Hold on to your Flux Capacitor !!!

In case anybody is wondering about the "Good Olde Days" in the Sandwich Public Schools -- here's a link to the audit report issued by the Educational Management Audit Council of the Massachusetts Office of Educational Quality and Accountability -- aka "The EQA Report" for the years 2002 - 2005.  

There were many good points -- as there should have been.  There were also many areas of great concern.  Everybody should read the report before bitching about any changes that have been made over the last few years.  Here's a few excerpts of the highlights (lowlights?):

Overall -- Curriculum & Instruction, Assessment & Program Evaluation and Human resource Management/Professional Development were all rated as "Poor".

Aligned Curricula and Effective Instruction -- During the review period, Sandwich had not developed a comprehensive standards-based curriculum in ELA, math or science and technology/engineering (STE), with measurable benchmarks and alignment with the state curriculum frameworks.  The failure to develop a curriculum and benchmarks prevented the district from being able to convey to its constituents what students will learn and achieve at each grade level and in each course of study.

Professional Development -- The district did not meet minimum funding requirements for professional development during the two years of required contribution; most professional development programs and opportunities were funded through grants. The district’s professional development program was a buffet of offerings and although these offerings were not mandated, they were self-selected by teachers most of the time.

Evaluations -- While teacher evaluations followed the form and letter of the law, they were not considered to be timely, informative, or instructive. Administrator evaluations did not hold them accountable for improving student achievement.  Administrative evaluations were not consistent with CMR 35.00, which requires a rigorous and comprehensive process of evaluation. Performance evaluation standards and practices remained unchanged despite program changes.

Special education budget -- was consistently under funded. As a result, the school budget was frozen in November in most fiscal years to cover costs on overruns.

Elementary School Mentoring -- The district provided a mentoring program for new teachers at the high school but there was no mentoring program for teachers at the elementary level.

Inadequate Curriculum - Since there was an inadequate written curriculum for teachers to follow and a lack of a mentoring program at the elementary level, it likely made it more difficult to implement grade level standards consistently, and, in turn, likely impacted student achievement in classes of non-professional teachers.

Improvement Process - Although the district was aware of the importance of collecting student achievement data, it did not consistently convey that importance to its classroom operations, which remained unchanged despite programmatic changes.

Effectiveness - Without student performance data, the leadership was unable to make informed decisions about curriculum modifications or about program effectiveness. Although informal conversations produced  information pertaining to the curricula and to teaching, there was no evidence that the district had a process in place to measure the effectiveness of district programs.

Curriculum & Technology -- During the review period, each school did not have a curriculum leader who oversaw the implementation of curriculum. Each school did not provide active leadership and support for instructional strategies focused on improved achievement for all students. Appropriate educational technology was not available throughout the entire school district.

Correct allocation of resources -- For most of the review period, there was no systemic review and analysis of disaggregated student MCAS data. Consequently, budgetary decision-making was not driven by student academic need.

These issues were the reason for most of the changes that have been made in the District over the past few years.  Every change certainly did not go smoothly -- because although you can lead a horse to water, his union would likely file a grievance if you hit him with a 2 x 4.  (or something like that!).