Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Candidate Q+A

To read responses from candidates in other races including Spokane mayor, go to spokesman.com/elections.

Here are the candidates’ responses to questions submitted by The Spokesman-Review. Spokane School Board members serve six-year terms and can earn up to $4,800 per year. Find more local election news at www.spokesman.com/elections

Q. By 2012, Spokane Public Schools will likely face budget cuts for the 10th year in a row. Where would you look for trims?

Deana Brower:

At this point, budgetary cuts are a reality for our students, educators, and staff at schools.  Future cuts must be made as far from our classrooms as possible. The efficiency and effectiveness of our support operations must be evaluated and budgetary adjustments must be made to ensure positive return on our investment in each program. 

The first place I would look to reduce funding would be any program that does not produce positive educational results for our students and our schools.  

Bob Griffing:

Freeze teacher salaries at their 2011-’12 levels, including step increases. Do not fill vacant positions where possible. Reduce the budget positions for central administration by as much as $3 million and for school site administration (principals, assistant principals and office staff) also by as much as $3 million. This is to be reached by reducing the number of positions instead of reducing salaries.

Examine all activities in terms of what they directly contribute to producing well-educated students. Programs, such as the district’s public television station (KSPS), should only be retained if they demonstrate their contribution to the central purpose of Spokane Schools.

Privatize more of the non-teaching functions performed by District 81. If outside contractors can successfully operate buses and provide food service, then janitorial and maintenance services can also be performed more flexibly and inexpensively by contractors. Substantial portions of data processing, accounting and human relations could also be advantageously outsourced.

Institute or increase student/family co-payments for extra-curricular activities; a two tier co-payment system based on family income (indexed by free and reduced price lunch qualification) should apply.

For the foreseeable future, Spokane Public Schools will have to fulfill its purpose – producing well-educated students – with ever-decreasing resources. The way forward is to become “lean and mean” in the operations, sharpening our focus on our students.

Sally Fullmer :

Spokane Public Schools has 1,769 fewer students now than in 2000 and yet its budget has actually increased by $60 million since then. Only 59 cents of every District 81 dollar goes to the classroom, according to information obtained from the Washington Policy Center. I would take a hard look at the other 41 cents for waste and ineffective programs. We should fight against unfunded mandates that do not improve the student’s education, and eliminate new unnecessary expenditures to avoid cutting personnel who directly impact the students. I will not threaten to cut music, sports, art, etc., but will cut bureaucracy. I will not approve bond or levy wording that misleads the public. Transparency and honest dialogue between the district, the board and the public is essential.

Rod Roduner:

From the top down, superintendent, assistant superintendents, associate superintendents, executive directors, high school and junior high principals. It is unconscionable to give out 3 percent to 5.15 percent pay increases to principals and top administrators during a time when budgets are exhausted. Their excuse, “Supervisors can’t make less than the people they supervise.” Neither party should have received a raise. Teachers have not received a cost-of-living increase for three years.

Larry Vandervert:

The “share of employees who are classroom teachers: 42 percent, is less than the state average of 47 percent,” according to the Washington Policy Center. The first strategy for student success listed by Spokane Public Schools – defined in general as ensuring all students reach or exceed individual learning goals aligned with district standards and high school graduation requirements – is a directive that must be accomplished by the administration; starting, of course, with the management skills of the superintendent.

This strategy grounding is the obvious basis for overall thinking about budgetary problems. If the desired results specified in Strategy 1 are met at a rate above the state averages, then the administration is making a contribution of high value; if the results specified in Strategy 1 are not being met at a rate above the state average, the board must ask itself if the superintendent’s services are of educational value to the school district’s mission statement and overall strategies.

Q. What position do you take on class sizes? Do you think they can increase without a negative effect on learning? What grade levels or types of classes do you think are the most important to keep as they are now or make smaller?

Brower:

I agree with the voters of Washington who approved Initiative 728 that smaller class sizes in K-4 classrooms is a priority. 

Unfortunately, our state Legislature suspended this funding and has shortchanged our district over $400 per pupil last year and closer to $500 per pupil next year.

The research on the relationship between class size reduction and student performance suggests that on its own, class size reduction may not yield improvements. However, research shows when highly effective teachers are supported with smaller class sizes students demonstrate greater achievement. This is particularly true for kindergarten and primary classrooms, as well as classrooms with high poverty rates or students with special needs.

As a school board director, I feel our district should seek to hire and maintain highly effective teachers, and we should give our students the opportunity to maximize their benefit from those teachers with low class sizes. 

Griffing:

It appears that there is recent research on this issue, which puts landmark studies on class size in a more nuanced light than has been traditionally argued. As was discussed during the budget process this year, modest increases in class size are unlikely to significantly impact learning, at least at the secondary level. That being said, I advocate maintaining current class sizes, especially at the elementary level, for as long as possible. At the elementary level, I would also advocate increasing the number of qualified parent classroom volunteers wherever possible.

Fullmer:

Class size matters, but so does strong curriculum and good teachers. Keep smaller classes through elementary school, especially the lower grades. Require remediation for those achieving below grade level. By fifth grade, students should be reading at grade level, writing in complete sentences and doing basic math without a calculator. If they can’t do these things, they must be required to take remedial classes. They will then be more likely to succeed in a larger class if it is necessary. Some high school classes require more interaction and supervision (science labs, remedial, special education), but others could handle more students. Students can also take some classes online. The goal is to have an outstanding education for each student that makes the best use of available funding.

Roduner:

I believe we should keep smaller class size for a better learning environment. My feelings are that if class size is increased then it will no longer be a classroom for learning. It will be a day care for crowd control. If I have to choose a grade level for increased class size, then I would have to say our high schools, but keep their core classes as they are now.

Vandervert:

Part 1: Class size should always be as small as possible. Part 2: Classes should be smallest in the lowest grades.

When the number of students in a classroom is increased, the problem for the teacher is not only that there are more students vying for the teacher’s limited time. Additionally, the variability across individual student needs is increased. That is, additional students magnify the different types of student needs that must be addressed by the curriculum the teacher offers. Any such increase in variability greatly impacts the school district’s ability to meet the “individual student needs” outlined in Strategy 1 and parental involvement outlined in Strategy 3.

Q. Central office administrators, principals and assistant principals took bigger cuts to salary for the 2011-’12 budget cycle than teachers. Do you think the cuts were enough or should administrative pay be reduced further? If so, how much more? If not, why not?

Brower:

First off, I would like to see the state Legislature meet their financial obligations to our district by fully funding basic education as well as honoring voter passed Initiatives 728 (class size reduction) and 732 (cost-of-living adjustments for teachers, ) which the Legislature suspended this past year. 

Given the reality of the situation, we must validate the necessity of every position on our staff including administrative positions. Positions deemed unnecessary due to inefficiencies or ineffectiveness should be eliminated. Positions contributing to the success of our students should be maintained and fairly compensated to retain quality employees. It is my understanding that administrative employee salaries are among the bottom of the top third of salaries for comparable school districts, which means our administrators are not the highest paid in the state, but are paid competitively. 

Griffing:

The most effective cuts should be made by reducing the number of positions instead of reducing administrative pay. I agree in principle with the common voter sentiment that District 81 is administration “top-heavy.” I do not agree that our individual administrative salaries are too high as a matter of principle. Rather, I would argue that District 81 has some administrator positions that are unnecessary, especially for the “lean and mean,” less centralized system that I envision for the future.

Fullmer:

Administrators received raises last summer, then had cuts this spring, and some ended up ahead. Superintendent Nancy Stowell earned about $222,000 for 2010-’11, more than the governor and the state superintendent of public instruction; 110 administrators received a total compensation (including salary, professional stipends, bonuses and benefits) of more than $100,000 in 2010-’11 in a district where about 60 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Cutting administrative positions and reducing salaries is necessary. The academic results in this district do not warrant this kind of pay.

Roduner:

It is a misnomer that principals and administrators took a bigger pay cut than teachers. On June 9, 2010, our school board gave principals a 3 percent pay increase. They covertly gave associate superintendent, assistant superintendent, executive directors and directors a raise by an average of 4 percent to 5.15 percent pay increase. All of these people make over $100,000 a year. Teachers have not received a cost of living increase for over three years. I do believe administrative pay should be reduced, and I would like to see a 7 to 10 percent reduction in pay. We underpay our teachers and support staff even though they are doing the actual work of educating our children.

Vandervert:

Look at the published mission statement and “strategies” of Spokane Public Schools. It is the agreed job of the superintendent (along with her administrative staff) to devise the means to carry out those strategies within the available budget. If the superintendent can’t do that, find out why.

Administrative salaries, like teacher salaries, should be performance based. So, this question might be restated in terms of how well the administrative staff is doing in relation to the published strategies of the school district. As Spokane Public Schools is presently organized around its mission statement, there is really no other fair way to the community, to teachers, and to students to address this question. I think board members who ignore their own founding principles (the mission statement, the strategies, and the sub-objectives) during hard times will only worsen the situation.

At a certain point, administrative salaries should not be further reduced. If further administrative cuts are necessary, the board should be equally looking around for a new superintendent with a new management approach. Administrative cuts and the motivation for a new superintendent and new management approach should always be considered together.

Q. Given what happened in Idaho and Wisconsin regarding education unions, do you think collective bargaining units are good or bad for the school district?

Brower:

I believe that events in Idaho and Wisconsin reflect frustration with government systems which are played out in our local schools.  Education policy is set by well-intentioned school board members who rarely have K-12 teaching experience (our current board does not have a K-12 experienced educator), and that policy is carried out by administrators who by the nature of their work are somewhat removed from the daily realities of the classroom.  Collective bargaining guarantees a voice for our educational professionals who work directly with the children in our schools contributing to a “balance of power” between school boards, administrators, and educators.  When determining the best practices for the education of our children, I feel that educators should be represented by their collective bargaining units.

Griffing:

Nearly all states are struggling with the high, even unsustainable, personnel costs of education and other public sector functions. Eighty-three percent of District 81’s budget is for personnel, most of that for teacher salaries. Even if we choose to keep that proportion of the total budget constant, the total revenue “pie” will continue to shrink. Each new budget year will require new sacrifices. Our collective bargaining units will themselves determine whether they are good or bad for the district. All stakeholders need to come to grips with the new reality of continued scarce resources and work out how to act responsibly in the interest of the students. The commitment of all parties must be to the single purpose for which Spokane schools exist: producing well-educated students with the resources available.  

Fullmer:

Does the government collect money from taxpayers for the education of children, or to create an ever-growing bureaucracy of people who cannot be fired? It’s not good for students if ineffective teachers are kept based on seniority, when they could have enthusiastic, creative, effective teachers instead. Principals need more control in their schools and should not be hampered by collective bargaining rules that prevent schools from operating in the best interest of students. Ideally, public sector unions will be flexible to work with the money that is available from the public, or jobs may be lost and ultimately the students lose.

Roduner:

Bargaining units try to keep management honest and when you are talking about taxpayers’ dollars, I want to see as much transparency in our school district as possible. We have seen in this last round of budget discussions our administration was willing to lay off the people that actually do the work of educating our children. That is the wrong approach for the education of our children. I agree there can be problems with unions, when their administrative staffs become indifferent and no longer listen to their members. I don’t see that with the current bargaining unit. As to your question about Idaho and Wisconsin, Idaho has been working for years to push trade unions out of their state and they have almost achieved their goal. With their actions, their schools are suffering, dropout rates are climbing, achievement tests are dropping and the median income is lower than Washington. Wisconsin, I believe, will recover after their recall efforts. Their governor and Legislature, I believe, have awakened a sleeping giant. There are other states that are also trying to destroy their educational system because of greed, like Florida and Michigan. Just so they can give a couple extra billion dollars taken from their schools, to give tax breaks to large corporations. I believe the citizens of Washington state are more sensible then that.

Vandervert:

For public school teachers everywhere, classroom results tied to the school district’s published strategies must be clear for all teachers. The bargaining unit must share the job with the school district to see to it that classroom results are a “living reality.”

Once this classroom-results “reality” is clearly established, collective bargaining can be tied directly to teacher performance, and teacher performance can be evaluated by a method with extreme transparency. No teacher should be advanced in pay or seniority who has not met performance standards. Teachers who cannot meet standards should not be retained. In other words, all collective bargaining should be premised directly on the achievement of the published Strategy 1 (and the supportive Strategies 2 and 3) of the school district.