Carpentersville #300 At A Glance Location: Carpentersville, Ill. Communities served: Algonquin, Carpentersville, Lake in the Hills, East Dundee, West Dundee, Sleepy Hollow, Hampshire, Gilberts, and portions of Elgin, Barrington, Cary and Pingree Grove. Superintendent: Norman Wetzel Students: 13.200 Per pupil expenditure: $4,188 Schools: 3 high schools 3 middle schools 12 elementary schools Total square feet: 1.45 million

Supt. Norman Wetzel: "When parents, teachers and administrators begin to talk through issues, particularly with trained facilitators, the trust tends to grow."

SPM: "With all the decision-making coming up from below, how is that changing the superintendent's and the board's accountability to the public?"

Supt. Norman Wetzel: "To embark in a direction without the proper training and support can lead to disaster."

SITE-BASED TEAMS

AT THE SEAT OF POWER

Editor Rod Sutton spoke with Wetzel about how District 300 made the transition from top-down management to a system where power rests in local hands.

SPM:

You just broke ground for a new school. When did you form the site-based team?

 

WETZEL:

The school-improvement team was selected two years before the project started so they could work with the architects. The principal has been identified; the assistant principals have been identified; and several parents and teachers have been identified to work on the school improvement team.

 

SPM:

Is the team doing the educational specifications for that school?

 

WETZEL:

They sat down with the architects and looked at rough printouts that had been designed to get everything started, and they're working with the architect in depth. They've been working with the architects for at least a year.

 

The first thing we did when we knew we were going to have a new school was to get clearance from the board of education to proceed earlier, so we could have everybody in line before the school was built. Then we got some volunteers from the [district-level] Communication Council for School Improvement who would have youngsters attending that school. They helped in the selection of the principal. I made the final recommendation to the board, but they participated in the overall screening and interview process.

 

Once the principal was identified, he then worked with all of those folks to find additional parents and additional teachers, so it's been a collaborative effort all the way through. And they're now working collaboratively on the fine print, in terms of setting up the entire institution.

 

SPM:

How did you introduce the concept of site-based management to your district?

 

WETZEL:

We learned about a program IDEA [Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a national nonprofit organization] was sponsoring on school improvement. Four of us—myself, the president of the teachers' association and two elementary principals—went through the first phase of a 10-day, two-phase program geared toward site-based management.

 

When we came back, we set up a round table with the principals to talk about our experiences. We had to see if there was any interest or spark among the principals. At that point, there was.

 

So we decided to take another step. We invited the superintendent of North Glenn, Colo.—a school district that was already involved in the site-based approach—to spend a day or two with the principals and some of the central office staff telling about their approach and the experiences they had had. Then two or three representatives from our district went out to North Glenn to talk with the community, students, teachers and others.

 

At that point, we made an offer to the principals. If they would like to go through the [IDEA] training program, the district would support the entire effort in terms of cost and in terms of releasing them to go to the program. It cost us $800 per person for the 10-day sessions. But there was one caveat: The principal had to be accompanied by a teacher and a parent, and they had to go through it as a team.

 

It was also with the understanding that when your team went through the training program, if the three of you, collectively, felt that this was not for your school, it would be OK.

 

SPM:

All your principals eventually went through the program; what did that involve?

 

WETZEL:

Phase 1 was a five-day experience in learning how to work together. The parents, the business people and the other administrators involved in it shed their specific roles and identities. They became one coherent group that had the best interests of the school district and individual schools in mind.

 

Following that initial five-day training period, all the schools began to set up improvement teams. They went back to their buildings and began working with teachers, friends, community members and administrators. At that point, they were moving on their own to generate a school- improvement process that would best meet the needs of their own schools.

 

[The district had] provided time, training and trust, which I believe are the three critical elements.

 

SPM:

These three people—the principal, a teacher and a parent—formed the core of each improvement team?

 

WETZEL:

They were the facilitators; they had been trained [through the IDEA program] to start working with a diverse group of people and bring them together so they could focus on common issues: a mission statement, goals and objectives for their particular schools.

 

SPM:

How did each core group actually form a team?

 

WETZEL:

Some of the facilitators pulled in a couple of other volunteers to discuss that very issue: How do you go about forming school-improvement teams so that you have a body that represents the community around that school?

 

In some cases, they advertised. They put statements in the newspapers; they used flyers. As people came in, they began selecting volunteers. Another school had an election.

 

The important point is, they decided that one of the most important steps was figuring out how to generate their own school-improvement team.

 

SPM:

How long did it take to set up the teams?

 

WETZEL:

It varied from school to school. Some of the schools were on the fast track; they had their teams selected and were ready to go within weeks. Others took a much more deliberate approach. I guess a rule of thumb is six months. Within a year, each school had created a team of 20 to 30 individuals, half of whom were parents. The other half were teachers and an administrator.

 

SPM:

It seems an initial hurdle would be convincing principals and teachers to relinquish some of their traditional decision-making power. Was there any of that in this process?

 

WETZEL:

Sure, and there still is. When you're dealing with an institution as large as a school, and certainly as large as a school district, there will always be differing points of view. There was a significant amount of conversation among principals and teachers, teachers and parents. Some educators are threatened by the idea that parents should get actively involved in school operations.

 

What's interesting is that, for the first time, we were able to talk through those issues. By And large, when parents, teachers and administrators begin to talk through issues, particularly when there are facilitators trained to generate that kind of discussion, the trust tends to grow.

 

Once the trust grows, we begin to talk about using the human resources in our communities. We're giving people an opportunity to play a role.

 

SPM:

How long did it take before the teams started generating decisions and changes?

 

WETZEL:

It took a significant amount of time. The first six months is all part of the readiness. You're not even involved in change at that point. The selection of the team—getting people ready, motivated, learning about the process—is time-consuming. The second five-day phase of training gets the team ready to actually design a mission statement and goals.

 

SPM:

After all the training, what did you expect from each school-improvement team?

 

WETZEL:

The first task was to establish a mission statement. That in itself takes a tremendous amount of time.

 

The team alone didn't decide what the mission was; the team facilitated that decision from all the stakeholders associated with that school. There was a phenomenal amount of communication between the school-improvement teams and all the teachers, all the parents, the students, the community.

 

After all that preliminary work—it takes six to seven months to get to this point—each team went on a retreat. In most cases, it was a full two days. They established a mission statement and long-term goals for the school. They took the statement back to the school and shared it with all the stakeholders for comment.

 

When they had answered all the questions related to their mission statement, each team made a presentation to the board of education for formal approval.

 

This took a couple of years. By the end of that time, each team had gone through all its training, identified its mission and goals, and made a presentation to the board of education. When the board approved the mission and goals, the team was ready for site-based management.

 

SPM:

How did you meld those 18 mission statements into a district mission?

 

WETZEL:

We have another group called the Communication Council for School Improvement. It includes roughly two members from each institution. One-half of the participants are parents and community representatives; one-fourth are teachers; and about one-fourth are administrators.

 

It was this group's task to synthesize the individual mission statements into a district statement: "District 300's students will reach their potential as self-directed learners and responsible citizens."

 

SPM:

Are there limits on what the school-improvement teams can do in support of their mission?

 

WETZEL:

The school can basically do whatever is in the best interest of the children and families, providing it does not violate the law, does not violate negotiated contracts, and does not violate board of education policy. But any of those three stipulations can be considered for waivers.

 

The fourth stipulation is that the school must work with available resources; they can't invent additional resources. Each building receives a per-pupil allotment, and the team decides how it's spent.

 

We've taken a number of steps to enable the schools to be more creative and flexible in how they can use the resources they have.

 

SPM:

For instance?

 

WETZEL:

At one school, one of the secretaries left. Rather than hiring a replacement, the school asked if it could have the equivalent in cash to use for another purpose for a year. Then the following year, they would add that staff member.

 

The schools select their own textbooks, too. We don't have a standard reading book throughout the district. Those are spec'd on a school-by-school basis.

 

SPM:

What does this do to your assistant superintendent for instruction, whose primary responsibility is curriculum?

 

WETZEL:

We're not administratively top-heavy in the first place, so there's plenty for all of the administrators to do. But the role of the central staff has changed. Before, there was a common expectation that we would go out and solve problems. If a school needed a textbook, we would facilitate the identification of a textbook, districtwide.

 

Now, rather than being the primary problem solver, we provide service. We're not going to make the decision about what textbook is best for you, but we will help you with the process, so you can decide, as a school, what textbook best meets your needs.

 

I believe the role of assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction is even more important now that it was before. In many ways, it requires much more effort and work than before. We're not talking about choosing one book for 12 elementary schools; we're talking about someone who is available and on-call to provide a service for 12 elementary schools.

 

SPM:

With all the decision-making coming up from below, how is that changing the superintendent's and the board's accountability to the public?

 

WETZEL:

To a great extent, it increases it. We believe the decisions that are going to have the most powerful impact on kids' learning are the decisions that are made in individual schools. That's where the ownership is.

 

That does not mean we are abrogating our responsibilities as superintendent or board of education. It's still absolutely critical that we maintain extraordinarily high standards for all students. Those standards are there, and we do have districtwide expectations that all students must aspire to. but we're not as concerned about how they go about doing it.

 

There could be 18 different ways of climbing that mountain, which is find; we'll help you climb it. But we're going to make sure the standards on that mountain are as high as they ought to be. 

 

There must be a clear understanding that everything is related to collaborative work, to a trusting environment. Site-based management doesn't take one person; it takes dozens, if not hundreds, of people communicating with each other.

 

SPM:

Did you come across any unexpected challenges?

 

WETZEL:

Everything was unexpected. We're talking about a number of individuals who had gone through the training and now were going back to talk to 140 staff members and others about going someplace that nobody knew about. They didn't know where they were going; they didn't know how they were going to get there; they had only a vague understanding of the school-improvement process. So there were a lot of questions. But it just goes back to that issue of trust.

 

SPM:

What would you say to people thinking of trying site-based management in their districts?

 

WETZEL:

Don't move too fast. If two or three people who have been trained as facilitators lose focus and start charging ahead before everyone else is ready, then you can have a problem. They have to get together and become totally cognizant of all the bits and pieces moving and flowing as a unit.

 

A second danger would be to start grappling with significant issues too early. You're setting yourself up for failure.

 

SPM:

What kinds of issues are appropriate for the new school-improvement team to tackle?

 

WETZEL:

Most of our schools focused on selecting textbooks. In other cases, it might be the approach toward student discipline. Those kinds of changes didn't affect contracts or someone's job. They were safe, but important, changes, and the odds were that the team would be successful in making them.

 

SPM:

Have you had to face any other challenges?

 

WETZEL:

A third danger is not to provide total and thorough communication. If you do not pay attention to the complete necessity for communication, problems will occur. 

 

To embark in a direction without the proper training and support can lead to disaster. Perhaps more often than not, that's where districts that embark on reform tend to fall immediately. They start reforming without training people in how to work with each other, how to trust each other, how to move ahead.

 

SPM:

Since you have a team involved in planning a new school, you obviously believe your process has evolved enough so that your teams are ready to address more complex issues. How did that team define its mission for a school that hasn't been built? Is that school different from what you already have in the district?

 

WETZEL:

It's different because it's a K-8 facility. That was intentional, so there would be more continuity from the lower grade levels into the higher grade levels. Some of the aspects of the middle school academic program will be available to youngsters in the elementary school: science labs and music programs, for example. There's a great deal of potential there.

 

SPM:

A K-8 school is unusual?

 

WETZEL:

Yes. We're talking about team teaching with interaction between the various grade levels. It's an entirely different approach toward K-8 education.

 

SPM:

Will students be grouped by subject matter?

 

WETZEL:

The school-improvement team is working on that now. They're deciding what their curriculum is going to be. They're deciding how they're going to teach it. The teachers that have been identified so far represent most of the subject areas. The school-improvement team, in conjunction with the principal, is identifying teachers. In fact, it was the school-improvement team that helped identify the principal.

 

SPM:

Would you consider District 300's approach to site-based management unique?

 

WETZEL:

To an extent, it is. There are a lot of districts that talk about site-based. But the rule of thumb in most of those districts is that the district first sets its mission, and then everybody else gets in line.

 

We didn't take that approach. If we are truly talking site-based, then we should provide a service to the schools so each school can identify its own mission.