Lin-Wood Management Study
Download
Report
Transcript Lin-Wood Management Study
Lin-Wood Management Study
Dr. Ted Comstock, Executive Director
Paul DeMinico, Consultant
New Hampshire School Boards Association
June 23, 2011
The Charge
SCOPE of the STUDY: To perform an objective
evaluation of Lin-Wood’s administrative-leadership
structure including guidance services, taking into
consideration the school district’s size and location
and to make related recommendations.
The Methodology
Interview individuals & groups
Observe instruction,
Review administrative job descriptions
Select comparative school districts
Review best practices research
Contact NEASC for accreditation implications
Discuss Special Education implications
Strengths
Class sizes
Small school feeling
Personalized school—like a family
Financial support of the schools by community
Positive school climate and culture
Ample computer to student ratios
Faculty connection with students and their families
Effective school with a fine reputation
Caring and hard working teachers
Students and their individualized education
Service learning opportunities
Number of AP courses given the high school enrollment
Areas to Further Develop
Communications (all types: top-down, bottom-up, internal & external)
Perception of “top-heavy” [administratively-heavy] school district
Perception that money is not wisely spent
Apathy among segments of community; need community involvement
Master schedule [causes issues with shared staff, access to courses]
Good start in professional development, curriculum, assessment, RTI,
PLCs. Needs attention, sustained efforts, priorities from the leadership
Assistant Principal wears too many hats
Special education costs are high and may impact other students
Further develop college, career counseling and related parent contact
Inconsistent disciplinary processes
Greatest Threats
Money needed to continue funding the schools
High per pupil costs compared with the state
Perceived high cost of management (“top-heavy” )
“Eroding” trust of community in board and SAU
External political climate of those who openly express discontent
State’s [diminished] role in assisting the school
Special ed costs and perceived inequity between special & regular ed
Too many state rules and regulations that tie the hands of the school
Leadership turnover
The growing number of discontented community members
Suggested Management Structure
The previous model of the [one full time equivalent (FTE)] superintendent-special
education position worked well; reinstate depending on NEASC & NHDOE comply
Create the structure of two principals from the existing principal/assistant principal
Keep the principal and assistant principal model as it works well
Proceed cautiously with any reduction of guidance counselors as functions are the
same number in a small school as a large school; there’s a need for 2 counselors
Can go with a part-time superintendent—say 3/5s or three days per week, year round
Take Title 1 Project Manager off the plate of the AP; also subs, buses giving a renewed
focus on curriculum, assessment, instruction and professional development priorities
Rethink who is responsible for 504s
Keep full time special education [Pupil Services] director in the budget as the needs
have grown from when we had a superintendent-Director of Pupil Services position
Superintendent to take the lead in curriculum, staff development & strategic planning.
The Questions Raised & Answered
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Question: How does Lin-Wood’s administrative staff to student
ratios align with State standards? Research-based practices?
Question: What positions are mandated by State/Federal law? By
administrative rules?
Question: What positions are mandated to maintain accreditation?
Question: Based on enrollment and workload, is there redundancy
of positions? Responsibilities?
If so, what consolidation is recommended?.
Question: Could a superintendent, with proper credentials, serve as
Director of Pupil Services?.
Question: Is there a need for the number of guidance services/staff
given enrollment?
Question: Are there areas of reduction recommended without
negatively impacting students and school climate?
Comparisons: SAU & Building Support
District
Enroll Supt
SAU/Blg Support
Supt$
LinWood: K-12 345 100% AA,BA,SP,P,AP,2GC
$97K
Moulton: K-12 657 100% S,AA,BA,SP,.67C,3GC,2P,1.5AP 118K
Sunapee: K-12 451 100% S,.8AA,.6BA,.8SP,2P,1AP,3GC 112K
Pittsfield: K-12 564 100% S,AA,FD,SP,2P,1AP,3GC
109K
Wilt/Lyn: K-12 685 100% S,AA,BA,SP(&2Blg),3P,1AP,3GC 98K
Key: AA-Admin Assist; BA-Business Admin; FD-Finance Dir; SP-Special Ed;
P-Principal; AP-Assistant Principal; GC-Guidance Counselor; C-Curric. Dir.
Comparisons: GC & Blg. Admin Ratios
District
New Hampshire
Lin-Wood Coop
Moultonboro
Sunapee
Pittsfield
Wilton/Lyn
Enroll
178,034
345
657
451
564
685
GC
2/172.5
3/219
3/150.3
3/188
3/228.3
S:T
12.2
7.6
9.3
10.2
8.2
10.4
Blg Adm
2/172.5
3.5/187.7
3/150.3
3/188
4/171.3
Key: GC-Guidance Counselors Ratio; S:T-Students to Teacher Ratio;
Blg Admin-Building Administrators Ratio
Comparisons-Effort & Affordability
District
Grades
NH Averages K-12
1. Lin-Wood K-12
2. Moultonb K-12
3. Sunapee K-12
4. Pittsfield K-12
5. Wilt/Lyn K-12
Enroll
345
657
451
564
685
2009-10
2009-10
Cost/Pupil Eq Val/Pupil
$12,214
$837,613
$15,910
$3,072,161
$18,681
$4,845,511
$18,619
$2,578,478
$15,706
$464,809
$13,130
$779.321
Recommendations
#1 Superintendent of School’s Contract Time
#2 Use of Guidance Counselors’ Time and Duties
#3 Pupil Services Time and Duties
#4 Consider Reassignment of Duties for Greater Efficiencies
Conclusion
Questions & Answers