In April, 2007 the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, which accredits schools in New England, formally placed the Monadnock Regional Middle /High School on probation. This step came after several years on warning status. The biggest and most challenging issues: Outdated and overcrowded facilities and a lack of voter support for the public schools.
Will the district lose its accreditation? The clock is ticking.
- Time line of events - Read below to see the events that lead to escalate the district from warning to probation status and what comes next.
- Read our exclusive interview with Janet Allison, deputy director at NEASC, on what it all means for your kids, for your property values and for your community (This interview took place on February 6, 2008).
- Read the original NEASC Evaluation Report and probation letter. (Note that document are Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files. If you can’t read them, download the free Adobe Reader by clicking here)
- The MRHS information on NEASC and accreditation can be found here.
MONADNOCK PROBATION: TIME LINE OF EVENTS
Here’s how we got to where we are today - and what will happen next.
March 2004 - Preparations Begin.
A self study group formed at the school to prepare for the evaluation visit by the NEASC review team 30 months later. Unfortunately, as the evaluation committee noted later, “no representatives of school board, or members of the community joined the professional staff in the self-study deliberations.”
September 2006 - Evaluation Team Arrives.
A committee of 15 evaluators arrives for a four-day visit. It reviews the self study and meets with students, teachers, administrators, and elected officials. The all-volunteer team of NEASC officials includes teachers and other education professionals from throughout New England.
January 2007 - Evaluation Report Issued.
The NEASC issues its Evaluation Report, which notes both curricular and facilities deficiencies.
Facilities: Facilities deficiencies were previously identified by NEASC as a major problem resulting in the district being placed on warning status for several years.. The move to probation is an escalation reflecting a failure to show sufficient progress. Among its many observations on the inadequate state of the outdated circa 1961 Middle / High School facility, the report states:
“The building is crowded, as observed during the passing of classes, the lunchroom areas, the lack of space availability for large group gatherings during the school day, and within individual classes.
- Because a high number of teachers must share classrooms, as well as equipment and supplies that must be moved from room to room, there is a significant loss of instructional time.
- The band, dance and drama classes use the auditorium as an instructional site. These classes are canceled when the auditorium is needed for assemblies or special presentations.
- Because the school has only one gymnasium, the number of physical education classes and practice time for sports the teams are limited.
- All departments lack adequate storage space.
- It is not possible to fully separate the middle school students from the high school students although all middle school classes are now held in adjoining classrooms in one area of the building or in adjacent modulars.
- Students [using the attached modular classrooms or trailers] must return to the main building to use bathrooms.
- The new eight-period schedule has increased the availability of classrooms and alleviated overcrowding in the cafeteria, but the present facility neither adequately supports nor enhances student learning.”
The section concludes: “the facility requires updating or replacement to be a safe and effective site for education of this area’s youth.”
Public Support Lacking: The report repeatedly points to an apparent lack of public support for the schools. The visiting team notes that the school’s operating budgets failed to pass in five of the past 10 years (since then the district added a sixth failed budget), leaving it to work from a “default” budget that keeps all line items flat with the exception of contractual items. It sums up:
- …appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of the infrastructure has been limited by lack of funding. Cuts are often made at the budget subcommittee level resulting in a default budget that level funds line items from the previous year. The result is a facility with a variety of infrastructure problems that cannot be addressed. “
- “The frequent default budgets and lack of community-based voter support have contributed to the continued proliferation of infrastructure and overcrowding problems that directly threaten the quality of education throughout the school.”
April 5, 2007 - NEASC Probation Letter
NEASC sends a letter to the district notifying it that the Middle/High School has been placed on probation “based on significant and persistent deficiencies in its adherence to the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation on Instruction, School Resources for Learning and Community Resources for Learning.”
It judges the Middle/High School facility to be “A crowded and tired facility which does not adequately support teaching and learning.” It notes that all condition in the letter must be met before probationary status can be lifted.
The letter sets out a list of conditions that must be met for the district to retain its accreditation.
- It invites the district to “show cause why the school should not be placed on probation.”
- It requires the district to submit a Special Progress Report by November 1, 2007.
- It requires a Two-year Progress Report by October 1, 2008.
May 30, 2007 - Principal’s Appeal
MRHS principal Joe Smith submits a letter of appeal to the probation decision, citing changes made since the original site visit. Among other things, it notes that voters did approve work on an engineering study and a facilities master plan for the Middle School / High School facility as well as approving more than $1 million in much-needed repairs.
July 9, 2007 - NEASC Response.
The probationary status stands.
October 31, 2007 - First Progress Report Issued
It reviews the progress of an architectural firm hired to help develop a building proposal and master plan for the high school. It shows progress on smaller items, such as the requirement that students have access to a “health office” during school hours.
January 22, 2008 - NEASC Response
In its response letter, NEASC acknowledges progress cited. It states that the district must:
- Provide an update on the efforts underway to work with the architectural firm and
to communicate to the town the serious issues impacting the school facilities, as
well as provide a time-line outlining plans to fully resolve all cited facilities
concerns- Report further efforts to provide training for regular education teachers to support
special education students included in their classes- Take immediate steps to address in the short-term the lack of sufficient space,
handicapped accessibility, confidentially and privacy needs in the health office.
The next step: “The school’s probation status will be reviewed when the Commission considers the Two-Year
Progress Report.” That report is due on October 1, 2008.
February 12, 2008
The facilities committee presented its work on the master plan to the public. It will form the foundation for any proposals for bringing the facility up to standards required to retain accreditation.
March 11, 2008
Voters reject the operating budget (proposed 2.96% increase), SAU budget (proposed 4.8% increase) and teacher contract. A staff contract passes. A $400,000 facilities maintenance article to address health and safety related problems and a $123,000 maintenance article to repair leaky building roofs pass.