X hits on this document

PDF document

A Curriculum Management Audit - page 116 / 140





116 / 140

(Middle School Principal) “So much change is going on here, people are frozen in place.” (Teacher)

“We don’t know if (reform) models are working appropriately. We don’t have a strong program evaluation piece in the district.” (District Administrator)

“We need to be further along with classroom assessments.” (District Administrator) “We’ve done minimal evaluation of the national reforms.” (District Administrator) “A lot of money went into reform models and they don’t make a difference for kids.” (Teacher)

“Data hasn’t been gathered on (intervention) programs


P r o g r a m s a r e d e v e l o p e d d i f f e r e n t l y .

The auditors selected one program intervention to evaluate against the Intervention Efficacy Criteria. The program selected was one of the national reform model programs found in three schools. Evergreen, Hillside, and Tyee Elementary Schools have implemented an educational program focusing on the opportunity for individual student growth toward mastery of basic skills, self-

discipline, self-direction, and involvement in diversified experiences. “WINGS” and the schools were called “WINGS schools.”

The program was called

Comparing this program to the Intervention Efficacy criteria resulted in the following analysis:

Exhibit 5.4.3 Evaluation of Intervention Program “WINGS” Clover Park School District February 2001


  • 1.


  • 2.

    Defined Nature

  • 3.

    Implementation Efficacy

  • 4.

    Resource Support

  • 5.

    Knowledge of Results


Evident X X X

Not Evident

X X*

The WINGS program was described in terms indicating needs, including the need for overcoming deficits in achievement for low-performing student groups. The nature of the program was described and defined, but specific learner objectives were not provided to the auditors for examination. Implementation included staff development and communication, but planning was not perfect. One parent commented, “School planning sometimes boils down to the sharing of mutual ignorance.”

Resource support was promulgated primarily upon federal funding under Title I for schools with high incidence of poverty among its student body. Local system resources were not adequately targeted in differentiated allocations depending upon needs of clientele. Knowledge of results was ineffectual. School Performance Reports did include some vague references using “percentage of students meeting the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL),” but specific objective by objective feedback was not evident to allow teachers and parents to tract achievement growth for individual students or student groups.

The WINGS program design as a program intervention was determined to be inadequate, but the auditors found little if any expectations on the part of the system to meet program intervention efficacy requirements (see Finding 1.1). The auditors found no board policies, regulations, or procedures related to requirements for change processes to achieve long-term institutionalization. Moreover, no policies, regulations or procedures were found that called for program intervention integration and alignment with curriculum or expectations for students.

In summary, program interventions are plentiful in the Clover Park School District, but the interventions are not designed adequately or implemented effectively. Without a clear tie of program

Clover Park School District Audit Report Page 110

Document info
Document views250
Page views250
Page last viewedThu Oct 27 14:55:30 UTC 2016