The last time they did a report on our Auburn schools was for the period of 2002-2005.
The report, titled "How is your district performing?" can be found here in PDF.
Granted it's not since the new HS was completed, but I think it's important to look at it for other reasons than the condition of a building. I always thought we should focus on the results more than the actual facilities so much, but now that that's done I accept it - it looks nice I think they did a good job.
But let's get on to the results they found. Some good, some really not so good.
Generally, they are above state average, being a "high performing district", which is good. "High" in English, language and arts and "slightly above average" in math.
BUT!!! - one area of mediocre results was management quality index, a measure of how well the district is managed. It was on the edge of improvable/poor rating. If you look behind THAT number you'll find on curriculum/instruction and assessment/program evaluation, they rate very poor.
Yet-- the report states, the district is performing better than expected on MCAS tests! So in effect, the kids are exceeding expectation DESPITE the poor management of the school system!! We should bring this up to SC some time - how are they improving the rating on management quality index?!?!?
Read the section on high turnover of superintendents and administrators and also planning - very interesting. Middle school on up is hurting, K-5 is OK.
Also - the technology area was bad (hopefully this improved with new HS), computers were outdated and teachers don't use them to instruct.
It gets better though - they don't generally share with parents nor do they do enough assessment data to determine where students need to apply effort to improve their test scores?!? AND they don't assess completion towards goal (ie they don't track progress).
It's bad administrating and lack of basic assessment in the curriculum from what it sounds like ...
AND they don't use student assessments to allocate budgets. So how do they set priorities?!
btw - they found the old buildings being used at the time (including old HS) to be "safe, well-lit and conducive to learning", with the only area of improvement being for handicap access.
HOPEFULLY this has started to change, but it's something to track for sure - they've been slacking on this stuff. And please please please don't tell me you need more money again. It's not money than determines a program or the way that you assess performance and allocate budgets. That part is just basic management and education 101 so let's provide a better example for the students by showing them how to learn more effectively by being taught more effectively.
Also - the technology area was bad (hopefully this improved with new HS), computers were outdated and teachers don't use them to instruct.
It gets better though - they don't generally share with parents nor do they do enough assessment data to determine where students need to apply effort to improve their test scores?!? AND they don't assess completion towards goal (ie they don't track progress).
It's bad administrating and lack of basic assessment in the curriculum from what it sounds like ...
AND they don't use student assessments to allocate budgets. So how do they set priorities?!
btw - they found the old buildings being used at the time (including old HS) to be "safe, well-lit and conducive to learning", with the only area of improvement being for handicap access.
HOPEFULLY this has started to change, but it's something to track for sure - they've been slacking on this stuff. And please please please don't tell me you need more money again. It's not money than determines a program or the way that you assess performance and allocate budgets. That part is just basic management and education 101 so let's provide a better example for the students by showing them how to learn more effectively by being taught more effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment