Lin-Wood Management Study

1. Lin-Wood Management Study Dr. Ted Comstock, Executive Director Paul DeMinico, Consultant New Hampshire School Boards Association June 23, 2011

2. The Charge SCOPE of the STUDY: To perform an objective evaluation of Lin-Wood’s administrative-leadership structure including guidance services, taking into consideration the school district’s size and location and to make related recommendations.

3. The Methodology • Interview individuals & groups • Observe instruction, • Review administrative job descriptions • Select comparative school districts • Review best practices research • Contact NEASC for accreditation implications • Discuss Special Education implications

4. Strengths • Class sizes • Small school feeling • Personalized school—like a family • Financial support of the schools by community • Positive school climate and culture • Ample computer to student ratios • Faculty connection with students and their families • Effective school with a fine reputation • Caring and hard working teachers • Students and their individualized education • Service learning opportunities • Number of AP courses given the high school enrollment

5. Areas to Further Develop • Communications (all types: top-down, bottom-up, internal & external) • Perception of “top-heavy” [administratively-heavy] school district • Perception that money is not wisely spent • Apathy among segments of community; need community involvement • Master schedule [causes issues with shared staff, access to courses] • Good start in professional development, curriculum, assessment, RTI, PLCs. Needs attention, sustained efforts, priorities from the leadership • Assistant Principal wears too many hats • Special education costs are high and may impact other students • Further develop college, career counseling and related parent contact • Inconsistent disciplinary processes

6. Greatest Threats • Money needed to continue funding the schools • High per pupil costs compared with the state • Perceived high cost of management (“top-heavy” ) • “Eroding” trust of community in board and SAU • External political climate of those who openly express discontent • State’s [diminished] role in assisting the school • Special ed costs and perceived inequity between special & regular ed • Too many state rules and regulations that tie the hands of the school • Leadership turnover • The growing number of discontented community members

7. Suggested Management Structure • The previous model of the [one full time equivalent (FTE)] superintendent-special education position worked well; reinstate depending on NEASC & NHDOE comply • Create the structure of two principals from the existing principal/assistant principal • Keep the principal and assistant principal model as it works well • Proceed cautiously with any reduction of guidance counselors as functions are the same number in a small school as a large school; there’s a need for 2 counselors • Can go with a part-time superintendent—say 3/5s or three days per week, year round • Take Title 1 Project Manager off the plate of the AP; also subs, buses giving a renewed focus on curriculum, assessment, instruction and professional development priorities • Rethink who is responsible for 504s • Keep full time special education [Pupil Services] director in the budget as the needs have grown from when we had a superintendent-Director of Pupil Services position • Superintendent to take the lead in curriculum, staff development & strategic planning.

8. The Questions Raised & Answered • Question: How does Lin-Wood’s administrative staff to student ratios align with State standards? Research-based practices? • Question: What positions are mandated by State/Federal law? By administrative rules? • Question: What positions are mandated to maintain accreditation? • Question: Based on enrollment and workload, is there redundancy of positions? Responsibilities? • If so, what consolidation is recommended?. • Question: Could a superintendent, with proper credentials, serve as Director of Pupil Services?. • Question: Is there a need for the number of guidance services/staff given enrollment? • Question: Are there areas of reduction recommended without negatively impacting students and school climate?

9. Comparisons: SAU & Building Support DistrictEnrollSuptSAU/Blg SupportSupt$ • LinWood: K-12 345100% AA,BA,SP,P,AP,2GC $97K • Moulton: K-12 657 100% S,AA,BA,SP,.67C,3GC,2P,1.5AP 118K • Sunapee: K-12 451 100% S,.8AA,.6BA,.8SP,2P,1AP,3GC 112K • Pittsfield: K-12 564 100% S,AA,FD,SP,2P,1AP,3GC 109K • Wilt/Lyn: K-12 685 100% S,AA,BA,SP(&2Blg),3P,1AP,3GC 98K Key: AA-Admin Assist; BA-Business Admin; FD-Finance Dir; SP-Special Ed; P-Principal; AP-Assistant Principal; GC-Guidance Counselor; C-Curric. Dir.

10. Comparisons: GC & Blg. Admin Ratios DistrictEnroll GCS:TBlg Adm • New Hampshire 178,034 12.2 • Lin-Wood Coop 345 2/172.5 7.6 2/172.5 • Moultonboro 657 3/219 9.3 3.5/187.7 • Sunapee 451 3/150.3 10.2 3/150.3 • Pittsfield 564 3/188 8.2 3/188 • Wilton/Lyn 685 3/228.3 10.4 4/171.3 Key: GC-Guidance Counselors Ratio; S:T-Students to Teacher Ratio; Blg Admin-Building Administrators Ratio

11. Comparisons-Effort & Affordability 2009-10 2009-10 DistrictGradesEnrollCost/PupilEq Val/Pupil NH AveragesK-12$12,214 $837,613 • 1. Lin-Wood K-12 345$15,910$3,072,161 • 2. Moultonb K-12 657$18,681$4,845,511 • 3. Sunapee K-12 451$18,619$2,578,478 • 4. Pittsfield K-12 564$15,706$464,809 • 5. Wilt/Lyn K-12 685$13,130 $779.321

12. Recommendations • #1 Superintendent of School’s Contract Time • #2 Use of Guidance Counselors’ Time and Duties • #3 Pupil Services Time and Duties • #4 Consider Reassignment of Duties for Greater Efficiencies

13. Conclusion Questions & Answers