 2006. CASDA consultants interviewed the Guilderland administrative staff on December8, 11, 17 and January 22. The interviews were conducted by two consultants in 30 minute segments.Notes were taken based on a set of consistent questions (Appendix B) designed to encourage a dialoguebetween the interviewer and the administrator. The results of the interviews were combined,categorized and served as a basis for several of the recommendations found later in this document.
A second purpose of the study was to locate “similar” suburban school districts in New York Statethat could be compared to Guilderland. Student enrollment, cost per pupil, operational cost and povertylevel were several of the data points used to select the similar districts, among other factors. It isinteresting to note that there were only ten school districts state-wide that fit the selection criteria forcomparison. As indicated in the following tables, the chosen districts are not to be confused with thegrouping of similar districts alTanged by the New York State Education Department for studentperformance comparison purposes. Suburban Council School District data is also included in thisreport. C
The final report contained herein is formatted similar to the 2006 review (Appendix A). CASDAchose to present the current information in this manner for ease of comparison. The data presented isthe most reliable currently available. CASDA utilized the New York State School Report Card, SchoolData Direct, and data supplied by the human resource personnel departments of the selected schooldistricts.
As referenced above, the District has a history of periodically and systematically examining itsadministrative structure in order to meet the changing needs of its students and the changingeducational and global environments. CASDA’s charge was to examine the current structure in light ofthe most recent administrative studies and to offer suggestions or observations on makingmodifications to that structure. Those recommendations are contained within the document.
INTRODUCTION
In the current climate of fiscal uncertainty, school districts are compelled to review all categories ofexpenditures. As it appears that limited financial resources are a certainty for the next three to fiveyears, efficient utilization of available ftinds must be carefully planned to minimize a negative impacton student learning and performance. Management and leadership in a school district play a major rolein improving student performance and the sustainability of instructional programs.
The Guilderland Central School District, over the course of nearly 30 years, has periodicallyreviewed its administrative organization. Its purpose has been to determine necessary accommodationsto facilitate the improvement of instruction in the regular and special education programs. One of thekeys to its success was the development of a sense of community within the schools. Communicationand collaboration are essential to promote academic rigor and raise the academic bar for studentperformance.
The veiy essence ofa professional learning community (PLC) is a focus on and a commitment to thelearning ofeach student. When a school or districtfunctions as a PLC, educators within theorganization embrace high levels oflearningfor all students as both the reason the organization existsand thefundamental responsibilities of those who work within it. In order to achieve this purpose, themembers ofthe PLC create and are guided by a clear and compelling vision ofwhat the organizationmust become in order to help all students learn. They make collective commitments clarifying what
r each member will do to create such an organization and they use results-oriented goals to mark theirprogress. Members work together to clarfy exactly what each student must learn, monitor eachstudent’s learning on a timely basis, provide systematic interventions that ensure students receiveadditional time and supportfor learning when they struggle, and extend and enrich learning whenstudents have already mastered the intended outcomes.
A corollamy assumption is that fthe organization is to become more effective in helping all studentslearn, the adults in the organization must also be continually learning. Therefore, structures arecreated to ensure staffmembers engage in job-embedded learning as part of their routine workpractices.
There is no ambiguity or hedging regarding this commitment to learning. Whereas many schoolsoperate as iftheir primaly purpose is to ensure that children are taught PLCs are dedicated to theidea that their organization exists to ensure that all students learn essential knowledge, skills, anddispositions. All the other characteristics ofa PLCflow directlyfrom this epic shift in assumptionsabout the purpose of the school.
Inherent to a PLC are a persistent disquiet with the status quo and a constant search for a better wayto achieve goals and accomplish the purpose of the organization. Systematic processes engage eachmember of the organization in an ongoing cycle of
• Gathering evidence ofcurrent levels ofstudent learning;• Developing strategies and ideas to build on strengths and address weaknesses in that
learning;• Implementing those strategies and ideas,• Analyzing the impact of the changes to discover what was effective and what was not; and,• Applying new knowledge in the next cycle ofcontinuous improvement.1
During the next three to five years, public education will focus on several key areas of improvement:
• The 175 hour professional development requirement for instructional staff and eventuallyadministrators will provide the opportunity to promote strategic and instructional initiativesthrough staff development. This initiative will require extensive planning, data collectionand evaluation;
• There will most likely be a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) shift from mandating “highlyqualified” staff to “highly effective” staff. The shift from highly qualified to highly effectivestatus will drive a new accountability system for instructional evaluation. One can concludethat additional time will be required for such reviews and will dictate a more in-depthprocess, K-12;
• A proposed growth model to track student achievement will require significant staff time topost, analyze and coordinate the data to inform instruction on individual students. Growthmodels will “crosswalk” grade levels and will increase the complexity and time involved instudent achievement analysis;
• As the Response to Intervention (RTI) initiative is enacted, programs will need to bedeveloped and implemented to address skill deficiencies of students and provide strategies
- for remediation;• The development of imagination skills leading to creativity and innovation will become a
high priority in reinventing core curricula within the next three to five years. The 21stcentury demands that public education rethink instructional delivery in the conceptual age;2and,
• Develop programs for students K- 12 and staff to assure a safe and orderly environment, freeof bullying and coercion.
U.S. high school graduates will sell to the world; buy from the world; work for an internationalcompany; manage employees from other cultures and countries; collaborate with people all over theworld in joint ventures; compete with people on the other side of the world for jobs and markets andtackle global problems.3The Guilderland Central School District is well positioned administratively torespond by designing and implementing change in the future. The information in this report comparesGuilderland to similar school districts and Suburban Council Districts. It references specific, pertinentdata in the tables that follow and suggests recommendations, observations and considerations foradministrative organization in a time of uncertain fiscal challenges.
1 DuFour, R. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Focus on Learning. 3-5. Solution Tree2 Marx, G. (2006). Sixteen Trends... Their Profound Impact on our Future. ERS
Center for International Understanding, 2005
TABLE 1
CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Guilderland Central School District employs a total of 32 administrators and instructionaladministrators (31.4 full-time equivalents) for the 2008-09 school year. Both groups are identified inseparate tables below. All positions are (1.0 FTE) unless otherwise identified.
ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
TITLE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITYSuperintendent of Schools K-12
Assistant Superintendent for Business K-12
Assistant Superintendent for Instruction K-12
Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources K-12
High School Principal Grades 9-12
Assistant High School Principal Grades 9-12
Assistant High School Principal Grades 9-12Note: House
( Assistant High School Principal Grades 9-12 principals shareFarnsworth Middle School Principal Grades 6-8 responsibilities forHiawatha House Principal Grades 6-8 Mohawk House
students/staffSeneca House Pnncipal Grades 6-8
Tawasentha House Principal Grades 6-8
Guilderland Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Westmere Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Altamont Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Lynnwood Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Pine Bush Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Administrator for Special Programs K- 12
Special Education Administrator Elementary Grades K-5
Special Education Administrator FMS Grades 6-8
Special Education Administrator High School Grades 9-12
TOTAL: 21.0 FTE (23.0 FTE in 2006)
TABLE 2
INSTRUCTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
TITLE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITYSupervisor of Art K-12 (.8 FTE)
Supervisor of Foreign Language & ESL K-12
Supervisor of Music K-12
Director of Health, Physical Education & K-12
Interscholastic Athletics
Assistant Director of Health, Physical K-12
Education & Interscholastic Athletics
High School Supervisor of Mathematics & Science Grades 9-12
High School Supervisor of English, Social Studies & Grades 9-12Reading
FMS Supervisor of Mathematics and Science Grades 6-8
FMS Supervisor of English, Social Studies and Reading Grades 6-8Supervisor of Career and Technology K-12
Supervisor for Counseling Grades 6-12 (.6 FTE) (TOTAL: 10.4 FTE (11 individuals)
(9.35 FTE and 10 individuals in 2006)
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY REPORTS
Included as Appendix A is the February 2006 “Review of Administrator and Instructional SupervisorPositions in the Guilderland Central School District” and the “Previous Administrative and SupervisoryReports.”
SIMILAR SCHOOLS COMPARATIVE DATA
The 2006 Review of Administrator and Instructional Supervisor Positions collected data on andcompared Suburban Council Schools to Guilderland. The current review also selects school districts inNew York State that are similar to Guilderland. Seven categories were chosen to use as a method ofsorting and selecting the school districts, five of which are included in Table 3:
• Suburban School District• Student Enrollment• Free and Reduced Lunch Percentage• Students With Disabilities Enrollment• Students per Teacher• Operating Expenditures per Student• Instructional Expenditures per Student
Table 3 demonstrates a significant range of expenditures per student based upon the regionallocation of the district (Appendix E). The test data in Tables 4 & 5, however, demonstrates closeparallels in student performance. Included in Tables 6 & 7 are counts of building staff, central officestaff and instructional administrators. Instructional administrators may have been listed as instructionalsupervisors, directors and in several cases, assistant principals. Every effort has been made to includeall school district administrators in one of the three categories, regardless of title.’ The student toadministrator ratio was determined by dividing the student enrollment by the sum of the administrativetotal full time equivalent (FTE). The data in Tables 6 & 7, except for student enrollment, is current forthe 2008-2009 school year.
It must also be noted that there was a wide range of structures regarding instructional andlorcurriculum support. Several positions were part-time with teaching duties as a portion of the jobdescription or a stipend was paid for essentially “after school hours” work. In other districts, part-timedepartment chairs were assigned supervisory roles but not included in this review.
Special education administrators and pupil personnel administrators were not included for reasons described laterin this review.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON WITH SELECTED SIMILAR SCHOOLS
ASSORTED WEALTH FACTORS
A SOURCE: NYSED ACCOUNTABILITYANI) OVERVIEW REPORT ANI) COMPREHENSIVEINFORMATION REPORT
+ SOURCE: SCHOOL DATA DIRECT
C
(
C
TOTAL iNSTRUCTIONALSUBURBAN K-12 ENRLMNT FREE & REDUCEDEXPENDITURES EXPEND!SCHOOL DISTRICT 2OO6O7A LUNCH %A
PER STUDENTA STUDENT+
Baldwin UFSD 5353 $16,873 $10,839 0.0
Baldwinsville 5998 $14,281 $7,854 12
BayShoreUFSD 5702 $18,680 $11,573 37
Beilmore6059 $15,953 $10,431 2Merrick
East Islip USFD 5077 $16,363 $10,392 8
Guilderland 5425 $14,049 $7,780 6
Mahopac 5312 $17,310 $10,942 3
North Colonie 5616 $12,983 $7,248 7
South Colonie 5601 $13,666 $8,476 14
West Islip UTSD 5692 $15,064 $9,360 5
2
TABLE 4
STUDENT TEST DATA
COMPARISON WITH SELECTED SIMILAR SCHOOLS
NYSEI) 2006-07 COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ANDACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERVIEW REPORT
K-i 2GRADE 4 GRADE 4 GRADE 8 GRADE 8 ENGLISH MATH ADISTRICT ENROLL
ELA+ MATH+ ELA+ MATH+ REGENTS# REGENTS#2006-07
Baldwin5353 82 86 80 74 84 82UFSD
Baldwinsville 5998 78 90 72 75 94 95
Bay Shore5702 79 81 72 77 88 84UFSD
B elimore6059 NA NA 88 83 97 93Merrick
East Islip5077 85 95 67 84 96 97UTSD
Guilderland 5425 80 91 79 84 94 94
Mahopac 5312 86 91 70 75 88 90
North Colonie 5616 82 92 78 88 96 98
South Colonie 5601 84 92 79 86 93 93
West Islip5692 79 89 75 81 91 93UFSD
+ Percentage of students scoring at or above Level 3
# Percent of all students scoring at or above 65
TA
BL
E5
ST
UD
EN
TT
ES
TD
AT
A
CO
MP
AR
ISO
NW
ITH
SU
BU
RB
AN
CO
UN
CIL
SC
HO
OL
S
NY
SE
D20
06-0
7C
OM
PR
EH
EN
SIV
EIN
FO
RM
AT
ION
RE
PO
RT
AN
DA
CC
OU
NT
AB
ILIT
YA
ND
OV
ER
VIE
WR
EP
OR
T
DIS
TR
ICT
EN
RO
LL
GR
AD
E4
GR
AD
E4
GR
AD
E8
GR
AD
E8
EN
GL
ISH
MA
TH
A20
06-0
7E
LA
+M
AT
H+
EL
A+
MA
TH
+R
EG
EN
TS
#R
EG
EN
TS
#
Ave
rill
Par
k34
4776
8572
5967
95
Bal
isto
nSp
a44
3174
8171
8387
93
Bet
hleh
em51
8287
9281
8092
98
Bur
ntH
ills
3478
8993
7380
9597
Eas
tG
reen
bush
4577
8693
7883
9082
Gu
ild
erla
nd
5425
8091
7984
9494
Moh
onas
en34
0767
7559
5986
89
Nis
kayu
na42
7491
9182
8796
99
Nor
thC
olon
ie56
1682
9278
8896
98
Sar
atog
a69
0988
9375
7788
91
Sco
tia
2906
8689
6672
9395
She
nend
ehow
a96
4283
9078
7692
96
Sou
thC
olon
ie56
0184
9279
8693
93 fl
TABLE 6
COMPARISON WITH SELECTED SIMILAR SCHOOLS
CENTRALK-12 ENRLMI”JT BUILDING INSTRUCTIONALDISTRICT OFFICE RATIO2006-07 ADMIN ADMINADMIN
Baldwin5353 22 4 9.5 151:1
U}’SD
Baldwinsville 5998 15 4 3.0’ 272:1
Bay Shore5702 17 6 14.0 154:1
UFSDB elimore
6059 19 6 11.0 168:1Merrick2
East Islip5077 13 4 9.5 191:1IJFSD
Guilderland 5425 13 4 10.4 198:1
Mahopac 5312 14 6 NA NA
North Colonie 5616 13 4 9.4 213:1
South Colonie 5601 13 4 5.0 254:1
West Islip5692 15.4 5 9.0 193:1UFSD
Assistant Principals Have Instructional Responsibilities2 Middle & High School District
TA
BL
E7
CO
MP
AR
ISO
NW
ITH
SU
BU
RB
AN
CO
UN
CIL
SC
HO
OL
DIS
TR
ICT
S
Dis
tric
tK
12
EN
RO
LL
Bui
ldin
gC
entr
alO
ffic
eS
uper
viso
rs(F
TE
)S
peci
alE
dR
atio
Adm
./A
dmin
istr
ator
sA
dmin
istr
ator
sA
dmin
istr
ator
sS
tude
nt
Ave
rill
Par
k34
4710
30.
52
255:
1
Bal
isto
nSp
a44
319
43.
04
276:
1
Bet
hleh
em51
8212
.33
8.5
321
7:1
Bur
ntH
ills
3478
93
5.6
1.5
197:
1
Eas
tG
reen
bush
4577
144
4.4
221
3:1
Guik
ierl
and
5425
134
10.4
419
8:1
Moh
onas
en34
078
35.
11
211:
1
Nis
kayu
na42
7410
47.
42.
720
0:1
Nor
thC
olon
ie56
1613
49.
42
213:
1
Sar
atog
a69
0917
64.
04.
425
5:1
Sco
tia
2906
93
5.4
116
7:1
She
nend
ehow
a96
4223
616
421
4:1
Sou
thC
olon
ie56
0113
45.
02
254:
1
fl
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1
Maintain the site-based instructional supervision model currently in place.
The District moved to a site-based management and supervision model in recent years. CASDA hasfound this model to be effective in both the daily management and leadership of the middle and highschools as well as leading to improved student achievement. We also note that other school districtshave moved from a K-12 instructional management system to a site— based approach. Managing thedaily activities of complex organizations such as Guilderland Central Schools are better served byprofessionals housed at the site of their primary responsibility.
Through a sustained set of processes being in place over many years, Guilderland has developed asense of community in the school buildings. The site-based concept of management and instructionalleadership has worked well to build a trusting and collegial environment. With site-basedadministration, however, careful plamiing is needed to establish collaboration and cooperation betweenbuildings, especially at the critical transition years of grades 5 to 6 and grade 8 to 9.
The site-based approach to curriculum management has achieved a healthy comfort level with thebuilding administrators. Especially at times of higher than usual faculty and teaching assistant turnover,
( having site-based supervision available to counsel, advise, mentor and evaluate inexperienced staff\ leads to a smooth transition and timely assimilation into the Guilderland Central Schools culture.
Recommendation #2
The Supervisor for Counseling position become full-time for grades K-12.
For a district with the size and complexity of Guilderland, the district might review the duties ofthis job title with the consideration to assign it to full-time administrative duties (from .6 FTE to 1.0FTE) and relieve the position of the .4 FTE student responsibility. Based upon our interviews, there aretimes when the current supervisor is placed in a position of choosing between the case-loadresponsibilities to the 6th grade students and the administrative duties.
This review does not offer any specific relief to this issue at this time given the current fiscalsituation. However, we suggest a review of the duties assigned to this position and other relatedpositions and consider a shifting of duties without additional staffing.
Currently, this position is not responsible for a K-5 guidance and counseling program. There is arequirement that the district maintain a K-12 Guidance Plan. Responsibility for the Plan could beincluded in the full-time job description.
Recommendation #3
Review the K-12 Special Education program through a comprehensive audit.
As the data in Table 7 demonstrates, the number of full-time special education administrators issignificantly greater than other districts in the area. A comprehensive audit is recommended to reviewthe special education program. The audit could include a review of the IEP process, program delivery
and staffing levels. Recommendations made from the audit would assure an appropriate delivery ofstudent services as economically and efficiently as possible.
Recommendation #4
Create clearly defined transition strategies for grades 5 to 6 and grades 8 to 9.
As students move from one educational level to the next, serious focus needs to be given to ease thetransitions in order to facilitate the social, educational, emotional and physical transformations thestudents are undergoing. Current administrative staff has assigned duties to these transitions andseveral activities have been developed to ease these transitions in the social, emotional and physicalsense. This recommendation focuses on past student performance and considerations for instructionalstrategies at the next grade level to increase the probability of student success.
While recommendation #1 states that site-based administration is preferable to enhancing a learningcommunity, it becomes critical that programs be in place to assure articulation in the transition years.This may be achieved by developing a transition plan that includes how student data will be shared!reviewed and a student-centered entry plan with detailed specific instructional strategies to supportevery student, possibly a portion of the Response to Intervention Plan.
Recommendation #5
Maintain the current administrative structure at the building and district level other than the Cchanges recommended above.
In difficult fiscal times, all aspects of an organization need to be evaluated in order to determine ifpositions can be eliminated or consolidated while protecting the same level of service to students. Thecurrent level of administration and supervision at Guilderland is comparable with other similar schooldistricts and suburban council districts (Tables 6 & 7). The institutionalized cooperation andcollegiality that is ingrained within the organization works efficiently and effectively.
While the charge to CASDA did not include foreshadowing the future, this District may soon befacing such issues as full-day kindergarten, universal pre-kindergarten, state-mandated elementaryguidance counselors, growth models tracking student achievement and other new initiatives asreferenced in the Introduction. While enrollment trend data (Appendix C) predicts a slight drop overthe next few years, we anticipate new initiatives and mandates will consume more administrative time.A viable, flexible administrative structure can address these future obligations.
We would point out that longevity within reasonable expectations appears to be a hallmark ofGuilderland. Continuity in key positions leads to stability, certainty and greater collegiality withinschools which has a positive affect on student performance. Highly qualified and effective educatorsare recruited and many remain with the district for years, often promoted within the organization aspart of succession planning. We note the anomaly with the turnover of the high school principalposition over the past several years. “Although principals hiredfor positions for thefirst time are ableto assume their basicjob responsibilities, school improvement depends upon opportunities forcontinuous professional learning and the sustained application ofwhat is learned in a single settingfora period ofat leastJive years-Fullan.” Plans for the future should include a process to assure longevityof at least five years to stabilize and sustain programmatic changes.
izi
SUMMARY
The purpose of this review was to determine if the current administrative structure continued tomeet the needs of the school district and also to compare the administrative structure with similarschools. Through the interview process, it was determined that the current configuration serves K-12students well. Collegiality, excellent communication pathways and ongoing opportunities forprofessional development are evident and have successfully maintained programs and initiatives forextended periods of time. Table 4 demonstrates that Guilderland is in the top half regarding student testscores when compared with similar school districts. Table 6 student/administrator ratios (specialeducation administration not included) place Guilderland approximately in the middle of the similarschool districts.
With that being said, the CASDA consultants are well aware of the severe fiscal challenges that lieahead. We recommend, as an opinion only, in the wake of potential staff reductions in the future, everypossible step should be taken to avoid the dismantling of an effective supervisory structure. In ourexperience, we have noted that it is very difficult to regain the synergy once administrative reductionsplace program initiatives on hold.
ic
CAPPENDIX A
A REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATOR AND INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPERVISOR POSITIONS IN THE
GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
C
Prepared ByGregory J. Aidala, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
February 2006 V V
INTRODUCTION
Periodically, it is valuable for the Board of Education with the superintendent’s help to review
the administrative structure within the K-12 setting. The Guilderland Central School District
administrative and supervisory staff is a valuable component to our educational program. In the
2005-06 school year, there is a total of 33 certified administrators and instructional supervisorsserving primarily in full-time positions. From the outset of this report, it is important to state thatthis corps of dedicated professionals has consistently demonstrated their commitment anddedication to students in the work being done each day. Their support for teachers, teaching
assistants and those staff members who work directly with children is a key component to theoverall functioning of the school district. Their efforts are and continue to be very much
appreciated.
A “day in the professional life” of any administrator or instructional supervisor is filled withplanned and often unplanned activities. These individuals provide quality leadership for theirschools and departments. They are frequently called upon to address problems and diffusesituations in their early stages which if left unintended or when not acted upon promptly, can
C easily escalate into more serious issues. In addition, they are involved in many school activitieswell beyond the typical instructional day. As part of their implied function, they are available atBoard of Education meetings, budget sessions, concerts, plays, athletic events, and a myriad ofspecial events at the building level. To be effective, their duties and responsibilities demand thatthey be visible leaders among students and staff, helping to manage the day-to-day operationswithin the building-or in some cases, district-wide.
Leadership does not happen by chance. At district-wide ceremonial gatherings in Guilderlandsuch as the recognition of tenure recipients, we highlight the contributions of our teachers and therole they play in their work with children. Through professional development as well as theongoing feedback and support provided by building administrators and instructional supervisors,our teachers become more skilled and proficient in their efforts. For a school system such asGuilderland to function at a high level, a team approach is needed. Although our teachers havethe most direct contact with students, we must also recognize that leadership in program contentand coordination as part of assessments and NCLB requirements, staff supervision in evaluatingperformance, hiring new personnel, and serving as a facilitator in problem solving situations aretied to the work of our administrative and supervisory staff. This facet of school organization isnot always understood by the community and public at-large who sometimes cavalierly believethat greater resources must always be focused on classroom personnel. We must recognize that
Page 2
quality teaching and the role of strong leadership as provided by principals, assistant and house
principals, special education administrators, and instructional supervisors will always be
inexorably intertwined. At the same time, whenever we examine the district’s administrative and
supervisory structure and consider different approaches, a ripple effect is inevitable. As noted by
Michael Fullan in his most recent text, Leading in a Culture of Change:
“Change is a double-edged sword. Its relentless pace is difficult to adjust to,
yet when things are unsettled, we can find new ways to move ahead and create
breakthroughs that are not possible in stagnant societies. When asked how they
feel about change, people often describe anxiety, fear, danger, loss, and panic, as
well as excitement, energy, exhilaration, risk taking and improvement. For better
or worse, change arouses emotions, and when emotions intensify, leadership is key
for addressing leadership needs.”
For 2006-07, the Guilderland Central School District as well as school systems throughout New
York State will face enormous concerns about their annual budgets and the impact on property
taxes. With rising costs well beyond the rate of inflation for teacher retirement benefits, health
insurance premiums along with an ever-expanding pooi of those receiving coverage, and energy inthe form of fuel to heat our buildings and operate our school buses, the Board of Education and
administration are faced with critical decisions in our efforts to present a budget which will
maintain current educational programs at what is perceived to be a reasonable rate of increase fortaxpayers. The notion that a budget-to-budget increase can be totally avoided without impacting
the level of services to students is not achievable, nor is it a realistic goal in the upcoming budgetprocess. However, in preparing next year’s spending plan for K-12 students, despite the many
contributions of our administrators and instructional supervisors, we must be willing to review theoverall organization of such personnel and determine if there are ways to identify and create otheroptions which will minimize the impact on the instructional program provided to students.
Page 3
PART I CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
In 2005-06, the Guilderland Central School District employs 33 administrators and instructional
supervisors; they are identified below in two separate groups. Unless indicated otherwise, each
position is full time (i.e., 1.0 FTE).
TABLE 1
ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS IN GUILDERLAND
TITLE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITYSuperintendent of Schools K-12
Assistant Superintendent for Business K-12
Assistant Superintendent for Instruction K-12
Administrator for Human Resources K-12
High School Principal Grades 9-12
Associate HS Principal* Grades 9-12
Assistant HS Principal Grades 9-12
Assistant HS Principal Grades 9-12
Administrative Dean Grades 9 and 10 primarily
Farnsworth Middle School Principal Grades 6-8 (Note: House principals
Hiawatha House Principal Grades 6-8 share responsibilities
Seneca House Principal Grades 6-8 for Mohawk students
Tawasentha House Principal Grades 6-8 and staff.)
Guilderland Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Assistant GES Principal Grades K-5
Westmere Elementary School Principal Grades K-S
Assistant V/ES Principal Grades K-5
Altamont Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Lynnwood Elementary School Principal Grades K-5
Pine Bush Elementary School Principal Grades K-S
Administrator for Special Programs K-12
Special Education Administrator, K-5 Grades K-S
Special Education Administrator, FMS Grades 6-8*Note: The GHS Associate Principal oversees the special education program in grades 9-12.
Total: 23 FTE
Page 4
TABLE 2
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORS IN GUILDERLAND
TITLE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
Supervisor of Art K-12 (.8 FTE)
Supervisor of Foreign Language & ELL K-12
Supervisor of Music K-12
Director of Health, Physical Education & K-12Interscholastic Athletics
Assistant Director of Health, Physical Education K-12& Interscholastic Athletics
High School Supervisor of Mathematics & Science Grades 9-12
High School Supervisor of English & Reading Grades 9-12 (.75 FTE)
High School Supervisor of Social Studies Grades 9-12 (.8 FTE)
FMS Supervisor of Mathematics & Science Grades 6-8
FMS Supervisor of English, Social Studies & Reading Grades 6-8
Total: 9.35 FTE (10 individuals)
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY REPORTS
Included in Appendix A is a five-page summary of the previous reports that were prepared overthe past eight years by an outside consultant or the superintendent of schools at the time.
Previously, this information had been presented and reviewed by the Board of Education prior toany action being taken.
C
Page 5
PART II SUBURBAN COUNCIL COMPARATIVE DATAADMINISTRATOR AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISOR POSITIONS
Tables 3, 4 and 5 present data about comparisons in the Suburban Council. Although there are
ranges in size based on K-12 enrollment, neighboring school systems provide a functional
benchmark in discussing similarities and differences. Included in Table 3 are three separate
administrative categories: building administrators (principals, assistant principals, house
principals and associate principals), central office administrators (superintendent, assistant
superintendents for instruction, business, human resources), or other type of K-12 position
(excluding pupil personnel services). The latter position has been listed as part of special
education because the majority of time is devoted to this area (see Table 4). Also, as an
illustration, if an assistant or associate high school principal functioned primarily in the area of
special education (i.e., in Guilderland and Saratoga), then this title has been included under
special education and not the building administrators. It is important to note that instructional
supervisors were not included in Table 3, but are listed separately in Table 5.
Page 6
TA
BL
E3
SU
BU
RB
AN
CO
UN
CIL
SC
HO
OL
DIS
TR
ICT
SA
DM
INIS
TR
AT
OR
CO
MP
AR
ISO
NS
2005
-200
6
K-1
2nu
mbe
rB
uild
ing
Cen
tral
Off
ice
Spe
cial
Ed
Rat
ioD
istr
ict
ofst
uden
tsA
dmin
istr
ator
s*A
dmin
istr
ator
sA
dmin
istr
ator
s**
Adm
./S
tude
nt
Ave
rill
Par
k3,
500
83
21:
269
Bal
isto
nSp
a4,
468
94
41:
263
Bet
hleh
em5,
108
12.3
33
1:27
9
Bur
ntH
ills
3,49
89
31.
51:
259
Eas
tG
reen
bush
5,00
014
42
1:25
0
Gui
lder
land
5,57
015
44
1:24
2
Moh
onas
en3,
328
93
21:
238
Nis
kayu
na4,
314
104
2.7
1:25
8
Nor
thC
olon
ie5,
659
133
21:
298
Sara
toga
6,84
317
64.
41:
250
Scot
ia2,
917
93
21:
208
She
nend
ehow
a9,
525
255
41:
280
Sout
hC
olon
ie5,
680
134
21:
299
Ave
rage
:1:
261
*In
stru
ctio
nal
Supe
rvis
ors
wer
eno
tin
clud
edin
the
tota
l.**
See
Tab
le4
for
mor
ede
tail.
Page
7
Table 4 on the following page presents information about the number of special education
administrators in Suburban Council school districts. It was difficult to gather this data because
school districts deal with special education functions in a variety of ways. Some districts, like
Guilderland, use administrators to chair all CSE meetings. Others, like East Greenbush, have
administrators oversee the special education program, but use psychologists or teachers as an
added responsibility to chair the Committee on Special Education. In such cases, the CSE chairs
do not have supervisory responsibility for the teachers assigned to carry out a student’s
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The model utilized in Guilderland does include this
important supervisory responsibility.
Table 4 also includes the number of psychologists employed in each school system along withthose administrators whose dominant function lies in special education. Under this analysis, thecombined ratio of administrators and psychologists compared to the number of identified
students falls in the range from 1:67 to 1:93 with a mean or average of 1:77. For Guilderland, itsspecial education administrator to student ratio is high at 1:188 (only Baliston Spa had a higherratio). However, simultaneously the actual number of school psychologists in Guilderland isproportionally the lowest among the school districts cited, which probably accounts for thegreater number of special education administrators. In fact, when the number of school
psychologists is factored into the equation along with the number of special education
administrators, the student ratio rises significantly with only two other districts (Averill Park andBethlehem) having higher comparative data. Thus, the issue becomes how does the districtchoose to deliver the supervisory duties involved with the CSE chairperson responsibilities? Theadvantage of having certified administrators is that they have line authority over members oftheir building level special education departments (i.e., teachers and teaching assistants) whichcan be helpful when implementing the details of an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP).
Page 8
TA
BL
E4
SU
BU
RB
AN
CO
UN
CIL
SC
HO
OL
DIS
TR
ICT
SS
peci
alE
duca
tion
Adm
inis
trat
ors,
2005
-200
6
Com
bine
dR
atio
Num
ber
ofN
umbe
rof
Rat
ioA
dm.
To
Num
ber
ofR
atio
ofP
sych
.T
oA
dm./P
sych
.T
oD
istr
ict
CS
Est
uden
tsA
dmin
istr
ator
sC
SE
Stu
dent
sP
sych
olog
ists
*C
SE
Stu
dent
sC
SE
Stu
dent
sA
veri
llP
ark
650
21:
325
51:
130
1:93
Bal
isto
nSp
a59
04
1:14
83
1:19
71:
84B
ethl
ehem
620
31:
207
41:
155
1:89
Bur
ntH
ills
440
1.5
1:29
35*
1:88
1:68
Eas
tG
reen
bush
635
21:
318
6*1:
106
1:79
Gui
lder
land
750
41:
188
4.6
1:16
31:
87M
ohan
asen
425
21:
213
3*1:
142
1:85
Nis
kayu
na51
22.
7(a
)1:
190
51:
102
1:66
Nor
thC
olon
ie65
03(
b)1:
217
61:
108
1:72
Sara
toga
814
4.4(
c)1:
185
7(d)
1:11
61:
71Sc
otia
500
11:
500
6*1:
125
1:71
She
nend
ehow
a1,
200
41:
300
12*
1:10
01:
75So
uth
Col
onie
668
21:
334
8*1:
841:
67A
vera
ge65
02.
741:
263
5.6
1:12
41:
77
(a)
Incl
udes
the
Dir
ecto
rof
Pupi
lP
erso
nnel
Serv
ices
,an
assi
stan
t,an
d.7
FTE
for
CSE
chai
rfo
rgr
ades
8-12
.(b
)In
clud
esth
eD
irec
tor
ofP
upil
Ser
vice
s,an
assi
stan
t,an
da
high
scho
olsp
ecia
led
ucat
ion
adm
inis
trat
or.
(c)
Incl
udes
the
Dir
ecto
rof
Pup
ilS
ervi
ces,
two
Ass
ista
ntD
irec
tors
,on
ehi
ghsc
hool
assi
stan
t pri
ncip
alas
sign
edto
spec
ial
educ
atio
n,an
dtw
ode
part
men
the
ads
who
rece
ive
ast
ipen
dan
dar
eco
nsid
ered
.2F
TE
adm
inis
trat
ors.
(d)
Inre
alit
y,th
edi
stri
ctem
ploy
son
lyon
eso
cial
wor
ker
and
14ps
ycho
logi
sts
soan
assu
mpt
ion
was
mad
efo
rco
mpa
rati
vepu
rpos
esth
atif
soci
alw
orke
rsw
ere
apa
rtof
the
mod
el,
the
num
ber
ofps
ycho
logi
sts
wou
ldbe
redu
ced
by50
%.
*Sch
ool
psyc
holo
gist
sof
ten
serv
eas
CS
Ech
airp
erso
nsas
part
ofth
eir
dutie
s.
Page
Table 5 on the following page presents comparative data about instructional supervisors among the 13
( school systems in the Suburban Council. Instructional supervisor is a term used in Guilderland to
describe those professionals whose primary responsibilities are to oversee curriculum areas as well as to
provide direct upervision of the faculty within their departments. The general responsibilities of
instructional supervisors are as follows:
• Curriculum and program evaluation, and assessment which includes data gathering and analysis
of student performance
• Recruitment and selection of new staff
• Evaluation of teachers assigned to each department
• Planning professional development and in-service activities
• Budget preparation and administration
• Parent communication and coordination efforts with guidance counselors
• Program articulation between grade levels
Supervision includes considerable involvement in the evaluation process with a heavy concentration onworking with newly hired personnel and the eventual recommendation for a tenure appointment.
Instructional supervisors hold NYS administrative certification which is not always the case in other
districts.
The parallel positions of instructional supervisor in other school systems often equate to department
chairperson or curriculum coordinators. Almost all school districts in this sample (with South Colonie
being the exception) have a combination of full time and part-time instructional supervisors. In many
cases, the full time positions include the core subject areas of mathematics, science, English/language arts,
and social studies. The part-time individuals have teaching and administrative responsibilities with the
instructional leadership duties ranging from .2 to .8 FTE depending on the school district. Also, in many
cases, if the position involved more than 50% teaching duties, there was often a stipend attached to the
position in the range of $5,000 per subject area but could be higher depending on the number of assigned
teachers.
The grade level span for instructional supervisors also varied widely and included K-12, secondary level
(such as grades 6-12 for foreign language), and individuals who functioned solely at the building level.
For the purpose of this study, the Technology Supervisors (general title) were not included in the group
because their functions typically covered more non-instructional duties, network oversight, and
supervision of technicians. All of the school districts in the Suburban Council have a full-time technology
supervisor.
Page 10
TA
BL
E5
SU
BU
RB
AN
CO
UN
CIL
SC
HO
OL
DIS
TR
ICT
SC
OM
PA
RA
TIV
ED
AT
AO
NIN
ST
RU
CT
ION
AL
SU
PE
RV
ISO
RP
OS
ITIO
NS
,20
05-0
6
#of
Sup
ervi
sors
Rat
ioS
uper
viso
rsto
Dis
tric
tK
-12
Enr
ollm
ent
(FT
E)
Par
t-T
ime
/Ful
lT
ime
Stu
dent
s*
Ave
rili
Par
k3,
500
0.5
16
/01:
7,00
0P
T=
extr
adu
ty+
stip
end
Bal
isto
nSp
a4,
468
9.6
9/
61:
465
Bet
hleh
em5,
108
8.5
12/1
1:60
1
Bur
ntH
ills
3,50
05.
69/1
1:62
5
Eas
tGre
enbu
sh5,
000
4.4
7/3
1:1,
136
PT
=m
ostl
y.2
FT
E+
stip
end
Gui
lder
land
5,57
09.
353/7
1:59
6
Moh
onas
en3,
328
5.0
4/
51:
666
PT=
stip
end_
oniy
Nis
kayu
na4,
314
7.4
9/1
1:58
3
Nor
thC
olon
ie5,
659
9.4
7/4
1:60
2
Sara
toga
6,84
34.
09/1
1:1,
711
Sco
tia
2,91
75.
412/1
1:54
0P
T=
.2,
.6,
or.8
FT
E+
stip
end
She
nend
ehow
a**
9,52
510
.013/2
1:95
3
Sou
thC
olon
ie5,
680
6.0
0/6
1:94
7*
The
ratio
was
gene
rate
dfo
rco
mpa
rati
vepu
rpos
eson
ly;
supe
rvis
ors
serv
epr
imar
ily
atth
ese
cond
ary
leve
l(m
iddl
esc
hool
and
high
scho
ol)
but
inso
me
case
s,K
-12.
**D
ata
for
She
nend
ehow
aw
ere
base
don
thei
ror
gani
zati
onch
art
prio
rto
any
rest
ruct
urin
gw
hich
isno
wun
derw
ay.
(N
Page
RECOMMENDATIONS
Among the 33 administrators and instructional supervisors in the Guilderland Central School District, theincumbents functioning in their current positions work hard in support of students. These positionsinvolve a myriad of duties and responsibilities in an ever-changing educational environment. Increasedtesting requirements under the No Child Left Behind legislation, school personnel having to addressstudent issues that at one time fell under the domain of parent and family responsibilities, the district’sbullying prevention efforts, and obvious demands within a world where technology is making rapidadvancements — all can be used to justify maintaining the present administrative and supervisorystructure. However, we must also recognize that with ever increasing personnel related costs, specificallyin the areas of health insurance and retirement benefits, coupled with potential declining revenue sources,Guilderland is obligated to examine its present organizational structure as a vehicle to determine wherestreamlining its staff can result in possible reductions. While such changes will impact the way wecurrently do business, the recommendations presented below are realistic, and require careful review andsubsequent discussion.
RECOMMENDATION #1
• REDUCE THE NUMBER OF K-5 ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS FOR 2006-07• ELIMINATE THE K-S ASSISTANT PRINCIPALSHIP FOR 2007-08
Estimated Savings in 2006-07 (including salary and fringe benefits): $95,000Estimated Savings in 2007-08 (including salary and fringe benefits): $105,000
Table 3 shows that Guilderland has the fifth highest student enrollment among the school districtssampled. At the same time, the number ofbuilding administrators (15) exceeds both the North Colonieand South Colonie schools districts by two full-time administrators. The difference appears to be thatGuilderland employs two full-time assistant principals at the K-5 level: 1.0 FTE at Guilderland ElementarySchool (GES) and 1.0 FTE at Westmere Elementary School (WES). Both positions were added in March1999 as part of the district’s restructuring plan when enrollments had been increasing each year. Also, it isimportant to note that in the 2002-03 school year social worker positions, which were once part-time insome buildings (Lynnwood and Pine Bush), were increased to full-time status (also, Altamont in 2003-04).In addition, enrollment trends over the past five years indicate a steady decline which now appears to bestable with little indication that continuous growth is forthcoming based on the district’s five-yearprojections. The many important contributions of our K-5 assistant principals have focused on:
a) staff evaluation;
b) planning professional development activities for teaching assistants;
Page 12
c) addressing student discipline referrals;
d) building safety and security; Ce) scheduling;
f) supervision of after-school and evening special events; and
g) assisting with NYS testing oversight.
In the final analysis, the Board of Education and superintendent must weigh the importance of having full-
time assistant principals at the K-5 level against the budgetary impact at a time of continued escalation in
personnel costs which include salaries and fringe benefits. For this reason, it is recommended that the K-5
assistant principalship be phased out over a two-year period. In the first year, 2006-07, one position will
be eliminated. The remaining assistant principal will be split between two buildings, Guilderland
Elementary School and Westmere Elementary School. The savings generated in the 2006-07 school year
is estimated to be $95,000. In the second year, 2007-08, the part-time K-5 assistant principal positions for
the two buildings, which in actuality is one individual will be discontinued, yielding a savings in the 2007-
08 spending plan of approximately $105,000.
TABLE 6
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ENROLLMENT DATA AT GES AND WES
Guilderland ES Westmere ES
School Year Enrollment Enrollment*
1998-99 610 635
1999-00 631 651
2000-0 1 596 624
2001-02 605 575
2002-03 605 573
2003-04 573 577
2004-05 552 532
2005-06 541 484
2006-07 532 469
2007-08 526 479
2008-09 524 490
*Westmere data do not include up to five BOCES special education classes (3 5-50 students) that have
been housed in the building with students mainstreamed in some cases.
If Recommendation #1 is adopted, the obvious impact will be the additional duties and responsibilities
which must then be assumed by each building principal and phased in over a two-year period. As noted
Page 13
previously, such a change would have an impact, especially with the additional testing required as part ofNo Child Left Behind, but it can be done. Every elementary school in Guilderland has some uniquequalities as well as similarities in its educational program offerings. In fact, current enrollments at PineBush and Westmere are almost the same and with additional housing starts in the western part of thedistrict, it is likely that Pine Bush will exceed Westmere in its student population in the years ahead.
RECOMMENDATION #2
COMBINE THE PART-TIME IIIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH AND SOCIAL STUDIESINSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORS INTO ONE FULL-TIME POSITIONEstimated Savings in 2006-07 (including salaries and fringe benefits): $85,000
In January 2002, two long time supervisors announced their retirements at the end of the 2001-02 schoolyear. Before hiring replacements, several options were discussed, but the final decision was to maintainthe individual site-based supervisors for the combined curriculum areas of mathematics & science at bothFarnsworth Middle School and Guilderland High School. For 2006-07, a similar model is recommendedat the high school for English, Reading and Social Studies, by combining these curriculum areas under theauspices of one full-time supervisor and eliminating the two part-time supervisors (1.55 FTE). By doingso, there will be a level of organizational consistency at both Farnsworth Middle School and GuilderlandHigh School. Furthermore, the span of control (number of teachers in the three departments) will be 41,which is within the range of the three comparable positions already established. The critical factor inGuilderland’s organizational plan for instructional supervision in the basic subject areas has been the sitebased approach wherein the incumbents have been highly visible and readily available in the building.This approach enables the supervisors to address routine as well as unexpected issues which often arise.At the secondary level, this approach has worked well and should be continued. Table 7 below providesadditional information based on the current 2005-06 model.
Page 14
TABLE 7
SPAN OF CONTROL FOR SITE BASED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISORS AT FMS AND GHS (
SUBJECT AREAS GRADE LEVELS DEPARTMENT SIZE
Mathematics & Science 6-8 31
Mathematics & Science 9-12 43
English, Social Studies & Reading 6-8 37
English & Reading 9-12 23
Social Studies 9-12 18
Notes: The high school English Supervisor teaches one section (.25 FTE) and the Social StudiesSupervisor teaches one section and provides Academic Intervention Services (AIS) which equates to .2FTE teaching duties.
RECOMMENDATION #3
RETURN THE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL POSITION TO THE TITLE (OF ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION; MAINTAIN THE FULL-TIME
ADMINISTRATIVE DEAN POSITION AT GUILDERLAND HIGH SCHOOL
Estimated Savings in 2006-07 (salary adjustment): $4,500
In August 2003, the position of Associate Principal was created and the duties of the incumbent who wasthen the high school Administrator for Special Education were expanded. At the time, there was a newhigh school principal in the building and the concept of a joint partnership between the two positions wasa worthy goal. However, in reality, the demands of special education have continued to dominate not onlythe duties but the time requirements despite efforts of the Associate Principal. This has and continues tolimit the Associate Principal from becoming more directly involved in the broader instmctional leadershipareas of building administration, other than the supervision of the guidance department and social workersand assuming the duties of the principal during his absence. The concept, although well intentioned, didnot work as expected and the district might better focus the full-time duties of this administrator, solely onspecial education and related responsibilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the Associate Principalbe abolished and the district return to the model of Administrator for Special Education. Under thisscenario, it will be left to the principal to develop a succession plan, most lilcely determined on a case bycase basis similar to Farnsworth Middle School as to who will provide the decision-making authority inevent of the principal’s short term absence.
Page 15
In July 2004, the duties of the Dean of Students were expanded from .5 FTE to full-time and retitled to
Administrative Dean requiring New York State certification as School Administrator and Supervisor
(SAS) which was not the case previously. The reasons cited for increasing the duties to full-time were:
• A steady enrollment increase over the ten-year period from 1994-95 to 2004-05 totaling more than
500 students.
• Improving the transition for students from middle school to high school. More needed to be done
in this area. In 2005-06, the ninth grade advisory period has been restructured to help create acloser relationship between a single teacher and students new to the building.
• The increasing needs of our high school population whether socially, emotionally, in special
education, or for at-risk students. The objective was to provide additional support for the studentsand teachers, particularly at the ninth grade level.
Although the Administrative Dean focuses much of her time and attention to ninth grade students, theincumbent has contributed to the high school program in many additional ways as one would expect froman administrator such as supervision in the cafeteria and hallways, visiting classrooms, serving on buildinglevel committees, working directly with students and teachers in the Focus program, handling personnelissues, and follow-up on students resulting from disciplinary and academic concerns.
Table 8 on the following page presents data on the ratio of high school administrators to the number ofstudents in grades 9-12. The range of administrators to students extends from a low of 1:288 inMohonasen to a high of 1:513 in North Colonie with an average of 1:408. In Guilderland, the ratio of highschool administrators to students is 1:470 which indicates that the district is top heavy in this areacompared to neighboring Suburban Council high schools. The belief by some that there are too many highschool administrators in Guilderland was not supported by the data collected. More importantly, givenever increasing student needs, the Administrative Dean position has been successful in helping to providesupport for youngsters making the transition from the middle school to the ninth grade.
Page 16
TABLE 8SUBURBAN COUNCIL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ifiGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR COMPARISONS 2005-2006
High School Number of Students Number of Bldg. Adm. * Ratio of Adm./Students
Averill Park 1,160 3 1:387
Baliston Spa 1,379 4 (3.0 FTE) 1:345
Bethlehem 1,721 6(3.6FTE) 1:478
Burnt Hills 1,164 3 1:388
East Greenbush 1,496 6 (5.0 FTE) 1:374
Guilderland 1,880 4* 1:470
Mohonasen 1,095 3.8 1:288
Niskayuna 1,465 3 1:488
North Colonie 2,055 4 1:513
Saratoga 2,095 5* 1:419
Scotia 1,026 3 1:342
Shenendehowa 2,873 9 1:319
South Colonie 1,990 4 1:498
Average: 1:408 C*Does not include administrators whose main function is in special education. These administrators have
been included in the special education category. See Tables 3 and 4.
SUMMARY
From an educational perspective, we value the work of our administrators and supervisors whose services
provide direct benefits to our students and teaching staff. The recommendations included in this report areprovided reluctantly, but realistically in recognition of our current economic climate, limit resources and a
myriad of competing interests in our district. Our goal is to streamline the administrative and supervisory
organizational structure as necessitated by the urgency of controlling annual budgetary costs.
Educationally, our goal is to implement this reduction in administrative and supervisory support with theleast impact possible on our staff, students and educational programs.
If Recommendations #1, #2, and #3 are adopted by the Board of Education, the total savings in the
2006-07 budget is estimated to be $184,500 with an additional reduction in the 2007-08 budget of
$105,000. However, from the outset of this report, the demands of developing the annual spending planand the related concerns about rising expenses should not be limited to the sole examination of
Page 17
administrative costs but must include a review of class size commitments, the completion of the recently
( initiated transportation efficiency study, recommendations prepared by the district’s health insurance
committee as it seeks to control costs without reducing benefits wherever possible, and the ongoing review
of support personnel functions such as the number of teaching assistants. Even the most difficult problems
can be tackled productively through creating a plan which will serve as a starting point for further
discussion and consideration which has been the purpose of preparing this report for review by the Board
of Education.
Page 18
CAPPENDIX A
C
Page 19
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY REPORTS
Since 1997, several reports have been prepared by an outside consultant, Dr. Richard Castallo; formerSuperintendent Blaise Salerno; and the current superintendent, Dr. Gregory Aidala. A summary of thefindings of each effort and the subsequent changes are provided on the following pages. Tn some cases,the resulting administrative changes were triggered by the retirement of the incumbents or an individualwho was no longer employed by the Guilderland Central School District. The rationale for reviewing thecurrent administrative and supervisory structure is twofold: to take into consideration budgetconsiderations as well as to examine program needs which will benefit students and help our staff providemore effective and efficient services. The turnover of teachers, especially with the large number ofretirements since 2000-01, continues to accentuate the importance of proactive supervision for our newemployees as well as our veteran instructional staff. The onset of additional testing requirements under NoChild Left Behind which are now being administered for the first time in 2005-06, also exemplifies thecritical instructional leadership role of administrators and supervisors.
A. Administrative Efficiency Study - Dr. Richard Castaflo Spring 1997This report generated 14 recommendations and was highlighted by a restructuring proposal that called for:
• adding 2.5 assistant principals at the elementary school level;
increasing the middle school house principals from .75 FTE to full time;• relieving the current high school assistant principal from .5 administrative duties in special
education;
• creating a 1.0 FTE frne arts supervisor by combining art and music positions; and• transitioning from building level curriculum supervisors at the middle school and high school to a
combined secondary level per subject area.
No action was taken on Dr. Castallo’s recommendations until September 1999 (see “B.” below). Many ofhis findings were not supported by the administrative staff.
B. Administrative and Supervisory Staff Reorganization - Blaise Salerno September 1999Using parts of Dr. Castallo’s findings as a framework which were coupled with other issues of immediateconcern, Superintendent Blaise Salerno developed a long range administrative plan. He also cited thedifficulties of attracting administrative applicants based on a shrinking pool of candidates (reopenedsearches in Guilderland for art and music supervisor positions in 1999-00) and having lost an artsupervisor who accepted a similar position in a neighboring district for a $15,000 boost in salary whichprompted him to recommend several changes that were introduced and approved by the Board ofEducation (check mark indicates that the change was recommended and enacted by the Board).
‘ Superintendent Salerno based his plan on the following objectives:
Page 20
1) We must align the duties ascribed to each administrative and supervisory position so that there is
logic associated with the tasks. (2) We must design the job so that the person in it has some expectation of being able to get it done
and be effective.
3) We must adjust salaries so that we stop the drain of our current staff away to other districts and
when vacancies do occur, there is validity to the statement that our salary and benefit package
attracts a larger pooi of skilled and experienced candidates.
4) We must modify jobs in a manner which will cause young people to not only see that the work
done by administrators and supervisors is valued, but that because of the potential impact on
children and education, they will aspire to those positions.
5) We must create entry level positions which will assure a stream of well-trained people who have aknowledge of us, our values and our aspirations for children.
1999-00
/ Mid-year addition of assistant principals at Guilderland Elementary School and
Westmere Elementary School.
V Addition of a full-time Health and Career Education Supervisor.
V K-12 Music supervisor becomes full time (+.2 FTE).
/ House principals at Farnsworth become full time (+.75 E). CV Full-time supervisor created for special education at the high school.
V School Business Official title upgraded to Assistant Superintendent for Business.
2000-01
/ K-12 Art Supervisor increased from .5 to .8 FTE.
/ Foreign language supervisor increased from .8 to 1.0 FTE with ESL duties formally
added to the position responsibility.
V Administrator for special education at FMS increased from .5 to 1.0 FTE.
I Added a full-time staff development position.
• Purchasing agent (recommended but never implemented).
• Assistant Supervisor for Buildings & Grounds (recommended but never implemented).
2001-02
• Assistant Principals at Lynnwood and Pine Bush (.5 FTE at each building
recommended but never implemented).
• Add a Social Studies Supervisor for grades 6-12 (+.55 FTE) while increasing
the English/Reading Supervisor positions at both the middle school and high
school to full-time (recommended but never implemented).
• Separate the Math and Science Supervisor positions at the middle school and high
school to science only and create a full-time Math Supervisor for grades
Page 21
6-12 (recommended but never implemented).
2002-03
Administrator for Pupil Services (recommended but never implemented).
C. Creation of Director and Assistant Director for Health, Physical Education, &
Interscholastic Athletics - Gregory Aidala June 2001
After the resignation of the former Physical Education Supervisor and Athletic Director
in March 2001, an administrative restructuring plan was presented to the Board of Education. At that
time, there were two full-time supervisors in place (a flu-time Physical Education Supervisor and
Athletic Director as well as the 1.0 FTE Health and Careers Supervisor) and a part-time assistant
Athletic Director at the middle school (.2 FTE). After considering several options, the Board of
Education approved a plan which called for two supervisory positions to be maintained but re-titled as
Director of Health, Physical Education and Interscholastic Athletics (office in the high school) and
Assistant Director of Health, Physical Education and Interscholastic Athletics with the office located
in the middle school (Total: 2.0 FTE). This approach offered the most flexibility and probability of
meeting district needs with respect to curriculum coordination, supervision of all teaching and
coaching personnel, continuation of district initiatives, and improving the overall interscholastic
athletic program. The part-time former duties at the middle school were eliminated. In addition, the
cost under the revised plan was less than the overall expenditure under the previous structure. The
key component was to hire two supervisors who were philosophically compatible, willing to work
together in coordinating and delineating the list of assigned duties and responsibilities, and committed
to ensuring that all facets of the two positions (health, physical education and interscholastic athletics)
were adequately addressed in terms of the time commitment to all levels within the K-12
organization. Given the number of athletic programs that we offer in Guilderland (where an
administrator is always on duty for a home event), these two supervisory positions involve a
commitment of many late afternoons and evenings. Also, as part of this transition, a Facilities
Coordinator stipend was created to schedule the use of gymnasium facilities in consultation with
building principals, the Adult Education Director, and town recreation programs.
D. A Review of Supervisory Unit Positions in the Guilderland Central School District -
Gregory Aidala January 2002
With the impending retirements of two instructional supervisors at the end of the 200 1-02 school
year, the district used the opportunity again to review its supervisory organization. Both Fran
Angellotti and Dale Westcott were responsible for overseeing the Mathematics, Science and
( Technology departments with 33 and 42 members, respectively. Combined at the time of their
— retirements, they had over 75 years of service in the Guilderland school system. After much
discussion at the Board of Education level, it was decided to maintain the approach already in place
Page 22
which was to have individual site-based supervisors at both Farnsworth Middle School and
Guilderland High School. As an alternative, the option of shifting to separate secondary supervisors Cfor mathematics (grades 6-12) and science (grades 6-12) covering two buildings was explored. Also
included in the plan, was an effort to reduce the number of teachers assigned to the Mathematics and
Science Supervisors by shifting technology to a part-time Business & Career Education Coordinator.
An additional change included reducing the teaching load of the Art Supervisor by .2 FTE because of
the responsibilities associated with covering seven buildings in the district. All of the changes
implemented for the 2003-04 school year were expected to result in a net savings of $4,500 compared
to the previous year.
E. Additional Administrative Changes Since 2003-04
In January 2003, a Revised Administrator and Supervisor Organizational Plan was presented to the
Board of Education. As part of this report, the middle school Supervisor for English, Social Studies
& Reading who was due to retire in June 2003 was replaced without changing the scope of duties and
responsibilities. The same approach was followed in hiring a new Supervisor for Foreign Language
& English as a Second Language (ESL) when this position became vacant due to a retirement. Also
included in this review, the position of Administrator for Instructional Programs held by Nancy
Andress was elevated to the rank of Assistant Superintendent for Instruction (and an additional salary
increase of $3,000 was approved by the Board).
With the hiring of a new high school principal in August 2003, the duties of the building
Administrator for Special Education were expanded and re-titled to Associate Principal. Under this
plan, there was an expectation of broader leadership in working with the new high school principal
and the instructional supervisors. The Associate Principal was scheduled to actively participate in the
recruitment, selection, and supervision of personnel and planning professional development for the
faculty and staff (rather than the student discipline model of assistant principals). Expanded duties
also included the supervision of the guidance department and social workers as well as assuming the
duties of principal in his absence. This action was approved by the Board of Education in August
2003 with a salary increase of $4,500.
In June 2004, the long time incumbent assistant principal at Guilderland High School announced his
retirement, effective in August. The retirement was unanticipated and therefore, no budgetary
adjustment was included in the 2004-05 spending plan. After hiring a new assistant principal, the
superintendent recommended to the Board of Education that the duties of the Dean of Students be
retitled and upgraded from a .5 FTE position to full-time along with the requirement that the
replacement must hold NYS administrative certification (not previously the case). The rationale for
this change was based on:
Page 23
a) an increase in enrollment at Guilderland High School from 1994-95 to 2004-05 of over
500 students when the Dean of Students position was first created;
improving the transition from middle school (grade 8) to high school (grade 9) which was a high
priority;
c) the district had embarked on its bullying preventive initiative and there were ever
increasing needs among students socially and emotionally as well as for those students
who were at-risk or receiving special education services; and
d) providing additional support for teachers, especially since the high school had experienced
significant turnover since 2000.
The budget impact in 2004-05 for this change was an expenditure increase of approximately $6,000
(takes into account the $25,000 “breakage” being the difference between the senior administrator who
had retired and his replacement hired at an entry level). This recommendation was discussed by the
Board of Education at its July 2004 meeting and subsequently approved by a margin of 6-3. For the
first year, quarterly updates of the work being performed by the new high school Administrative Dean
were provided to the Board and a program report was made at the February 2005 meeting. As a
general comment, the work of the Administrative Dean over the past 18 months has been extremely
helpful to students (see Recommendation #3 earlier in this report).
Page 24
APPENDIX B
GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOLS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION REVIEW
QUESTIONS
DECEMBER 2008
1. How has the current administrative structure supported the mission and vision of the district?
2. Does the current administrative structure enhance professional staff collegiality?
3. Under what circumstances would require an administrative reorganization?
4. Are there areas where role ambiguity necessitates clarification of titles?
5. Are there issues of time equity among supervisors?
6. What state or national mandates andlor trends do you envision impacting the GCSadministrative staff in the future?
7. What dynamics have changed since the February 2006 report that may require modifications tothe current administrative structure?
APPENDIX C
GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT TRENDS *
GR4DE LEVEL K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12
2006-07 2140 1362 1873 5425
2007-08 2108 1300 1903 5365
2008-09 2141 1222 1907 5323
2009-10 2105 1229 1857 5244
2010-11 2096 1240 1785 5174
2011-12 2051 1267 1705 5076
2012-13 2073 1213 1663 5002
2013-14 2091 1179 1654 4977
By 2013-14, the K-12 enrollment is projected to decline by 346 students. Of that, K-5 isprojected to decline by 50 students; grades 6-8 by 43 students and grades 9-12 by 253 students.
* Source: Guilderland Central School Enrollment Projections (January 16, 2009)
APPENDIX D
Capital Area School Development Association
The Capital Area School Development Association (CASDA) is a study councilchartered by the New York State Education Department and is affiliated with the Schoolof Education, University at Albany, State University of New York.1 Incorporated in 1949as a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization, CASDA is the oldest study council in the UnitedStates. Currently there are 114 school districts and private institutions that are affiliatesrepresenting over 10,000 teachers and 175,000 students PreK-12.
CASDA serves a number of purposes in the Capital Region educational community:
• Serves as a cooperative planning, research and development unit throughwhich affiliated schools and educational agencies may more effectively defineand fulfill their purposes and functions in serving the educational needs oftheir communities.
• Promotes cooperative interaction between the University at Albany, StateUniversity of New York (a research university) and school districts, socialagencies and businesses.
• Responds to requests for information and data by providing its affiliates withtimely, relevant research as requested.
• Provides educational seminars and workshops to meet ongoing professionaland support staff development.
• Conducts “think tank” initiatives leading to “white papers” that inform theeducation community and the wider public on cutting edge issues ineducation.
• Provides on-site consultation to affiliated school districts.
An executive board representing the senior leadership/management of the affiliatedschool districts governs CASDA. This group, along with representatives from theUniversity at Albany, forms the CASDA Executive Committee. Thirteen sittingsuperintendents, the dean of the school of education and two research-orientedprofessors meet six times per year to review programming, finances and pertinentissues relating to the operation and function of CASDA.
CASDA has university standing as a unit attached to the School of Education, and receives financial andin-kind support from the university. However, CASDA functions with considerable autonomy by virtue ofits charter that affords membership to individual school districts (affiliates), oversight by an ExecutiveCommittee, administration by an Executive Director appointed by the Executive Committee who is not auniversity employee, and funding streams other than support provided by the university (e.g. membershipfees, revenue generating activities).
APPENDIX E
SIMILAR SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCATIONS
SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE COUNTY
Baldwin UFSD Baldwin, New York 11510 Nassau
Baldwinsville CSD Baldwinsville New York 13027 Onondaga
Bay Shore UFSD Bay Shore, New York 11706 Suffolk
BellmoreMerrick CHSD’ North Merrick, New York 11566 Nassau
East Islip TJFSD Islip TelTace, New York 11752 Suffolk
Mahopac CSD Mahopac, New York 10541 Putnam
North Colonie CSD Latham, New York 12110 Albany
South Colonie CSD Albany, New York 12205 Albany
West Islip IJFSD West Islip, New York 11795 Suffolk
/4j tburh.
Snt Lawrence
- Oneida
miIIa b If
a -
- ‘ate’e •OYU9a ia.-4-- c-’’ ‘r“-,‘
vare
W% IIfl/ uete4
t1.Newyorl Suffolk
• •AInkuI ,
uL) dl
eorne’ Queens- a ii -.
‘“Central High School District”- Middle and High School Only
C
C