X hits on this document

PDF document

A Curriculum Management Audit - page 112 / 140

276 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

112 / 140

“There is simply not enough money to properly do site-based management.” (Teacher) “The district must establish its priorities and then hold to a constant course of action, instead of being so fragmented.” (Administrator) “Site-based management sometimes boils down to sharing mutual ignorance.” (Parent) “Every building is at a different place in terms of site-based management.” (Administrator) “Success for All is the only decent school reform model being used in CPSD. I took my son out of Paidea because it was a total waste of time. It does not have an assessment component. Students are not mastering basic skills.” (Parent) “Site-based management is not working. No training has been provided to site council members. We can only make decisions with which the district agrees. ” (Teacher) “There is not a good manual for implementing site-based management. The discretionary dollars available to a site council are very limited. There’s not a lot to work with.” (Administrator) “We have too many reform models and we don’t know if they are or are not working.” (Administrator) “There is wide discrepancy, between schools, in even how the same model is being implemented.” (Administrator) “We are like a ship (site-based management) without a rudder.” (Teacher) “Because of site-based decision-making, technology is disjointed.” (Administrator) “Site-based decision-making takes too much time away from our jobs.” (Teacher) “The Strategic Plan is not operable, it’s been on the shelf. Schools (site-based councils) are

simply not connected to it.” (Administrator) “Site-based management gives us no direction. managers.” (Teacher)

Teachers aren’t trained to be site-based

“Students have little continuity of educational program if they transfer from one national model to a different one.” (Administrator) We are not running site-based management the way it should be run. We have put the train on the track, but we haven’t really given it a direction.” (Teacher)

  • “Responsibility and accountability must go hand in hand. Site councils have to make hard

decisions that carry consequences and most are not willing to do that.” (Administrator)

System fragmentation from site-based management is further exacerbated by heavy staff attrition. Exhibit 5.3.1 shows teacher attrition by school for the 1999-2000 school year.

A-1 Secondary

12

2

16.67%

Beachwood Elementary

23.7

3

12.56%

Carter Lake Elementary

23

3

13.04%

Clarkmoor Elementary

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

Clover Park High

90.8

23

25.33%

Custer Elementary

24.09

3

12.45%

Dower Elementary

17

5

29.41%

Evergreen Elementary

46.02

6

13.04%

Firwood Secondary

7.8

3

38.46%

Greenwood Elementary

23.1

1

4.33%

Heartwood Elementary

21.52

4

18.59%

Hillside Elementary

27

7

25.93%

School

Exhibit 5.3.1 Teacher Attrition by School Clover Park School District

Attrition Rate

1999-2000

Total Teacher

Populat

ion

Number of Teachers

Leaving

Clover Park School District Audit Report Page 106

Document info
Document views276
Page views276
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 19:05:19 UTC 2016
Pages140
Paragraphs8364
Words61227

Comments