Meetings, Discussions and Studies about further participation in NEASC
One of the approaches we discussed was how to make best use of the time-consuming, costly NEASC process. We decided that if we could somehow marry the NEASC criteria and process with our own work efforts, perhaps we could undertake the next round of NEASC self evaluation. The results of a conversation with the director on that subject are just below in item # 4.
4. Conversation with NEASC Director, Charlie McCarthy, and Carol Spencer, May, 2007.
a) Can we re-organize the order of the answers we give, so that they are incorporated into the initiative charges, minutes, reports, etc., rather than writing our report in the order in which it was sent to us?
Answer: You must follow the order of the NEASC report and recommendations, however, you may keep the response brief (one or two sentences), and refer to other reports or documents in which a more complete answer might be embedded in something like minutes.
b) Can a leadership group that has other functions be assigned to keep track of the progress towards the recommendations, rather than setting up a separate committee as stipulated in one of the letters we received?
Answer: The NEASC Steering/Leadership Group may be a group with other responsibilities. An example of this in Massachusetts, is that typically the state mandated Action Planning group is charged with taking care of the mission statement and related expectations. Too often they see that the principal stayed up until 3:00 AM writing a report that the teachers have no ownership in. That is why they want the teachers involved. So that real change can happen.
c) What if some of the recommendations seem irrelevant or off-base? Can we reject them?
Answer: The time for rejection was during the period between the initial report and the issuance of the final report. There must have been conversations between Peter Coffey and the chair of the report, so that any gross mistakes were caught then. That being said, one reports on objectives/recommendations with one of the following - achieved, in progress, not yet started, something else, and rejected. The board would not accept a ratio of, for instance 15 rejections out of 50 recommendations. However, if the landscape has shifted, or if there is some justification for not answering, one rejects the recommendation and writes the explanation for the rejection.
d) What about the middle school? It was not evaluated per se. As one of the oldest middle school programs in Vermont, it was clear in the report that it was a 9-12 mention, with 30 random remarks made about the middle school. Do we have to include the middle school in our responses?
Answer: Sort of. Explain that the ms is in a whole school reform effort (E.L.) and find tangent points where that makes sense. Okay then to focus on 9-12.
e) Why was no evaluation done for support services? (Guidance, Special Ed, Health Services, and Library/Media)
Answer: Typically the criteria for which these 4 areas are evaluated is that they set annual goals for services, and use a set of state or national standards by which to monitor themselves, or conduct monitoring from state agencies (as in the annual evaluation in Massachusetts for health services by the State). They should have goal reports at the end of each year. If this is not done regularly, then a recommendation like that found in Vergennes is typical. The focus of the evaluation is not on resources per se, but rather on curriculum and assessment. These areas are seen as a resource for the other areas, rather than as the main event of schooling, which is the subject areas/classes/schedule etc. NEASC draws a distinction between personnel evaluation (not adequate) and program evaluation.
Contact Us | ©2009 VUHS