Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Many Strengths Found At GHS

Gurdon schools were recently evaluated by the North Central Association's Comprehensive Outcome Evaluation team.

In preparing for the evaluation, the district's administrators and faculty members were divided into different groups. These groups included: Parent and Community Involvement; School Climate; Time On Task/Opportunity To Learn; and Monitoring And Assessment Of Student Achievement.

Each of the three schools had committees whose responsibility was one of these areas.

This article will deal with the COE team's evaluation of Gurdon High School.

The COE committee recorded each school's strengths and weaknesses in the different categories.

The report on GHS showed the facilities to be attractive and well maintained. The student body, faculty and staff were helpful to the COE team, along with being informative and hospitable.

The evaluations received were well organized by the committees and the final document was prepared in such a manner as to draw commendations to the committees involved.

However, there were also recommendations made for improvements on the Parent and Community Involvement portion.

The COE team suggested the target committee explore, including all data (archival, perceptual and achievement) when determining the School Improvement Plan (SIP).

It was also recommended an effort be made to include the entire faculty in choosing the target areas before the committees discuss the SIP.

The team also said the technical review needed to be discussed and used as a guide to improve the draft of the final document.

Its final recommendation suggested the school explore a closer examination of time lines for implementation of the SIP.

The team found three strengths and had four recommendations in the area of school climate.

The strengths included the committee consisting of certified and non-certified personnel, a student, parent and member of the Gurdon School Board.

It also found the community willing and eager to cooperate with the school to provide the best learning environment and opportunities for the students.

The final strength was the SIP adequately incorporates the equity goals.

It recommended actions and time lines be extended to cover a five-year period, which is no problem for the district.

The committee also recommended one person be specified as being responsible for making sure actions are carried out and evaluated.

The third recommendation was to regularly monitor the results of school climate actions.

Its final suggestion was for the school to explore establishing a non-academic incentive program to encourage those students who do their best, but do not have A's, B's and C's (proper attendance, no tardies, no missed assignments, etc.).

The next area was Time on Task/Opportunity to Learn.

The COE group found five strong points and a had like number of recommendations for the district.

The strengths showed the staff and administration deserve commendation for their time and effort in working on the SIP.

Parents and the community are involved and interested in the educational process.

Local businesses and individuals provide financial assistance to the school.

The new facility is attractive and well maintained. The final strength was the student body was polite and appeared to be well disciplined.

The recommendations included the NCA/COE self-study packet be reviewed for specific guidelines for the SIP.

It also suggested the respective target areas include data from all three areas -- archival, achievement and perceptual. The target areas also need to be divided into subgroups, on which to base the SIP.

The committee also suggested extending the plan to include a five-year time line.

The final recommendation was for the goals to be clearly stated and easily measured. The evaluation of the goals, the report stated, should be instruments truly assessing achievements or failures therein.

The final area of examination was Monitoring and Assessment of Student Achievement. There were four strengths and four recommendations found by the panel.

The district's strong points include technology is obviously used effectively to facilitate student data; all three types of data were used in preparing the report; equity goals are identified and imbedded in the SIP; and test results are more than adequately communicated to students, parents and teachers.

Once again, the committee suggested the time lines and actions reflect a five-year period. And, again, this is no problem for the district to comply with.

It also recommended the school explore providing release time and/or stipends for teachers to collaborate and formulate strategies to incorporate multiple assessment methods into the instructional process. These include: portfolios, rubrics (section headings) and projects.

The third recommendation was to give consideration for establishing and implementing a plan to periodically examine the alignment of the curriculum and instructional objectives with student assessments.

Finally, it suggested considering implementing and organizing staff development programs to sustain and maintain the commitment for continuous school improvement. These could be: alternative assessments; multiple intelligence; section headings; study skill strategies and career action planning.

According to Freddie Horne, who presented the report to the school board, GHS is in its second cycle of improvement planning.

He said two other areas to be improved included (these were done before the report was received) having handicapped barriers in GHS and improve the parking problem.

On the other hand, Horne said it is the goal of the committees involved to raise the SAT test scores for those below the 25 percentile with tutoring programs and counseling. These programs would also help improve the students' overall grade point average as well.

Horne said the district needs to keep its CPEP program, which has proven successful in the past as a tool to help improve ACT scores.

The committee agreed it's important to encourage more students to take their ACT tests early to become familiar with them. The combination of early ACT testing and taking the CPEP program has helped some students raise their test scores two or three points. This can make a difference in whether or not a student qualifies for a scholarship and the kind they can get.

The GHS group also suggested night tutoring for ACT testing.

But, the school's committee said there was a red flag -- parental apathy. It said parents need to be partners in education.

This, the groups said, will require changes in attitudes and behaviors, with the district emphasizing the handbook rules and monitoring for equal treatment accordingly.

Overall, though, the reports had few serious problems the district needs to correct.