A team of administrators and teachers from independent schools throughout the Midwest visited the Schools for four days in October as part of the review and accreditation process of the Independent Schools Association of the Central States (ISACS). Their visit followed the Schools' intensive self-study portion of the review, which was coordinated by Maureen Ellis, Nursery and Kindergarten teacher, and Paul Gunty, Mathematics teacher and Assistant to the Associate Director. In this dialogue, Ellis and Gunty discuss their perceptions of the evaluation process.
Could you discuss the review process and why Lab participates?
Ellis: E
very
seven years, schools that are part of ISACS are required to go through this
review. The important thing is the information that it yields. The evaluation
is organized to identify strengths and challenges and then to prepare firm plans
to respond to those issues. It is an opportunity for a school to look at itself
and make a plan for improvements.
Gunty: Two steps in the process are particularly important. The first is the self-study that was done in our case from last January to July. Each grade level, department, and school program examined itself in detail. We identified what we think do well, what our concerns are, and then prepared an exhaustive report that stated those findings. That document was used by the ISACS team during their visit—the second part of the process—as a checklist to compare their impressions of the school against our own findings.
Who conducted the review and how were they chosen?
Gunty: The team chair was Sam Salas, Headmaster of Breck School in Minneapolis. The team included 20 other people, including an athletic director, a science department chair, and an upper school head. ISACS assigned the team, although we had some input as to what sorts of people might be on it. We wanted to make sure that team members were familiar with schools such as ours, which is relatively large, enrolls students from nursery through twelfth grade, and has a faculty association.
Ellis: There was a good variety of people who made up the team, and that helped the evaluation. They were very well organized and hard working.
What did they do during the review?
Ellis: The 21 team members arrived on a Sunday afternoon. High School and Middle School students led them on tours of the Schools, and the team met for a reception with board members, parents, administrators, and teachers. They had an opportunity to talk for 45 minutes in groups that matched people by grade level or committee work. On Monday and Tuesday, team members visited every classroom, and we scheduled appointments for them with parents, alumni, and board members. In the evening, they went back to the hotel and drafted a report of their findings.
Gunty: On Wednesday, the team worked on writing up the report. At the
end of the school day, Sam Salas delivered a
verbal summary of the highlights of their findings. This short oral report will
become part of the 70-page formal report that will identify our strengths, challenges,
and recommendations as the visiting team perceived them.
What did Salas have to say?
Ellis: One of the team's recommendations was that the Lab Schools work at describing curricula across grades, so we can see better how subjects are introduced and how skills and knowledge expand from grade to grade.
Gunty: While we already have a Program of Studies, which was a result of our last ISACS review, the team recommended that we take that information one step further and not only describe what goes on in courses and at grade levels, but also connect the instruction sequentially and in other ways. Other issues were space and integration of technology. Another recommendation was to improve communication among the Schools and between all members of the Schools community. Some notable strengths include our wonderful faculty, a strong and diverse student body, and dedicated administrators, alumni, and families.
What role did parents have during the review process?
Ellis: In addition to meeting and discussing issues with team members during the ISACS visit, parents also were members of committees that prepared the self-study. Every family also was sent an extensive ISACS survey last fall as part of the self-study process.
Gunty: Also, there was a specific self-study committee that focussed directly on parent-related issues.
How did you feel the session benefited the Schools?
Gunty: One thing that we found was the way that the self-study strengthens our understanding of the Schools. We had faculty members discussing school-wide issues, and that just doesn't happen often enough. Teachers gained valuable perspectives by talking with each other across school and departmental boundaries. During the self-study, several teachers commented that they were enjoying and benefiting from the opportunity to discuss issues with faculty from across the Schools.
Ellis: It also helped to have an objective outside group look at our Schools and give us its impressions. We were very pleased with what we heard in Sam Salas' summary. We really felt that the evaluators had captured the essence of the Lab Schools and the strengths of our program.
What are the next steps and what will happen as a result of the review?
Gunty: Before the end of the winter quarter, the ISACS visiting team's observations will be submitted in a full report to Director Lucinda Lee Katz. The report will be available in the Schools' libraries for members of our community to read. We also will complete a checklist and provide reports in a year's time about what we have done in response to the team's recommendations. We will prioritize their suggestions, and some of them may need to be worked on over the next three to five years.
How does the ISACS review relate to the strategic planning process that also concluded with a set of recommendations?
Gunty: The strategic planning process was incredibly helpful to the self-study and gave us a head start on the ISACS review process. Strategic planning pointed us toward a mission that guided us in preparing for ISACS.
Ellis: The mission was a critical part of the ISACS process. When the team came to visit, one of the first things they did was to read the mission statement carefully and then compare what they saw against the goals that it expressed. The new mission statement was an integral part of the ISACS review.