Category Archives: accountability

NWEA MAP and the Assessment of Student Learning

After 18 months of pilot implementation, we have begun full implementation of the NWEA MAP assessment. The MAP assessment is a computer-based adaptive assessment which describes what students are ready to learn next in reading, writing, and mathematics. The MAP assessment is administered three times a year for all students in grades K-8. See the BRSU Local Assessment Plan for a description of the NWEA MAP as well as the other assessments administered to students.

Why Implement the NWEA MAP?
1) Transition to Personalized Learning
Our district, like many districts around the world, is attempting to reconcile the new ability to personalize learning for students with an industrial model of schooling. We felt it was necessary to have a valid external measure of student learning in place while we made this transition to a personalized learning system. We believe NWEA MAP supports personalized learning by measuring student growth on an equal increment scale irrespective of assigned student grade levels. It also provides data to students and teachers in a format which readily supports student goal setting, a key component for personalizing learning for students.

2) Support Continuous Organizational Improvement
We assess student learning to help answer the fundamental question from our Ends policies, “how are students doing,” and to then decide next steps in the learning process. Efficient and effective assessment data are able to function at three organizational levels: the instructional level, the administrative level, and the policy level. At the instructional level, assessment data provide teachers with formative data. Formative data give teachers immediate feedback on student learning in order for them to modify instructional approaches and to design programs for remediation or acceleration. At the administrative level, assessment data help evaluate instructional systems such as professional development and curriculum development. At the policy level, assessment data provide assurance to board members that district Ends for student learning are being met. The NWEA MAP assessment was selected because it is a single assessment which can satisfy the assessment data needs of the organization at all of these levels.

3) Increase the Validity, Reliability, and Efficiency of Assessment
Time is our most precious instructional resource. When instruction is interrupted for the purpose of assessment, we need to ensure the interruption is worth it. Unfortunately, we have developed several assessments in Vermont which are very time consuming but which do not necessarily provide us with results that can justify the loss in instructional time.

One such assessment is the PNOA, or Primary Number and Operation Assessment, which can take a classroom teacher up to 45 minutes to administer one-on-one to each student. Although the PNOA can provide a teacher with useful formative data, it takes considerable time away from regular instruction to administer. The PNOA is an example of an assessment which is “expensive” in terms of instructional time, relatively complex to administer (each teacher needs training to administer the assessment in order to obtain valid results), and relatively unreliable in terms of obtaining consistent data across a system due to its relatively low level of inter-rater reliability. The PNOA is representative of several assessment approaches in Vermont education which have become “best practice” due to their sophistication rather than their validity or reliability.

In the enclosed article by Tim Shanahan, the author discusses this phenomena where the most sophisticated tool can become to be considered the best tool in a profession. He makes the comparison between the medical profession and education. Following this analogy, the PNOA might considered to be a CAT scan and the NWEA MAP a chest x-ray because the PNOA is delivered in an artisanal manner, one student at a time, whereas the NWEA MAP is
administered to many students at the same time using computers. In fact, if one were to
compare the instructional-level data produced by these two assessments, it is clear the NWEA MAP is the CAT scan and the PNOA is the x-ray, and a relatively unreliable one at that since the PNOA can not compare to the superior validity and reliability of the NWEA MAP.

It is our expectation that some of our Vermont formative assessments such as the PNOA will be abandoned in favor of using NWEA MAP and thereby free up instructional time. These
decisions will need to be made through an understanding of the value of the assessment data relative to the impact on instructional time.

Another key aspect of NWEA MAP efficiency is the facile manner in which it allows for the
collection and organization of assessment data. Since it is a computer-based assessment,
MAP assessment results can obtained immediately after the test, and can be organized based on any number of building-level testing groups. Most of our Vermont local assessments require the manual collection and arrangement of data which further contributes to their delay in producing actionable results.

4) The Political Context of Assessment
The NECAP will be replaced by the SBAC assessment in the near future. This will create a gap in our external assessment data for several years. Like NWEA MAP, the SBAC assessment will be a computer-based adaptive assessment so it should produce results in a more timely
manner. The SBAC has not been finalized, however, and will take a few years to stabilize. This uncertain political context for assessment led us to conclude we needed an external
assessment to bridge the gap between NECAP and SBAC. NWEA MAP is a well established
assessment which should serve us well in this purpose.

Social Share Counters

Report of the Superintendent of Schools, 2012

The 2011-2012 school year started with Hurricane Irene. The Hurricane did not damage any of our schools, but many of our families were deeply affected. I want to thank our emergency responders and community volunteers for their work during this emergency. Their assistance enabled our students and families to return to normalcy as soon as possible. Their dedication and support was greatly appreciated, and continues to remind me of why I enjoy living and working in Vermont.

The BRSU Board continued its work in exploring governance change. The Board voted in support of adding the Mountain Towns Regional Education District and the Winhall School District to the BRSU effective July 1, 2013. The Vermont State Board of Education subsequently approved these changes. The BRSU Board hired Dr. Raymond Proulx to perform a Phase I Governance Study of the current BRSU districts to identify options for future governance change. The results of this study will be published in early 2013. The BRSU Board met with the governance consultants assigned to examine the future of the Battenkill Valley Supervisory Union in Arlington. The results of that work will be made available in June 2013.

Nancy Mark, a former Vermont Elementary Principal of the Year and the long-serving principal of the Mettawee Community School, retired in June 2012. Her contributions to her school, the communities of Pawlet and Rupert, and to the BRSU leadership team were significant. Brooke DeBonis was hired as the next Mettawee principal to replace Mrs. Mark. Ms. DeBonis was an exceptional Mettawee teacher who is well qualified to continue the Mettawee tradition of academic excellence for all students.

After several years of work, a common instructional vision for BRSU schools is emerging. That vision is based on personalized learning and designing instructional systems to better support the aspirations of students. A focus of this work is pointing accountability towards our local school boards, parents, and students, and away from federal systems such as those prescribed by the No Child Left Behind Act. We intend to still use external accountability systems to ensure our students are being educated to the highest standards, but our new accountability systems will allow us to make “just-in-time” adjustments based on student progress, a feature not provided by the current NECAP system. Toward that end, we piloted the Northwest Evaluation Association’s MAP testing in the Spring of 2012. MAP testing will provide normative comparisons of student progress based on large, national samples, while at the same time providing real-time data on how students are progressing using an individual student growth model. BRSU schools fully implemented MAP testing in the Fall of 2012.

The efficiency of MAP testing will allow us to pursue significant changes in our instructional systems in the coming months. A central focus of this work will be the implementation of Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) for students. PLPs will be formulated with student, parent, and teacher input, and will serve to guide the development of curriculum. PLPs will also serve to structure student e-portfolios. E-portfolio templates will be designed by BRSU staff during the 2012-2013 school year. To support the implementation of personalized learning, PLPs and e-portfolios, the BRSU contracted with Dr. David Silvernail of the University of Southern Maine to develop an evaluation system to assist our schools in leveraging all of our organizational systems to implement these significant changes. Dr. Silvernail was the lead investigator for several studies on Maine’s 1:1 computing initiative, and is a very experienced educational researcher and program evaluator.

BRSU’s work in personalizing learning was recognized at the national level when our district was selected as one of twenty districts to participate in a national school reform initiative, “Teaming for Transformation,” sponsored by the US Department of Education, the Consortium for School Networking and North Carolina State University. Much of this work is fairly innovative and based on the fundamental concept that continuous school improvement happens more quickly and more effectively when schools work together. BRSU schools are committed to working together to support our continuous improvement, and we are constantly looking for opportunities to partner with other like-minded districts in Vermont, in other states, and around the world.

Social Share Counters

Vermont Needs A World Class Public Education System

“Welcome to Vermont: Home of a World-Class Public Education System” is the title of the vision statement on a quality education commissioned by the Vermont Superintendents Association in 2010.  As the president of the Association at the time, I had a hand in organizing the two years of work which went into producing this vision statement and I helped author the above mentioned quote.  I think the phrase “World Class” resonated with our membership because it was aspirational – we desired to transform Vermont’s public education system into a world class system.

Lately, there has been more discussion over what is meant by a world class education system.  Last week the US Department of Education put out its white paper on international education strategy entitled, Succeeding Globally Through International Education and Engagement, and in 2012 several books on the topic were published (e.g. A World Class Education: Learning from International Models of Excellence and Innovation by Vivien Stewart, World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students by Yong Zhao, and The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence by Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley).  I thought I would synthesize the key concepts of these books in order to suggest policy design principles for Vermont as we begin to think about transforming our current educational system into a world class system.

  1. International Benchmarking – World class education systems benchmark themselves against other countries.  They search out best practices from around the world and try to make sense of them in their own policy and cultural context.  I think Vermont, like many US states, is too inward focused in terms of our educational standards and benchmarking.  We frequently use grade normalization data from among our own schools (or regional data in the case of NECAP) to measure success when we should be comparing our students’ performance against their international peers.
  2. Strong Moral Commitment to the Success of All Students – Countries with world class education systems make an overt commitment to the educational success of all students, and make the necessary social investments to ensure their success.  As compared to other developed countries, there is a higher degree of correlation between US performance on international benchmark exams and our relatively high rates of poverty.  This means most high performing countries do a better job of closing the achievement gap between rich and poor students.  Vermont needs to expand its focus on early education programs and seek stronger policy coordination and alignment between social and education systems.
  3. High Quality Teachers – There is consensus that one of the critical features of a world class education system is having high quality teachers.  This means not only creating high quality teacher education programs at the university level, but also having well developed systems for ensuring teachers continue to develop their professional skills once they enter the work force.  High quality teachers in world class systems have solid preparation in both content and pedagogy.  Another common feature of world class education systems is the empowerment of teachers and a shift from accountability systems to responsibility systems – teachers are empowered and responsible for the success of their students.  Interestingly, in Finland the best translation for “accountability” is “responsibility.”  Vermont has some excellent teacher preparation programs, but these programs are fairly disconnected from teacher inservice professional development programs and teacher re-licensing activities.
  4. High Quality Curricula – In many world class educational systems, teachers develop curricula from the ground up with strong connections to educational researchers at the university level.  Vermont should implement an instructional development platform which connects all teachers to educational researchers in the development of curricula.  Such a system should also provide opportunities for connections with other teachers and educators from around the US and the world.  Such a system would better ensure high quality curricula are provided throughout all regions of the state.
  5. Systems Thinking – World class education systems are the result of systems thinking on the part of policy makers.  In these systems, education policy is very intentional and closely linked to social and economic development, and in some cases national survival.  Vermont needs to have a clearer and more coherent approach to education policy, and needs to make a stronger connection between investments in education systems and social and economic development.

The better part of the argument for the need to create a world class education system comes from the economic perspective.  Globalization has accelerated increasing the number of educated workers entering the global work force, and technology has increased the need for higher skilled workers and decreased the need for lower skilled workers.  In short, our students will be competing for higher skilled jobs with students from all over the world not just with students from Vermont or from the US.

Yong Zhao makes a slightly different economic argument.  He believes a world class system is one which makes the shift from preparing students for employment to preparing students to be entrepreneurs.  His data suggest there is an inverse correlation between a country’s scores on international education exams such as PISA and a country’s entrepreneurial capabilities: aiming for standardization of curricula and better performance on high stakes international benchmark exams might diminish a country’s capacity for economic growth by discouraging the necessary capacity for innovation and creativity among its work force.

Another cautionary note pertains to the problems associated with trying to replicate education models found in different cultures.  Many of the successful education systems can be seen as a function of a country’s unique history and culture.  The fact that education in Singapore does not look like education in Finland points to the necessity for considering the uniqueness of the cultural context.

Nevertheless, I think Vermont needs to put more effort into understanding what works in education systems from around the world, and then trying to make sense of those system features from a Vermont perspective.  I think it would be especially helpful to consider successful systems in countries or states which have a similar respect for local control.  Alberta, for example, has an acknowledged world class education system which is highly decentralized.  I think Alberta’s Initiative for School Improvement is worthy of further review.

As we talk about improving our educational system in Vermont, I think it is important to frame the conversation around creating a world class system.  Vermont education has much to offer the world, but we would benefit greatly by learning from the educational approaches of other states and countries.

Social Share Counters

Some Thoughts on Math and Science Education in Vermont

In a recent article in the Rutland Herald, an IBM executive remarked that only 38% of Vermont’s juniors meet basic math competencies.  I am not sure where these numbers come from, but I take more issue with her cure rather than her diagnosis which she apparently prescribed to several university presidents: “You’ve got to immediately stop graduating teachers the way you are graduating them today – they don’t know math.”  Although I think the quality of teacher development programs at the college level is and will always be something we need to attend to, I think the larger problem is how teacher development relates to curriculum development.  Currently, there is a significant disconnect between the two.

We have some excellent teacher development resources in Vermont for math (e.g. VMI, and the Vermont Mathematics Partnership Ongoing Assessment Project – see OGAP on Marge Petit’s site) which prepare teachers very well.  There is a gap, however, between the quality of these programs and the quality of the curriculum materials these teachers end up using in their classrooms.  Teachers are frequently required to customize and augment the locally adopted curriculum, and they do much of this work in isolation from each other and from the training programs which supported them.

A more effective approach would be leverage a network of well trained teachers to design a curriculum from the ground up, and to use that curriculum as the basis of a training program for future teachers.  Such an approach would close the gap between training and implementation and thereby create both a faster development cycle and a better feedback loop for quality assurance.  I described the theory (“Lateral Networking”) behind such an approach in a previous blog post.  This type of approach is not just theory, however, but being used to great effect in other places such as New Jersey.


Lessons in Lateral Innovation from the Garden State: The New Jersey Center for Teaching and Learning (NJCTL)

I ran into Dr. Bob Goodman of the NJCTL several years ago when he was presenting at Alan November’s BLC conference.  An MIT trained physicist and the former CEO of Harman Kardon and JBL Consumer Products, Bob is a physics teacher at a vocational high school in Bergen County, NJ and was New Jersey Teacher of the Year in 2006.  Bob is also the Executive Director of the NJCTL where he works on creating and implementing the Center’s Progressive Math Initiative and Progressive Science Initiative (see PSI-PMI for more information).  These initiatives have been very successful and are excellent examples of teachers working together to build a world class curriculum from the ground up.  I call these initiatives successful because they get results for students.  They are also designed around world class standards.  The PSI has won international awards, and Bob has been working extensively in Argentina and was recently hired by the World Bank to do some work in Africa.

In the early years of the PSI, Bob ran into a problem in that there were not enough physics teachers in New Jersey to teach AP Physics.  To solve this problem, he obtained authority to license physics teachers directly through his program.  His teacher development program utilized the same physics curriculum materials used to instruct students in high school.  Bob recruited good teachers from a variety of content area backgrounds and taught them physics.  Interestingly, Bob believes, “the physics is easy but the teaching is hard.”   See the attached whitepaper by Bob which describes his approach in more detail.  Bob’s program is well supported by both New Jersey NEA and Governor Christie.  Apparently PSI-PMI are one of the few things the union and the Governor both agree upon.

I noticed on the NJCTL website that the program has now spread to Colorado.  The question is why not Vermont?  Well, it is not for a lack of trying.  We brought Bob to Vermont on several occasions.  He was the keynote presenter at the VSA and VTFEST conferences where he wowed the audiences.  I have also had him present to my staff at the BRSU.

There is a lot to be learned from initiatives such as PSI-PMI.  I think it would be great if VMI and other exemplary Vermont teacher development programs partnered with similar programs in New Jersey, Colorado, and Argentina to develop a world class math and science curriculum which could also be used as the basis for a teacher development program.  This could be done fairly easily if we leveraged the Internet and networked teachers in a common development platform.  Such an approach has proven to get results in New Jersey and would likely be more effective than our current curriculum development systems which in my opinion rely too heavily on the delayed promulgation of top down standards and outdated organizational methods of curriculum alignment.

Our curriculum development systems are too disconnected from the high quality teacher development programs provided at the state level.  Our students would greatly benefit if we closed the gap between the two in a more systematic manner.


Social Share Counters

Some Thoughts on Disciplining Educational Innovation

In education, our research and development (“R&D”) systems are curriculum development and professional development.  These are the primary systems we utilize to improve instruction, and these systems are traditionally hierarchical and organized around school or district boundaries.  We rely on top down policies and approaches such as standards and state-level assessments to influence the improvement of these systems even though there is significant lag time, often several years, between the development of standards and the implementation of their related assessments.  There is also the case of fidelity to a curriculum – even when a formal curriculum is adopted, districts struggle with ensuring it is actually being implemented in a coordinated manner.

In Working Laterally, David Hargreaves describes an alternative approach called “lateral networks” where networks are leveraged to connect educators beyond traditional organizational boundaries to greatly improve these R&D processes.  This approach requires educators to build curricula from the ground up by utilizing the collective wisdom of their peers.  Curriculum development and professional development are “open sourced” with best practices being identified, implemented, and evaluated much more quickly across a group of schools since teachers are no longer working in isolation within their own schools or districts.  Standards remain an essential component to ensure quality, but standards become a tagging scheme for educators to organize instructional activities as opposed to a top down framework that narrows the curriculum.

To network educators in this manner and to build curricula from the ground up requires organizational discipline.  Just like in open source software development, certain protocols and systems must be enforced to focus the collective work of the community.   Disciplining educational R&D systems means providing both internal and external assurance that these systems are going to achieve the desired ends for students.  Internal assurance can be understood as responsibility – as educators we must be professionally responsible to each other for the quality of instruction provided across our entire system, not just in our individual classrooms, since it is this broader experience which ultimately affects student learning.  External assurance is commonly expressed as accountability.  We must be able to demonstrate to students, parents and community members that our educational programs are of high quality.

As districts implement lateral networks to support educational innovation, they need to be able to articulate a system of organizational discipline and publish it to both internal and external stakeholders.  In our district we have developed the following list of activities as a plan to discipline our innovation:

  • School board Ends and monitoring policies (see this blog post);
  • System benchmarks (formative and summative) based on a logic model to ensure the personalization of student learning.  This system is being developed in consultation with Dr. David Silvernail from the University of Southern Maine;
  • The rapid development, implementation and evaluation of best practices through lateral networking using a common instructional management system (Haiku);
  • NWEA MAPS just-in-time assessments used three times a year used in formative data teams by teachers and externally by parents, administration and school board members for program monitoring;
  • A standards-based curriculum; and
  • Documenting student learning through eportfolios.

I think a balanced portfolio of disciplining approaches is necessary to guide innovation in a common direction.  Ideally, some disciplining approaches are able to satisfy both internal and external requirements.  I also believe it is essential that governance be addressed so the necessary policy alignment for innovation can be secured.

Considerable attention is being paid to how technology might affect student learning.  More attention needs to be paid to how technology might improve our instructional R&D systems.  I believe the current federal and state education policies which are focused on relatively inefficient and ineffective top down approaches need to shift towards supporting the development of disciplined systems of innovation which are scalable across a large group of schools irrespective of district, state, or national boundaries.  Such an approach is likely to be more effective, less costly, and better able to ensure a high level of quality.

Social Share Counters

Report of the Superintendent of Schools 2012

There were significant staffing changes at the administrative level during the 2010-2011 school year. Jean Ward, BRSU Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development, retired as did James Merryman, the long-serving principal of The Dorset School. Jackie Wilson, the principal of MEMS, moved to the central office to fill the Curriculum vacancy created by Jean Ward’s retirement, and Wayne Flewelling, a BRSU special education director, left the organization to become the special education director in a neighboring supervisory union. Rosanna Moran was hired to be the principal of The Dorset School, and Sarah Merrill moved up from the assistant principal position at MEMS to become principal. Brenda MacDonald was hired as the new special education director, and John Dawson was hired as the Director of Instructional Innovation, a grant-funded position charged with advancing the utilization of technology in our schools.

Our districts continued their work in navigating Act 153, a law that promotes the voluntary merger of school districts and requires the centralization of certain services at the supervisory union level. The BRSU board established a governance committee to address the voluntary merger aspects of the law. This committee had two focus areas: 1) anticipating the integration of the Mountain Towns Regional Education District (Landgrove, Londonderry, Peru, Weston, and the Floodbrook School) into the BRSU on July 1, 2013, and 2) commissioning an internal Phase I governance study among the our nine BRSU districts. The vote on the Mountain Towns RED and its assignment to the BRSU is scheduled for the winter of 2012. A related issue pertains to the Winhall Town School District which is pursuing a feasibility study for joining the BRSU in 2013. I believe the integration of these districts into the BRSU will not only lower administrative costs, but also allow us to better leverage regional resources to expand learning opportunities for students.

The work surrounding the required centralization of services under Act 153 continues to move forward as well. Business services have been consolidated into the supervisory union office saving Manchester and Dorset over $30,000 and $15,000 per year respectively. A common collective bargaining process with our six teachers unions was initiated in the winter of 2010 with the goal of achieving a single teachers contract. Work on the centralization of special education and transportation services has been deferred until the 2012-2013 school year in order to better understand how these services might work in a reconfigured supervisory union with the potential additions of the Mountain Towns RED and Winhall.

Considerable progress was made in the area of instructional technology systems. We deployed a supervisory union-wide student information system with a common approach to report cards. This should serve our districts well as we transition to the new Common Core curriculum standards. We also implemented a new learning management system that will expand the curriculum, extend classroom activities beyond the school day, create greater opportunities for students and teachers to collaborate with their peers, and improve communication between parents and teachers. We are planning on deploying a fiber optic network with high speed Internet access among our schools and to the central office on July 1, 2012. This network will be built as part of a federal initiative to expand bandwidth access in Vermont. In this network, our schools will function as “anchor institutions” as part of a larger economic development strategy for the region.

Federal education policy as articulated through the No Child Left Behind Act continues to be a drain on our time, attention, and dollars. Vermont has applied for a waiver from its provisions, but I am concerned the direction of Federal education policy remains misguided, and ultimately will do more harm than good. As I survey the larger educational policy context, I believe our districts are well situated to articulate an alternative vision for schooling, a vision based on a respect for community, a dedication to high standards, and a focus on personalized learning opportunities for all students. Thank you for your continued support of this work.

Social Share Counters

Report of the Superintendent of Schools 2009

During the 2009 school year, new administrative job descriptions were adopted. This work culminated in the design and implementation of a superintendent evaluation process that will serve as a model for the evaluation of all administrative staff. The results of the superintendent evaluation were reduced down to specific organizational priorities. These priorities can be viewed on the BRSU website.

These priorities focus on strengthening our instructional systems, personalizing learning opportunities for students through the use of technology, and improving the efficiency of our operations. In terms of operational efficiency, the accounting services for the Manchester School District were shifted to the BRSU office in Sunderland. This change will save Manchester approximately $37,000 a year and will greatly enhance our financial reporting capabilities. The Mettawee School District transitioned their accounting services to the central office in 2008. Consolidating our back office operations saves money, streamlines audit processes, and provides greater oversight to board members and the public.

Another major structural change being implemented pertains to our early education programs. The supervisory union and its districts are navigating a new law, Act 62, which provides incentives for the expansion of early education programs. Based on these changes, we will be eliminating a full-time director position at the BRSU and some of the responsibilities for administering the school-based early education programs will be shifted to administrators in the schools.

We have made substantial progress in improving the efficiency of our operations, but there is still more work to be done in this area. Since 80% of our costs are attributed to personnel, our major strategy for achieving greater efficiency will be to seek opportunities to share personnel and services among our districts. I believe this points to the necessity for governance reform; our current structure of 9 districts and 10 boards is too cumbersome and inhibits our ability to respond to changing economic circumstances and declining student numbers. Governance reform is being considered at the state level, but our districts are not waiting for these decisions to be made in Montpelier. We are engaged in a serious review of our systems and will be organizing opportunities in the coming months for broad community input on this topic as our boards establish Ends policies.

Through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), our districts have received additional federal “stimulus” funds. These funds have been received through federal formula programs and must be spent in accordance with the guidelines of these programs. We have received approximately $90,000 in Title I and $400,000 in IDEAB or special education. All of these funds are one-time funds and must be spent in two years. The Title I funds are being allocated to the three BRSU districts that are eligible to receive these funds (Currier, Mettawee, and Sunderland), and the IDEAB funds will be spent centrally to reduce the costs of our special education programs. Most likely we will use these funds to establish special education programs at the supervisory union level in order to reduce costs for sending students out of the district for these services. We will also be reviewing the transportation costs of these programs to see if it would be more cost effective to run our own transportation services.

In spite of these additional funds, all of our districts have struggled this year to adopt budgets that are both fiscally responsive and sensitive to student program needs. The majority of our districts, however, have been able to achieve decreases in their expenditure budgets which is no small accomplishment considering many of our fixed costs are increasing. We will need your continued involvement and support to ensure we can navigate these challenging economic circumstances while at the same time ensuring our children obtain a quality education. Thank you for your support.

Social Share Counters

Draft Superintendent Job Description

It is important for all BRSU employees to embrace individual and organizational accountability. The public has entrusted us with their resources and the education of their children – I can’t imagine a greater responsibility. This is especially true for administrators who must be committed to transparent decision-making processes, democratic governance practices, and the highest ethical standards.

To that end, I have drafted a revised job description for the superintendent position. I invite your input. Feel free to submit it directly to me or to the Assistant Superintendent, Judy Adams. Each board in the supervisory union will have the opportunity to give input through their regular board meetings. I will gather all of this feedback and submit a revised draft to the BRSU board for their consideration later this summer. Once a job description has been formally adopted by that board, I will devise an evaluation process for the position that incorporates 360 degree feedback from various organizational stakeholders.

Social Share Counters