"Achievement Contracts are the Boards of Education's public commitment to improving student achievement. They are based on thoughtful consideration of student performance information at the classroom, school, district and provincial level.
Achievement Contracts reflect the unique characteristics, priorities and needs of each district. The Contracts are part of an accountability cycle for schools, school districts, and for the Ministry of Education.
Reports on Student Achievement, prepared by the Superintendent, reflect progress made on the Achievement Contract, and may include updates on other important responsibilities."This year's SD#57 DAC was prepared by senior staff (assistant superintendent and others) and includes the Superintendent's Report on Achievement from earlier in the year. For the first time the DAC was shared with the school district employees and the public for input or review purposes. As a board member, I am still not sure whether the input was intended for us, for the DAC writers, or for future considerations. I guess I'll have to wait and find out with everybody else.
You can read the SD#57 DAC here: http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/SD57_DAC_July_2013.pdf
You can read my review, editing suggestions, questions, and comments on the DAC here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yamwcnv1subq9mq/2013.06.23%20DAC%20review.pdf
Three areas are important to point out:
- The DAC mentions an Assessment Management System (AMS) that is going to move from pilot to district-wide implementation. I have concerns that there has not been adequate partner group consultation about this. Where is the implementation plan, including the costs of training and support? Will this add data-base management to the list of duties already assigned to teaching staff? I also wonder whether the services provided by AMS will be made redundant with the new database that will replace BCeSIS next year.
- Technology goals and projects are mentioned in a few places in the DAC. Many of the statements do not paint an accurate picture of the very real technology concerns that have been brought before the district and board and also myself as a trustee from the PGDTA and individual teachers and students. I believe that our Board, Senior Staff, and partner groups need a more thorough conversation about how we support technology before we can state in a DAC that we are making progress.
- The DAC mentions Eight Essential learning strands. In a slightly different form these were also brought forward as surplus spending proposals by Senior Staff during "Extended Committee of the Whole" budget discussions with partner groups. Most of the partner groups (PGDTA, CUPE, PEA, DPAC) made a strong case that these proposals were valuable but should not be priorities and made counterproposals for budget priorities. The board summary of ECOW confirmed this. So I'm left wondering why the eight proposals are essentials when other priorities were not. I'm also wondering, if the Board approves the DAC are we giving approval-in-principle to budget spending on these Essential Eight?
