NHS Evaluation Report Highlights Overcrowding

By Susan Coney

Newtown High School Principal Arlene Gottesman reported on the contents of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) evaluation of NHS to the Board of Education on January 10. The evaluators main concern was not news to the board: the high school is overcrowded.

The committee also raised concerns about the high school’s Mission Statement and Expectations for student learning, stating that they must align with the graduation standards. The NEASC committee reported, “The work done to develop the graduation standards and their respective rubrics involved teachers, parents, and students was superbly done.” It also noted, however, that there is a disconnect between the graduation standards and the NHS Mission and Expectations for Student Learning.

Board member Lisa Schwartz commented that when she read the evaluation report she was surprised that the committee focused so closely on the school’s mission statement throughout the report. Ms Schwartz stated, “It doesn’t seem like that’s a huge issue for us to fix.”

Ms Gottesman, who has served as an evaluator on two prior NEASC evaluation committees, responded by saying she feels the Mission Statement recommendation is a relatively easy fix.

“I don’t see it as a daunting task,” said Ms Gottesman. “We can rework it similar to our graduation performance with a rubric. We can make academic recommendations that are clearly articulated and measurable.”

Ms Gottesman told The Bee during a later meeting that having served on previous NEASC committees provided her with a clearer understanding of the process involved. She stated that being on an evaluation committee is a grueling process but that she wanted to participate in order to understand and be able to relay information back to her staff and district, especially since NEASC has changed its standards in recent years.

Ms Gottesman had no doubts that the high school would receive the required accreditation. “I suspect we will be given highlighted recommendations that we will need to address in two year reports,” she said.

Overcrowding And Spending

The evaluation indicated that the school’s overcrowded facility could soon become a crisis. The report stated: “For Newtown High School to be successful in fulfilling its potential and truly preparing all its students for a knowledge-based, technologically driven world, the community of Newtown must do much more to support the teachers’ efforts to improve learning for every student. The overcrowded facility, the lack of adequate numbers of teachers, the overworked staff and the limited technology are all issues that the community must address quickly.”

The report also stated: “The Newtown community does not ensure an adequate and dependable source of revenue to provide and maintain appropriate school programs, personnel, services, facilities, equipment, technological support, materials and supplies for student learning. Despite the financial resources of the community and its citizens that places Newtown in the top ranks of the communities in Connecticut that are able to provide revenue, Newtown High School is ranked 139 out of the 169 school districts in Connecticut in per pupil expenditure.”

Ms Gottesman reported that the school was commended for having so many students go on to college after graduation and for the excellent scores achieved on the advanced placement tests. Other commendations credited the school for its dedicated faculty, who consistently strive to improve student learning and personalize instruction to meet the educational needs of the students and the significant and positive parental involvement throughout the school program.

The committee stated that the school provided a safe and supportive learning environment and that students and staff demonstrated a strong sense of pride in the school.

Board member David Nanavaty addressed the report, commenting, “Not to say the high school isn’t good, I think it is. This study pinpoints areas where we are lacking and I hope in two years we can address that.”

Ms Gottesman responded. “The self-study was written over a year and a half before the committee visited the school. A number of things have been addressed. Some of the concerns have been addressed and discussed.”

Fellow member Tom Gissen expressed concerns about the overcrowded class sizes and the fact that there are 300 students per guidance counselor. He was also alarmed by the lack of computers, calling it “a disaster.”

A visiting committee of 18 professional educators, selected by the association’s Commission on Public Secondary Schools, conducted the evaluation visit at Newtown High School from September 18 to September 21, 2005. Each school board member received a copy of the 73-page report at the December 20 meeting, giving members adequate time to review the evaluation. Ms Gottesman attended the board meeting to provide an overall highlight of the report and answer questions.

The purpose of the evaluation visit is to review and determine from an outside professional viewpoint the extent to which the school is meeting the Standards for Accreditation. The goal of the evaluation visit is to stimulate a continuing drive for improvement in the school. Continued accreditation requires that the school be reevaluated at least once every ten years and that it show continued progress addressing identified needs.

The accreditation program involves a three-part process: a self-study conducted by the local staff, the on-site evaluation conducted by the commission’s visiting committee, and the follow-up program carried out by the school to implement the findings of its own self-study and the recommendations of the visiting committee and those identified by the commission in the follow-up process.

Ms Gottesman said that the visiting committee reported 60 commendations and 59 recommendations. She provided board members with a chart highlighting the five areas of concern that make up the 59 recommendations. The areas of concern focus on facilities, staffing, technology, equity of opportunity for all students, and the mission statements and expectations for student learning.

More specifically, the committee raised concerns about the facility’s ability to accommodate the growing enrollment and being able to provide more opportunities for courses. They recommended smaller class sizes, increasing the quantity of computers, and providing more support for maintenance of technology services.

The evaluation report provides a blueprint for the faculty, administration, and other officials to use to improve the quality of programs and services for the students in high school. A school’s continued accreditation is based on satisfactory progress implementing valid recommendations of the visiting committee. In April the committee will submit to Superintendent Evan Pitkoff and Principal Gottesman a list of highlighted areas that need to be addressed.

The principal is required to submit routine two- and five-year progress reports documenting the current status of all evaluation report recommendations.

A public copy of the NEASC evaluation is available at C.H. Booth Library.

 

High School Expansion

In further business that evening, Superintendent Pitkoff stated that school officials are developing a chart of pros and cons to provide a more structured document outlining the obstacles involved in the high school expansion. He related to the board that an outside consultant has been recruited at no cost through Education Connection. The consultant, who is a retired school superintendent, will provide recommendations for the best way to proceed in the space needs dilemma.

Board member Paul Mangiafico expressed his frustration with the delay in addressing the overcrowded conditions at the high school. “Enlighten me, Evan. The clock is ticking. In your opinion what timeline do you envision? When do you see this materializing?” he asked.

 “The goal is to have what we are going to advocate and what will be supported by the town by June 30,” Dr Pitkoff replied. “We need to consider what it will cost and what is the best educational program that is the most cost effective.”

Board member Andrew Buzzi suggested, “We should have a public meeting with representatives from all committees to discuss options. I’d like to give other commissions and boards an opportunity to participate; hear input and the particulars and I hope in the next 60 days we can have a decision.”

Lisa Schwartz agreed, saying, “We need to police ourselves better for making deadlines and decisions. I’d be in favor of setting up a sequence of recommendations and meeting a deadline because all we’ve been doing is spinning our wheels.”

High school principal Arlene Gottesman told The Bee at a later meeting that she would like to see a new facility as a long-range plan for Newtown.

“We could move the middle school to the existing high school and the town offices to the middle school,” said Ms Gottesman. “I want what is in the best interest of the town.”

She continued, “When talking about a large high school you can make it with a community feel. Divide it into smaller houses for greater personalization and then come together as a community for larger things. What I don’t want to see is two high schools. It takes away from the small town feel Newtown is known for. If we build an expansion onto the existing building there will be no room to expand any further.”