|
|
Stakeholder Survey Results
Released to the web July 4, 2006 Over the last few months members of the school board, members of the school staff and a consultant with EdSolution planned and implemented a survey of students, staff and district parents as a means to evaluate the opinion of these stakeholders. The results were reviewed at the June 27 school board meeting. Before we discuss the results, a little background is helpful. The surveys given to students, staff and parents were in part standardized to a particular survey method and in part customized to reflect the special concerns of our district. The administration picked three areas to concentrate on in the survey: instruction, literacy and leadership. That last area was thought by EdSolution consultant Victoria Pagonis to be of little value because of the recent high turnover in the administration and the fact that an interim superintendent was at the helm. Those who took the surveys also had criticism. Many found the questions too generic or simple to be useful. That criticism led to a discussion at the June 6 school board meeting between former board member Chuck Rutledge and parents in the audience. Chuck spearheaded the move to hire this particular consultant and he defended the surveys as useful because they would be interpreted against the results of similar surveys given in hundreds of other schools. When Victoria Pagonis finally gave her presentation on June 27, she did not mince words. According to her analysis of the data, Readington schools need to “raise the bar” and to concentrate on creating consistent leadership. After noting the very high turnover in recent years at the teacher and administrative level, she said: “this district is at a crossroads. People in it are willing to work toward improvement but the transient staff is a problem—the district must get stable.” Most interesting was the apparent disconnect between members of the three stakeholder groups surveyed. Parents overwhelmingly supported the district and, in fact, gave the highest marks on this particular survey recorded in New Jersey in the last three years, according to Pagonis. This contrasted with lament voiced during meetings with the staff that the community does not hold the district in high regard. Teachers also voiced concern about staff morale in general. One important aside, though, is that participation by parents in this survey was mixed. The Middle School had only 8 parent respondents, versus 31 in Three Bridges School, 115 in Holland Brook School and 120 in Whitehouse School. Students, for their part, confirmed their parent’s support and belief in the school system, but they also declared a lack of challenging schoolwork. One question specifically asked students to agree or disagree to the statement: “I am challenged by the work my teachers ask me to do.” A five part scale was used, and when those who marked “agree” or “strongly agree” were counted the results were only 43% in the Middle School, 48% in Holland Brook School, 52% in Three Bridges School, and 62% in Whitehouse School. Board members appeared shell-shocked at several points during the presentation. Ms. Pagonis asserted that scores on state tests were far too low for a district as wealthy as Readington. It is well established that parental and community affluence correlates directly with higher test scores. She advocated bringing staff members up to speed on state testing standards and tutoring students to build up their endurance for test-taking. When she asked board members to hazard a guess about how long young students are asked to sit still for state tests, the longest period guessed was three days. No, she said, try five consecutive days with long hours at a stretch. Other recommendations for testing were to scrap the non state-required Terra Nova testing program and to implement lessons for teachers to use for improving specific student sub-groups in the 2006-2007 state required testing. Another surprise for board members was the lack of commitment from some staff members to participate in the survey in a meaningful way. Pagonis noted that Whitehouse School and Three Bridges School staff were “eager” to take part in an open and honest look at themselves and that Readington Middle School staff also displayed “candor.” She said that Holland Brook staff members, on the other hand, were hard pressed to consider themselves as “anything other than exemplary.” She did not give further details. Overall, her recommendations were for Readington schools to find consistency with high-caliber leaders who will stay in the district, to improve communication between schools and between teachers, to share with staff members the high regard the community has for them, to improve staff understanding of state standards and to raise the expectations of students. So, how do these recommendations compare to previous judgments? Certainly stability and leadership are top concerns. Our administrators are all new to their positions, with the longest time in district being three years. The majority of our teachers are also new to the district, and many were hired just last year. The turnover of the last two years must be stemmed and the hiring of new superintendent Jorden Schiff should provide the needed leadership to move forward. Communication is already recognized as an issue, although communication among staff has not been specifically mentioned in public. Greater contact between the staff of the various schools and a more formal dissemination of vital information is needed. Staff members replying to the survey noted that very often they heard about things through the grapevine rather than from an official source. A better understanding by teachers of the needs of other teachers at all grade levels would go a long way toward unifying district goals and actions. Raising the expectations of students and forming a deeper understanding of state standards is an area that is a little trickier. There is no question that our students could be accomplishing far more than they are, based on comparisons to other districts with similar socio-economic backgrounds. However, we must be careful how we define success. It is true that we must raise scores on state-mandated tests or face penalties down the line. A better understanding of state standards could help in this regard. We must not define success by test scores, though, if we truly want to “raise the bar” for our children. Instead, the trick is to ensure decent scores on state-mandated tests while simultaneously requiring authentic growth from our children to the best of each child’s potential. Test scores are a political necessity, not a learning goal of an excellent district. Athletes like cyclist Lance Armstrong and others were helped by new training philosophies pioneered over the last decade. Instead of blindly beating oneself close to death with a crushing training regimen, these athletes discovered the results possible by training smarter rather than harder. Instead of over-training, they were training based on their personal potential for maximum growth in strength and stamina. Close attention to individual requirements, meticulous record keeping and training goals based on an informed profile of each athlete made for greater accomplishments. A similar approach works well in education. If we “raise the bar” by simply assigning more homework, by introducing more test-prep, by reducing the focus to drill-and-kill math and formula writing, by going “back to basics” or by the various other means of forcing students to “work harder” all we will have done is to increase the likelihood of burnout. On the other hand, if we “raise the bar” by requiring a unified approach between Kindergarten and eighth grade, by expecting our students to be involved in defining and pursuing their own learning goals, by increasing the diversity of learning opportunity, and by keeping meticulous records of the learning style and potential of each individual student, we will go a long way toward building a first-rate public school district. Learning smarter rather than harder can be the pivot point between excellence and mediocrity. |
