Examining Comprehensive School Reform - Case Study Example

District School and School Boundary Schools or learning institutions can be regarded or considered at different levels including elementary school, middle school, and high school. Each category grouped herein deals with certain age of children as each category from prerequisite of another. By definition, an elementary school often include grades one and kindergarten through five and sometimes to six. It is worth noting that these some district school often subdivided into two categories of schools. On the other hand, the middle schools are inclusive of grade six or sometimes seven through eight. Some schools or districts use an alternative term for this category and usually refer to it as intermediary school or junior high school. Junior high schools usually refer to schools that engulfs grade seven through nine, while intermediate schools cover grades three through five or sometimes when these grades are separated from elementary schools. Finally, the high school category that includes grades nine through twelve. Sometimes it may incorporate grade seven and above. There are numerous cases where high school covers only grades ten to twelve, and this category is sometimes regarded as senior high school. All categories of the schools that have been discussed herein are responsible for the management of district schools. Public schools are public learning institutions that are managed by school districts that are independently instituted dependent school systems or special purpose governments. These management systems are controlled and closely governed by local and state government (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). Notably, district schools are never interfered with by the nation’s politic since they are legally independent body corporate and politic (Daniel and Aladjem, 2006). District learning institutions or the district schools are regarded as local government that have the same mandates and powers as those of a county or township that include eminent domain and taxation. However, the Virginia district divisions have taxing system within its district authority; thus, depends it must seek aid of other local governments including city, county, or town authorities for funding the school. The district school governing body is typically elected through the direct voting system. Nonetheless, the entire governing organ can be appointed by officials within the government (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). The district school governing body also known as stakeholders include school board, board of education, board of trustees, school committee, local school boards, district leaders, district accountability committee, school leaders, and school accountability committee. The superintendent is appointed by this body. Normally, an experienced pubic school administrator is appointed in the position of the superintendent. The superintendent’s functions are likened to those of districts chief executive. That is carrying and executing everyday’s decision making and implementing the institutions policies and strategies. Additionally, the school board may be mandated with responsibility such as quasi-judicial functions in matters relating to a serious student or employee discipline matters (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). All the stakeholders within the school system have varies responsibilities; thus, they are expected to be accountable and supportive along their lines of duty. Other than the mentioned above, the district school stakeholders also include the parents (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). Every stakeholder has its own different contribution to the school success. The Education Department is responsible for ensuring that high-quality information is provided to varied stakeholders including the students, especially concerning the school and district performance. This department is mandated to evaluating the performance of each and every public school, districts, and states applying the already stipulated set of common academic performance indicators (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). The Department of education is also responsible for accrediting districts and providing supports as well as assisting the districts in evaluating the entire district and district schools’ performance results in order for these districts and district schools to apply the evaluation results in improving their planning (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). The state Board of Education is mandated into entering into the accreditation contracts directly (Daniel and Aladjem, 2006) with the locals’ school boards and local school boards regarding the types of plans that the district schools should implement within their institution. The responsibilities of Local school board include overseeing academic programs offered within their schools and ensuring that their schools meet or rather exceeds the performance expectations of both the local and state governments. Additionally, it is responsible of accrediting the local school performance (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). The main performance indicators include examination of the school’s achievement, closing gaps, growth, and postsecondary or workforce readiness. Moreover, this organ of management is as well responsible for adopting, creating, and implementing a newly introduced performance, improving on the available performance, improving on the priority of the schools, or undertaking turnaround plans of the school. Finally, the school board must ensure that it creates, adopt, and implement all the forms and types of plans as required by the state boards (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). District leaders form part of stakeholders of a district school. They are responsible for ensuring that the academic programs availed for implementation by the district school meets the threshold or exceed the local and state’s performance expectations as spelled by the four key performance indicators proposed by the state (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). They usually play an essential role in creating, adopting, and implementing the district’s proposed laid down performance, priority improvement, improvement, or the turnaround plan; all of which are the requirement of the State board. District leaders are also responsible for reviewing the school’s performance, priority improvement, improvement, or turnaround plans. They are as well responsible for recommending the accreditation category with regards to every district school to the school board (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). The district schools are also entrusted to the management of the District Accountability Committees. These committees are bestowed with the responsibility of recommending to the local school boards on issues concerning the preparation of the district’s four key performance indicators including performance, priority improvement, improvement, and the turnaround plan (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). The performance indicators may also include a cooperative determination of other areas and issues that deserve improvement as well as areas that need agent address or readdress. This department also makes appropriate recommendation concerning the same issues and areas. The committee as well provides recommendation and input to principals, based on advisory, in regards to use and development assessment tools that measure and evaluates the academic performance and growth of students by evaluating the relationship between teacher and students (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). School leaders also form part of district school management. They are mandated with role of overseeing that the academic performance offered to the student meets or exceeds the local and state performance expectation (Matthew P. and Guasco, 2007). They as well ensure that the school’s entire management is meeting the stipulated district’s four key performance indicators. The school leaders are also responsible for (Daniel and Aladjem, 2006) creating, adopting, and implementing the key performance indicators or regulators within the school and report the same to the state board. With the regards that parents are also key stakeholders, the school accountability committees are as regarded as special organ in the school management (Suzanne and O'Neill, 2007). They are mandated with making recommendations concerning principal priority on how school funds are spent (Tierney and Fairchild, 2011). Their recommendations must also follow the scheme of school performance, priority improvement, improvement, or turnaround plan. The entire principle that they follow must meet at least the quarterly discussed implementation plan of the school as well as other progresses that are considered to (Daniel and Aladjem, 2006) be pertinent to the accreditation contract of the school with the local school board. This committee also provides recommendation and input to the District Accountability Committee in regards to the principal evaluations and development plans of the school (Matthew P. and Guasco, 2007). Parents are also regarded as key stakeholders and their concerns and issues regarding the management of the school must be duly considered. When implementation of new programs some stakeholders may not concur with the same ideals, especially parents; therefore, they should be explained to why the project is viable and needs implementation. Despite parents’ rejection, such projects must have been discussed by the management at both local and state level and pros of such project overweighed its cons; befits of such project’s implementation should be explained to the parents. This expansion of the boundaries is a very vital issue since the school as admitted more students than the current compound can comfortably accommodate (Daniel and Aladjem, 2006). First and foremost, the quality of education is never going to be jeopardized by boundary expansion in the sense that the number of student per teacher ratio shall ever be maintained. In other words, there shall be no congestion within the class rooms (Shell, 2006). The learning facilities shall be increased to accommodate the large number of students expected within the compound. Therefore, numerous structures are to be contracted before school opens. Some of the structures to be constructed include library, learning halls, playing ground and the restaurants. The travel time will never be an issue to both parents and students since there shall be an internal commuter service vans that shall take students from one corner of the institution to the other (Matthew and Guasco, 2007). The boundary expansion shall never cause economic stress to the institution since relevant finance committees have been consulted and they have worked out their drafts, and their projection can be accommodated by the school’s account (Shell, 2006). Culture diversity is one of the most important in regards to the world development. Therefore, if the process of boundary expansion will lead to intercultural interaction, it would be a great achievement of the institution and the entire community within and without the institution. It is true that some properties shall be affected with the expansion. However, the evaluators have confirmed that most of the buildings and certain facilities on the site or area of expansion will be beneficial to the school; thus, there few properties to be destroyed (Matthew P. and Guasco, 2007). There is very little input of ethnic and cultural effect on the school boundary expansion since each and every institution has its own rules and regulations (Shell, 2006). These rules and regulations shall apply equally to the entire school community; thereby, initiating equality in practice among the students and teachers. Additionally, the state has its own way of protecting the country’s culture and ethics and relevant committees shall ensure that the school management and school family implements and practice what is recommended by both the local and state government without favors. References Daniel K. & Aladjem, K. M. (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, D.C: The Urban Insitute. Matthew P. & Guasco, P. R. (2007). Principles of negotiation:strategies, tactics, techniques to reach agreements. Entrepreneur Press. Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for advantage:negotiation strategies for reasonable people. UK: Penguin Books. Suzanne R. & O'Neill, U. O. (2007). Key stakeholder perceptions of the expulsion process for high school students identified as emotionally disturbed. Michigan: ProQuest. Tierney, T. & Fairchild, J. L. (2011). The Turnaround Mindset:Aligning Leadership for Student Success. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More