Dr. Ted Comstock, Executive DirectorPaul DeMinico, Consultant

New Hampshire School Boards Association

June 23, 2011

Lin-Wood Management Study

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.

The Methodology

Interview individuals & groups Observe instruction, Review administrative job descriptionsSelect comparative school districts Review best practices researchContact NEASC for accreditation

implicationsDiscuss Special Education implications

StrengthsClass sizesSmall school feelingPersonalized school—like a familyFinancial support of the schools by communityPositive school climate and cultureAmple computer to student ratiosFaculty connection with students and their familiesEffective school with a fine reputationCaring and hard working teachersStudents and their individualized educationService learning opportunitiesNumber of AP courses given the high school

enrollment

Areas to Further DevelopCommunications (all types: top-down, bottom-up, internal &

external)Perception of “top-heavy” [administratively-heavy] school districtPerception that money is not wisely spentApathy among segments of community; need community

involvementMaster 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 hatsSpecial education costs are high and may impact other studentsFurther develop college, career counseling and related parent

contact Inconsistent disciplinary processes

Greatest ThreatsMoney needed to continue funding the schoolsHigh per pupil costs compared with the statePerceived high cost of management (“top-heavy” )“Eroding” trust of community in board and SAUExternal political climate of those who openly express

discontent State’s [diminished] role in assisting the schoolSpecial ed costs and perceived inequity between special &

regular ed Too many state rules and regulations that tie the hands of

the schoolLeadership turnoverThe growing number of discontented community members

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 wellProceed 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 504sKeep 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.

The Questions Raised & Answered1. Question: How does Lin-Wood’s administrative staff to

student ratios align with State standards? Research-based practices?

2. Question: What positions are mandated by State/Federal law? By administrative rules?

3. Question: What positions are mandated to maintain accreditation?

4. Question: Based on enrollment and workload, is there redundancy of positions? Responsibilities? 

5. If so, what consolidation is recommended?.6. Question: Could a superintendent, with proper

credentials, serve as Director of Pupil Services?.7. Question: Is there a need for the number of guidance

services/staff given enrollment?8. Question: Are there areas of reduction recommended

without negatively impacting students and school climate?

Comparisons: SAU & Building Support

District Enroll Supt SAU/Blg Support Supt$

LinWood: K-12 345 100% 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.

Comparisons: GC & Blg. Admin Ratios District Enroll GC S:T Blg Adm New Hampshire 178,034 12.2 Lin-Wood Coop 345 2/172.5 7.6 2/172.5Moultonboro 657 3/219 9.3

3.5/187.7Sunapee 451 3/150.3 10.2

3/150.3Pittsfield 564 3/188 8.2 3/188Wilton/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

Comparisons-Effort & Affordability 2009-10 2009-10 District Grades Enroll Cost/Pupil Eq Val/Pupil NH Averages K-12 $12,214

$837,6131. Lin-Wood K-12 345 $15,910

$3,072,1612. Moultonb K-12 657 $18,681

$4,845,5113. Sunapee K-12 451 $18,619

$2,578,4784. Pittsfield K-12 564 $15,706

$464,8095. Wilt/Lyn K-12 685 $13,130

$779.321

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

ConclusionQuestions & Answers