Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 11:58 pm:

---

Quote:

Posted by Gregg Betheil on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:11 am:

Sorry for the delay in posting responses. I am traveling on business 2
time zones away and have been traveling most of the day. Frankly, I
find myself wondering where you all find the time, as there was quite
a flurry of responses so early in the morning and well into the
afternoon.

I figured I’d try and answer the questions posed directly to me as
best I can, so here goes:

1. Johnny: Gregg- How do you feel about renewing the Superintendent's
contract?

Certainly a question which will be a fixture in the upcoming election.
Those that have followed the Board know that I weigh each decision and
vote based on the information available to me at the time—in this
case, June of 2006. I think a better question of potential board
members is to ask what criteria they would use to decide. I suggest
that for a few reasons, the least of which is that the decision is
still 4 months away and a lot can change in the time (for the better
or the worse). I think it is a mistake to unequivocally support
renewing or denying the Superintendent’s next contract at this point,
too much can change. Besides, whichever way one might feel about the
Superintendent’s performance, after the decision is made by June 30,
there are still 3 years left to sit on the Board and I’d want to know
how Board members plan to bide the rest of their time.

Lest you think I’m trying to duck the question, or better yet guess
which side I fall on, let me save you the trouble. I honestly DON’T
have a position at this point, and believe that to be consistent with
my Board conduct over the past 3 years. I’d remind you that I am the
only sitting Board member to have voted against contract renewal in
2003 and have also supported his vision publicly on numerous
occasions. The process of evaluating any superintendent’s performance
is a complex one, given the many dimensions of the job—some easily
assessed publicly, others within the confines of Board personnel
deliberations. I hope that the public trusts in the entire Board to
conduct such evaluations in an honest, fair and comprehensive manner—I
believe we do, as that has been my experience over the past three
years.

What criteria will I use to inform my decision if I’m still around in
June:
a) Implementation of the Strategic Plan. The Board engaged the
community in a lengthy process to develop a vision and associated plan
for the district. That plan is now in the hands of our district
leadership and it is their task to implement the plan accordingly. A
coordinating committee has been operationalizing aspects of the plan
over the past few months since its adoption by the Board. I expect to
see clear steps toward fulfilling its promise prior to June.
b) Measurement – With a plan and essential efforts in place, a clear
and consistent approach to measuring our progress on each of the 3
goal areas of the Strategic Plan is essential. The Board plays a
critical role in defining these measures (see prior post about the
measurement workshop of 2/28), but it is incumbent upon the
Superintendent to embrace the measures to be adopted and accept
accountability for performance against them.
c) Communications: Measuring progress is one thing, clearly
communicating the implications reasonably drawn from the data, both
positive and negative, is an essential element of leadership.
d) Leadership: With so many leadership transitions in our schools in
the past few years, we are at a critical point in determining the
future of many of our school communities. New leadership is ripe with
opportunity and challenge. Assessing how we have managed these
transitions should be an important criterion.
e) Renewal at CHS – The strategic plan speaks directly to this, both
in terms of ensuring academic excellence and addressing the equity
concerns that have been raised by CHS students around the leveling
system (and before any rumors get started here, there’s no plan to
eliminate levels at the High School, nor has any member of the Board
or of MLKA that I’ve spoken with suggested we develop one). There is
much about the Columbia program to be praised—and like most high
schools across the country, much we need to reflect on in defining the
future of this prized community institution. How we plan to approach
this task should be an important criterion as well.

2. J. Crohn: Gregg: "I hope others will lend their voices to the
Board's deliberations and help define a sensible approach." I would be
very interested to learn what you believe, at this point, would
constitute a sensible approach.

Jennifer, not surprisingly I think it maps to the Strategic plan, with
three broad brush strokes to frame what I believe could begin to
constitute a sensible approach:
a) Measuring the value added of district programs in moving students
along the continuum to advanced proficient.
b) Gauging the climate in the district (from student discipline
issues, to grievances, to those lovely thank you notes the Board gets
from the community each year.
c) What do we get for our money—a services view of the school budget,
tied to a) above.
d) Looking at student growth, in addition to comparisons across
cohorts.

3. CageyD: Greg, please respond to this startling information
regarding the comparison of Jefferson to Abington? I find it to be
completely unacceptable, revealing tremendous failures in our system.
Other than perhaps exploring what we could learn from Abington’s
approach or any other high performing school, I’m not sure the
comparison itself is a concern of mine. The scores at all of our
schools, Jefferson included, all have room for improvement and our
efforts should be focused, as I believe they have been, on the
interventions that will move each of our students and schools forward.
That said, I think Bob got it right in reminding us that we have a
persistent achievement gap, mirrored in communities across the
country, around which we are collectively struggling to determine its
roots and remedies.

Considering all the administrators who are paid to ensure that our
academic programs are being effectively administered how can you
justify these scores?
A) If you are suggesting that administrators should be held
accountable for student performance—YES. So should teachers and
parents-and particularly at our secondary schools, the students
themselves as well.
B) If this is another swipe at our “bloated administrative ranks”
please read the administrative analysis prepared for the budget
process. Our per pupil admin costs are below the county average and
potentially falling further.

Finally, please answer the question as to whether you will support
renewing Super H's contract.

See my answer above—couldn’t answer between 1 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. as I
left for the airport at 4:30 and they made me turn off my blackberry
when they closed the door (by the way, does anyone know how to post to
MOL from a handheld?)

4. Dusya: Gregg Betheil, you said: "My hope was, and continues to be,
that as a community, we can agree on a model for conveying performance
in a clear and consistent way so that the data can speak for itself."

The NJ Department of Education has already given us a way to convey
performance in a clear and consistent way-- the state assessments in
grades 3, 4, 8 & 10. This year state assessments will also be
administered in grades 5, 6, & 7.

Response: I’d buy that, except the state hasn’t been so good at
meeting deadlines for developing the tests and moving them out of
field testing. As such, without tests in place that allow assessment
of growth from year to year of particular cohorts of students (this
year’s 3rd graders, next year’s 4th and so on), it is hard to assess
the value added of district interventions. Even the USDOE has begun to
explore the potential implications of allowing “growth models” in
assessing AYP, though the 2014 targets don’t change. Heck the 5, 6 and
7 tests haven't been given yet. Of course we’ll use the state tests
(we have to), but let’s not pretend that we’ve had a comprehensive
assessment system in the state up to this point.

Dusya: The data from the current state assessments speaks for itself.
The NJ State Report Card shows that we could be doing better. Instead
of spending time and energy creating our own internal assessments,
let's work on improving student achievement on the assessments that
already exist. Clearly, in such schools as University High in Newark
and William F. Halloran in Jersey City, improving student achievement
is the first course of business. Improving student achievement needs
to be the first course of business in South Orange-Maplewood.

Response: No one is suggesting that we create our own internal
assessments. Rather, the question is how do we aggregate the range of
data sources available to us to best portray academic progress in the
district, assess the impact of our intervention programs on improving
performance over time, and do so in a way that can be clearly
communicated to the public and useful to our instructional staff in
monitoring student progress and gauging their own effectiveness. Stop
by the workshop on the 28th for a preview—your input is most welcome.

5. Concerned07040: My comments to Gregg reflect my personal
frustration with the strategic planning process. An enormous amount of
time and money [staffing time and real $] has been devoted to this
process. As a parent and taxpayer, I have yet to see any benefits.

Agreed. See 1 a above, and remember it’s a 5 year plan, so I’m not
naïve enough to believe things change overnight. But the plan must
guide district practice or the effort will have been a waste. Hold us
to it.

The ultimate answer, however, is “42.” Though as Douglas Adams
queried, does anyone remember the question?

Gregg
(who will be offline until at least tomorrow night if not
Thursday...so have at each other in my absence).

---