 |
 |
Dr. David Hopson |
||||||||||||
March 12 , 2007 It is always interesting to view the difference between expectations and reality, especially as it relates to school improvement. What brought this to mind is our recent notification that the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA) has completed their report on how the Gateway School District is performing and expects to have this posted and available to the public. You may not recall, but this report covers the 2002-2005 time frame and the official site visit by the EQA team was completed in January of 2006. The expectation from the state is that we will use this information to improve student performance and raise student MCAS scores. The reality is that we already recognized that we could not wait to see this report before making changes (14 months to get a report on school activities that were completed up to 5 years ago). I would also point out that testing students once a year (and comparing the results not against those students prior performance, but rather against a different group of students that took a similar grade level test the prior year) is not the most efficient way to measure student progress. I am not disagreeing with the findings in the EQA report—our scores do need to improve, our curriculum does need to be articulated, staff evaluation should be based upon student performance, funding is inadequate to make progress, professional development does need to be expanded—just pointing out that we had already begun addressing these issues before EQA came. As I reviewed this report (and I’ll soon have it on the district’s website for everyone to see) I noticed that they did give credit for many of our initiatives; however, we’ve made even more progress in furthering the underlying goals of school improvement since their visit 14 months ago. EQA’s expectation is that change occurs quickly and easily; the reality is that for change to work effectively, it must be understood and accepted by the people being impacted. In short, change is difficult and takes time to implement. I give our staff much credit for dealing with a number of changes in a positive manner under difficult conditions, yet maintaining a positive outlook with our students. Those difficult conditions are outlined clearly in the report, and inadequate funding is mentioned prominently in several locations. I also agree with the report’s findings that our towns are supporting the district budget to the extent that they are able. What the report doesn’t state, but I will, is that the problem continues to be lack of adequate state funding, particularly for small, rural school districts. The expectation is that local communities can fund schools beyond what the state requires. The reality is that the state’s formula is now nearly two decades old and addresses only one finite set of problems that are no longer relevant to all schools in Massachusetts. As the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) completes their evaluation visit this spring, I will be interested to see if they too cite inadequate funding as a major limiting factor. My expectations are high for our schools, our staff, our students, and myself and the reality is that meeting these expectations is difficult, time-consuming work that will not be completed in a short period of time. We are making progress, will continue to improve, and will, given time and resources, meet and even exceed the original expectations, setting the stage for a new cycle of establishing and meeting new, more challenging goals.
### |
||||||||||||