Good is Still the Enemy of Great

In 2001, American society was introduced to Jim Collin’s work, Good to Great. The first and greatest takeaway from this book is that indeed good is the enemy of great. Good is not good enough.

As we prepare to launch the class of 2017, I am reminded of Collin’s mantra. I encourage the class of 2017 to be more than good. Work to be great. Collins elaborates on 7 principles that take a company from good to great. I believe these principals can take a person from good to great.

Level 5 Leadership: Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company. The class of 2017 needs to strive to lead. Leadership is earned. Pay your dues with your work ethic. Embrace starting at the bottom and working to the top.

First Who, Then What: Get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to go. Finding the right people and trying them out in different positions. Surround yourself with successful people. Like minded individuals perform similarly. If you want to be employed, hang around people who work. If you want to be charitable, associate yourself with volunteers. Those who chose to be less than great, associate themselves with others who chose to be less than great.

Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale paradox—Confront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope. Know the hurdles you have in front of you. Also know that desire and commitment can drive you to accomplishment. Your greatness is demonstrated when you achieve. You may never cure cancer. You may never go to the NBA. Those facts do not stop you from achieving greatness. What do you have inside of you that allows you to contribute to society? Share your greatness with society! Make your community better because you are there and part of it.

Hedgehog Concept: Three overlapping circles: What lights your fire ("passion")? What could you be best in the world at ("best at")? What makes you money ("driving resource")? You are about to embark on a 47 year journey (at least) before you can retire. Find your passion. Combine your talents with your interests into a career. You should be employed for the rest of your life, but hopefully you do not have to “work.” When your passion is your employment you have a job for life but it does not feel like work.

Culture of Discipline: Rinsing the cottage cheese. Collins describes the level of commitment Dave Scott, the first six-time Ironman Triathon World Champion, had with every detail of his training. While he burned 5,000 calories a day he STILL was extremely disciplined to the point of rinsing his cottage cheese to get as much fat off of his fuel as possible. Who does that? People who find every small way to be that much better than their competition. The people who don’t see discipline as a hassle or kill-joy, rather an opportunity to be their very best. 

Technology Accelerators: Using technology to accelerate growth, within the three circles of the hedgehog concept. Use technology to your advantage. Use technology responsibly. Good to Great does not allow for social idiocy. Slamming one another, insulting one another through the anonymity of social media degrades humanity.

The Flywheel: The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest. Good to Great comes about by a cumulative process. Step by step, action by action, decision by decision, turn by turn of the flywheel adds up to sustained and spectacular results. Often organizations or people who are “overnight successes” have been working at it for years.

Never settle for less than your best. Be a leader. Remember Humorist Robert Benchley once told us, that unless you’re the lead dog, the view never changes. Confront and conquer your obstacle. You can overcome. You do not have to avoid. Be passionate! Be Great! Make the most of your blessings! Arthur Ashe reminds us that success is a journey not a destination. Find ways to be better than the competition. Technology is a tool, not a weapon. May the culminating efforts of cranking your fly wheel result in your overnight success.

Measuring Proficiency in the World of Career and Technical Education

The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December, 2015, ushered in a new era for K-12 education that ensures all students are prepared for college- and career-success. The new law places unprecedented emphasis on the role of CTE in achieving positive outcomes for all students, including through integration of CTE and academics, increased emphasis on career guidance and counseling, and inclusion of career readiness indicators in accountability systems.

The implementation process for the new law is now underway, which the U.S. Department of Education plans to have fully completed by 2017-18 school year. For the roll-out of this new law to provide maximum support to CTE students and professionals, it is important that ACTE members and the CTE community understand the opportunities presented for their programs.

Since the federal government has made changes to its principal law governing education, each state must then make adjustments to align with federal mandate. The summary of those changes will be in the new “measuring stick” for schools the Future Ready PA Index.

The Future Ready PA Index will measure how students achieve in reading, math, and science. It will also measure growth. Additionally, the index will have an increased emphasis on career and technical education programs of study.  Industry recognized standards such as NOCTI or NIMS will be measurements for career readiness.

The NOCTI is the National Occupational Competency Testing Institute. It delivers a number of standardized tests for students studying career and technical programs. The assessments are based on a job and task analysis process. The NOCTI is part written test and part performance. In order to be proficient, students must have not only the knowledge of a particular trade, but be able to demonstrate the ability to perform entry level work. The assessments are updated on a regular basis. They are aligned with national academic standards (math, science and language arts) as well as business and industry standards. A number of the assessments are linked to industry certifications programs.

            The NIMS is the National Institute for Metalworking Skills. NIMS was formed in 1994 by the metalworking trade associations to develop and maintain a globally competitive American workforce. NIMS sets skills standards for the industry, certifies individual skills against the standards and accredits training programs that meet NIMS quality requirements. 

            The students at LCCTC have tested over 90% proficient in each of the last 3 years in the NOCTI and NIMS. We have consistently performed amongst the top 5 comprehensive ctcs in the state over that same period of time. As the ESSA looks to broaden the measures for students to demonstrate proficiency, LCCTC welcomes the change and appreciates the opportunity to demonstrate our achievement in the essential area of career and technical education. In order for American manufacturing to grow, we must have the skilled labor force that a 21^st century economy needs.

SB76 Ends School Property Tax (not really)!

            The SB76 School Property Tax Elimination may be misnamed. The title of the bill provides a great sound bite. Legislators are going to be hard pressed to vote against the illusion of the elimination of school property tax. The goal of SB76 is to eliminate all school property taxes across the Commonwealth and replace those taxes with a combination of funding from the Personal Income Tax and the Sales and Use Tax. The elimination of school property taxes effectively removes the taxing authority of locally elected school boards and transfers local control over education programs to the government of the Commonwealth located in Harrisburg.

SB76 Increases the Sales and Use Tax by one percentage point and increases items to be taxed by the state sales tax. . The sales tax would increase for 6% to 7%. More services and products will be subject to tax. Increase in the state’s personal income tax from 3.07 percent to 4.95 percent.

The bill targets most school property taxes, but do not eliminate them completely or other local property taxes (county, local municipality). School districts would keep a portion of their taxing authority to satisfy their respective debt service. The bill fails to be a net tax cut for the citizens of Pennsylvania. Rather it shifts the tax burden to sales tax increases and personal income tax increases while leaving a portion of the local school property tax in play.

If the property tax is eliminated, not all communities will be winners. Taxpayers in some districts will pay simultaneous increases in the state personal income tax and sales and use tax while still paying school property taxes. In these districts, taxpayers will be subject to double taxation, paying significant state tax increases while continuing to pay some or their entire current school property tax bill and all of their county and municipal property taxes.

Additionally, 215 of the state’s 500 school districts (43 percent of all districts statewide) will retain at least 20 percent of their existing school property tax, and 23 districts will keep at least 50 percent of their current property tax to pay for existing debt.

A few school districts will still need all or nearly their entire current property tax levy to fund existing debt payments. Educators understand that people generally hate the property tax and the threat it causes to people on fixed incomes. However, there are ways to address that problem without wholesale elimination.

            Specifically Lawrence County schools will be able to keep the following percentage of real estate taxes to cover existing debt:

o   Ellwood City SD        19.12%

o   Laurel SD                  29.16%

o   Mohawk SD               26.38%

o   Neshannock SD         14.51%

o   New Castle SD           51.54%

o   Shenango SD             0.00%

o   Union SD                   17.70%

o   Wilmington SD          26.29%

A proposal to eliminate property taxes will further increase the disparities in school funding. The elimination of the property tax effectively ends the new basic education funding formula. This formula was designed to create equity and stability. The formula not only hinges on a measure of local tax effort, but was designed to account for student and district characteristics. Property tax elimination would further entrench the inequities in our funding system.

The elimination of school property taxes leaves individuals holding the bag. Under current law, commercial businesses pay approximately $3 billion in school property tax. Under the proposal commercial business would pay $1 billion in school property tax. The bill equates to a $2 billion tax cut for business. The cut will supposedly be offset by increased collection of personal income taxes or sales taxes. The offset for business comes at the expense of employees.

The bill also trusts that the state will fund local schools without local input. Currently, the Laurel S.D. receives approximately 2/3 of its funding from the state. Local schools will have no control over their financial future and stability. The inability of a district to levy property taxes may impact the district’s ability to pay for any new federal or state mandates, or expand the academic or extracurricular programming of the district. The state must consider expenditures when appropriating revenues.

Also, the bill curtails school districts’ ability to incur new debt and would prohibit districts from responding to immediate need for cash. If the state fails to pass a budget, districts would be unable to proceed with a Tax Anticipation Note (TAN). The doors of the school would literally be locked and the facilities cease operation. Local school boards would unable to respond to maintenance and repair needs for school facilities.

            The bill locks in disparity. Some of the poorest districts in the state generate only $1,100 per student in property tax. Some of the wealthiest districts in the state generate $24,000 per student in local property tax. The bill will send $1,100 per student to one district and 22 times that amount to another district. Somehow, this makes sense in Harrisburg.

The property tax is a stable and predictable source of funding for the schools. Unlike personal income or sales, the property tax base is less prone to fluctuate from year to year. Revenue from sales tax and income tax obviously will be higher during economic prosperity and lower during economic down turns. The sudden decrease of revenue would cause a significant negative impact on programming curricular and extracurricular offered to students.

This legislation will have the Commonwealth assume virtually all the authority once held by local school boards, effectively eliminating local control. With no ability to raise revenue or make financial decisions at the local level, the state will be responsible for ensuring that districts have the resources to comply with all mandated costs. By removing a local school board’s authority and ability to respond to the needs of its students and residents, the state will be responsible for the financial health of all 500 school districts.

Should this bill become law, the cuts would be Draconian. Taxpayers can expect reduction in personnel and programs. Class sizes will increase. Educational resources will be cut. Professional development will be limited or eliminated. Athletics and other extracurricular activities will be a luxury.

The system we have to currently fund schools is imperfect. Its replacement should be less imperfect. SB76 is an example of creating more problems to an existing problem rather than finding a solution.

Trying to Make Sense of PSSA, Keystone Scores, and SPP

	2016 PSSA Mathematics Results
	Total  number	% Below Basic	%Basic	% Proficient	% Advanced	% Advanced/Proficient
3rd grade	124642	24.6	21	28.1	26.3	54.4
4th grade	123651	27.6	25.9	26.7	19.9	46.6
5th grade	122776	28	27.6	25.9	18.5	44.4
6th grade	125088	30.1	28.8	24.2	16.9	41.1
7th grade	124781	34.9	28.1	23.7	13.3	37.0
8th grade	123003	40.2	28.6	20.8	10.5	31.2
	2016 PSSA English Language Arts Results
	Total number	% Below Basic	%Basic	% Proficient	% Advanced	% Advanced/Proficient
3rd grade	124507	13.6	25.5	45.7	15.2	60.9
4th grade	123308	12.2	29.1	34.0	24.7	58.7
5th grade	122662	14.1	24.4	45.3	16.2	61.5
6th grade	125047	8.6	29.8	38.9	22.7	61.7
7th grade	124784	5.0	33.5	43.3	18.2	61.5
8th grade	123100	11.3	30.4	40.9	17.5	58.4
	2016 PSSA Science Results
	Total number	% Below Basic	%Basic	% Proficient	% Advanced	% Advanced/Proficient
3rd grade	NA					NA
4th grade	123527	11.6	12.1	36.7	39.5	76.2
5th grade	NA					NA
6th grade	NA					NA
7th grade	NA					NA
8th grade	122782	25.5	16.8	30.4	27.3	57.7
	2016 Keystone Results
	Total  number	% Below Basic	%Basic	% Proficient	% Advanced	% Advanced/Proficient
Algebra I	123525	8.4	23.3	47.6	20.6	68.2
Literature	123292	6.2	17.0	66.8	10.0	76.8
Biology	122834	14.6	19.7	38.6	27.1	65.7

                The state recently “scored” all public schools in Pennsylvania. The school report card is the School Performance Profile. Schools are given a score from 0-100. Schools that score between 90-100 are at the apex. Schools that score between 80-89 are exceeding state expectations. Scores between 70-79 are at state expectations. Schools between 60-69 are below state expectations in a “warning” or “cautionary” status. Schools below 60 are considered failing. You can see how any PUBLIC school scored at http://www.paschoolperformance.org/.

                Approximately 40% of a school’s score is based on standardized test results. The chart above explains how the state faired on the tests. You can you this chart to compare your school against the state average. As you review the state scores and local scores a few observations come to mind.

As the grade level increases, proficiency in math across the state decreases. Approximately 2/3 of 7^th and 8^th grade students are failing the state math test. Several plausible reasons exist. As the students grow older the test becomes more rigorous. Another explanation could be that the test rigor increases beyond the acceleration of the students. Detractors of public education may point to ineffective instruction.

The state has created and endorsed a series of math tests that averages a 42.45% Advanced/Proficient. Therefore, close to 58% of all tested students are below state expectations in math. Either the students and teachers of Pennsylvania are incapable, or the state expects all students to reach an unattainable standard.

Although ELA proficiency averages are higher than math, more than 1/3 of all PA students were basic or below basic across all grade levels. So again the reflection goes to the students, the teachers, the curriculum, or the state expectations and testing mechanism as defined by Pennsylvania Core Standards as assessed on the PSSA.

Science proficiency falls by a 1/3 from 4^th to 8^th grade, from 76.2% who passed to 57.7%. The reflective process parallels math. What is the cause? Why did almost 20% of our public school students performance worse than they did 4 years ago? If the assumption is made that some things are relative (the students are older and more capable, the teachers in 8^th grade are as effective as the teachers in 4^th), then the problem is the rigor of the state curriculum and standards. Again, detractors will point to ineffective instruction. Without definitive research, the conclusion will be based upon perspective.

High school students must pass Keystone Exams in literature, biology, and algebra in order to graduate. Between ¼ and 1/3 of all high school students fail any of the 3 keystone exams. On average Keystone Exam proficiency is higher than PSSA proficiency. Of those students who fail any Keystone, approximately 50% will never pass any retest regardless of intervention, remediation, tutoring, etc.

The trend lines are clear. The interpretation of the trend line is up to the reviewer. If you are confident in your school and the teachers, then recognize the hurdle that the current system of standardized tests creates. If you are a critic of public education, then you have evidence that we are less than successful.

To be clear, the intent is not to avoid accountability. The intent is to educate as to the task. If proficiency in gym class were dunking the basketball, how would you do? We could give you extended time, would you pass? Mr. Michael Jordan and Mr. Lebron James could be your teachers, could you then dunk? With a strong curriculum and strong instruction, all students can learn and make progress. We should push our students to achieve all that they can. The finish line should be attainable.

Election 2016 - It makes me sick

I had problems sleeping last night. I am sick to my stomach this morning. Why? I must vote. It sickens me that either Donald J. Trump or Hillary R. Clinton will be a successor to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt.

I have voted proudly for President since the general election of 1988. I can make no such proud vote today. I participate, but I am not optimistic. We are a country of polarization. Gone are the days when Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan could argue during the day and then share dinner together. The 24 hour news cycle has turned us into a country of arguments not ideas.


The Constitution itself is "The Great Compromise." The Virginia Plan, and the New Jersey Plan gave way to the Connecticut Compromise. A bicameral legislature with an independent executive. The give and take of compromise created the strongest country of the last 225+ years.

Polls and pundits matter more than people. We are statistics. To them I am a white, male, college educated, Democratic between 35-54 years old. I prefer to be known as father, husband, or PUBLIC school administrator. I am polled and predictions made based upon my "demographic."

The national Republican Party does NOT represent me. The national Democratic Party does NOT represent me. In the past I have voted for people, not parties. So today my priority will not be who is the best person, but rather who will do the least damage. My priority is as follows: I want judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison not judicial activism. I am pro-life not just for the unborn child but for the criminally condemned. Protection from the infringement of government upon my individual liberties. Freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion.

So today in addition to voting, I will pray for this one nation under God. I pray this country "has a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

One Postsecondary Option Does Not Fit All

I am not a fan of college for all. Students today have a variety of post-secondary options. The average entry level tradesman makes around $40k per year and has limited to no debt. The average college graduate enters the work force at the same level, $40K, but is loaded with about $35,000.00 in debt on average. Many students owe a considerable amount more.

Post-secondary options must  be a cost-benefit analysis. If we make the investment, what will be the return? Will the career choice allow for debt repayment and a reasonable standard of living.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholaswyman/2015/09/01/why-we-desperately-need-to-bring-back-vocational-training-in-schools/2/#6f67b2e865e5

Throughout most of U.S. history, American high school students were routinely taught vocational and job-ready skills along with the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. Indeed readers of a certain age are likely to have fond memories of huddling over wooden workbenches learning a craft such as woodwork or maybe metal work, or any one of the hands-on projects that characterized the once-ubiquitous shop class.

 But in the 1950s, a different philosophy emerged: the theory that students should follow separate educational tracks according to ability. The idea was that the college-bound would take traditional academic courses (Latin, creative writing, science, math) and received no vocational training. Those students not headed for college would take basic academic courses, along with vocational training, or “shop.”

Ability tracking did not sit well with educators or parents, who believed students were assigned to tracks not by aptitude, but by socio-economic status and race. The result being that by the end of the 1950s, what was once a perfectly respectable, even mainstream educational path came to be viewed as a remedial track that restricted minority and working-class students.

The backlash against tracking, however, did not bring vocational education back to the academic core. Instead, the focus shifted to preparing all students for college, and college prep is still the center of the U.S. high school curriculum.

So what’s the harm in prepping kids for college? Won’t all students benefit from a high-level, four-year academic degree program? As it turns out, not really. For one thing, people have a huge and diverse range of different skills and learning styles. Not everyone is good at math, biology, history and other traditional subjects that characterize college-level work. Not everyone is fascinated by Greek mythology, or enamored with Victorian literature, or enraptured by classical music. Some students are mechanical; others are artistic. Some focus best in a lecture hall or classroom; still others learn best by doing, and would thrive in the studio, workshop or shop floor.

And not everyone goes to college. The latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that about 68% of high school students attend college. That means over 30% graduate with neither academic nor job skills.

But even the 68% aren’t doing so well. Almost 40% of students who begin four-year college programs don’t complete them, which translates into a whole lot of wasted time, wasted money, and burdensome student loan debt. Of those who do finish college, one-third or more will end up in jobs they could have had without a four-year degree. The BLS found that 37% of currently employed college grads are doing work for which only a high school degree is required.

It is true that earnings studies show college graduates earn more over a lifetime than high school graduates. However, these studies have some weaknesses. For example, over 53% of recent college graduates are unemployed or under-employed. And income for college graduates varies widely by major – philosophy graduates don’t nearly earn what business studies graduates do. Finally, earnings studies compare college graduates to all high school graduates. But the subset of high school students who graduate with vocational training – those who go into well-paying, skilled jobs – the picture for non-college graduates looks much rosier.

Yet despite the growing evidence that four-year college programs serve fewer and fewer of our students, states continue to cut vocational programs. In 2013, for example, the Los Angeles Unified School District, with more than 600,000 students, made plans to cut almost all of its CTE programs by the end of the year. The justification, of course, is budgetary; these programs (which include auto body technology, aviation maintenance, audio production, real estate and photography) are expensive to operate. But in a situation where 70% of high school students do not go to college, nearly half of those who do go fail to graduate, and over half of the graduates are unemployed or underemployed, is vocational education really expendable? Or is it the smartest investment we could make in our children, our businesses, and our country’s economic future?

The U.S. economy has changed. The manufacturing sector is growing and modernizing, creating a wealth of challenging, well-paying, highly skilled jobs for those with the skills to do them. The demise of vocational education at the high school level has bred a skills shortage in manufacturing today, and with it a wealth of career opportunities for both under-employed college grads and high school students looking for direct pathways to interesting, lucrative careers. Many of the jobs in manufacturing are attainable through apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and vocational programs offered at community colleges. They don’t require expensive, four-year degrees for which many students are not suited.