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