PROGRESS AND PROCESS EVALUATION

PROGRESS MONITORING AND PROGRAM and PROCESS EVALUATION

AT

VERGENNES UNION HIGH SCHOOL

(Prepared by: Ed Webbley, Peter Reynolds, Tom O’Brien, and Carol Spencer)

Appendix VI Notes from Administrators’ Meeting, Fall, 2005

Are we well served by the criteria, the 2003 evaluation report and the recommendations requiring action in our NEASC report?

Yes and No
Yes. The criteria are now public and on-line, through the partnership with Brown University and their high school reform efforts. They are available for use by any high school and are not restricted by copyright laws or to members only.
Yes. There are a number of recommendations related to necessary work related to curriculum alignment, and embedding of common expectations in civic and social responsibility, and skills of inquiry, critical thinking and problem solving. These are compatible with Ed’s view that a main challenge that lies ahead is increased rigor in the high school programs and classroom instruction.
Yes. There are some evaluative comments about aspects of VUHS, such as the need for increased faculty and student participation in decision making, that bring out substantive questions for discussion.
No.

The highly professional self evaluation process required by NEASC, that extends over nearly two years, requires the use of all of our staff development time, plus some released time to accomplish. The ensuring 8 years of work on the recommendations requires the same intensive use of work groups and committees. Our size and limited access to professional work days without students are not compatible with the workload required to produce the timely products expected in the NEASC process.
The report provides a confirmation or a questioning of our self-evaluation information in very general terms. The information comes back does not deepen our understanding of our strengths and challenges. It is not ‘value-added’ in this regard. Examples of this are: there is no evaluation of the support services (special education, library or guidance), only a recommendation that we evaluate these services ourselves. There is no more in-depth reporting on the curriculum strengths/neds of the individual departments’ curriculum. The recommendations
There are other aspects of our school that we want to and need to develop that are included in our AYP requirements, our interest in the more student self-directed model proposed by HSOM, and by the new State Quality Standards, that need work and planning by faculty.
The report as it was written and acted upon did not result in significant classroom impact or change. Hypothetically at least, there are two reasons for this: 1) Faculty has not had opportunities to grapple with the information in the report; and 2) The report is sufficiently general as to require broader, systemic actions, rather than classroom level actions, at least initially.

Ideas for Future Discussion Put Forward at the meeting:

It is better to take the best of the NEASC criteria, the best of the HSOM principles, the School Quality Standards Requirements, our Profile System and Action Plans, to create one clear set of targets for ourselves, rather than to strictly follow any one of these initiatives.
One immediate or eventual ramification of this way of thinking is that we would cease our formal NEASC participation and membership.
Possible components of the VUHS School Improvement model:

Clear statement(s) of what students should get out of their education
Literacy and numeracy as the primary target areas
Use other initiatives/aspects as support for these two main areas
Use a consistent process approach such as Rick Dufour’s professional learning communities model; ‘walk-throughs’ as a tool used by administrators and teachers, for developing a stronger schoolwide culture of rigor against agreed upon criteria
Develop a high level of rigorous 9^th and 10^th grade program, with ample opportunities for remediation so that all students meet standards within the programs, and a clear choice of two paths for grades 11 and 12 – either technical or college bound.
Raise the aspirations of all students
Implement vertical teaming towards expansion of the current AP offerings and enrollments
Further develop a rich schoolwide culture of excellent instruction in the classrooms. Training such as Skillful Teacher help to create this.
Strong performance based assessment and informative assessment is the key to improvement and growth
Agreed upon definitions of ‘rigor’
Use of ‘Understanding by Design’ as a model for curriculum design at the classroom and department levels
Milford, CT has a good set of power standards and a graduation rubric
Advisory groups to support each student’s progress towards outcomes
Failure not an option
Use of a revolving trimester system, so that remediation for portions of courses not passed is immediate, and carries ‘credit.’
Articulated and public agreements within our staff, and with our board and public(s) about our program goals
Individual teachers’ and departments’ curriculum available publicly on the internet
Flexible schedules for some staff so that remediation is immediate

Current Limitations/Challenges/Practices to Clear Up or Clear Away:

Clusters of courses that do not always add up to a cohesive program in a given area
Lack of clear scope and sequence within same courses taught by different people – confirmed in NEASC report – individuals design their own curriculum by tradition at VUHS
There is a mindset that many of our students are not ‘smart enough’ for AP courses
We ‘ability group’ or ‘track’ our students in our minds, even though we ostensibly do not do that formally, through the scheduling of tracked classes.
There is a lack of direct instruction in some classrooms, with over-dependence on worksheets.
The use of multi-level materials within one classroom causes tracking within the classroom.
There is not full use of instructional time, with students let out early.