Findings outlined in report about Cape schools' strategic plan process

During September, several stakeholder groups met to share opinions and observations about Cape Girardeau public schools as part of a strategic-planning process that began in July and is expected to conclude by December.

Participants included teachers, parents, students, school board members and community representatives.

The meetings were held at the offices of Hendrickson Business Advisors, a local firm hired by the school district to facilitate the process and use the results of the focus groups to come up with a public survey, which is available at www.research.net/r/CGPSSurvey.

Following are the major issues identified during the focus group sessions, which the Southeast Missourian obtained through a Sunshine request. They are from a report Hendrickson supplied to the district:

• The overall reputation of the district is better in the minds of people who live outside of Cape Girardeau County. Different groups had differing opinions of Cape Girardeau public schools when compared to other public and private school districts.
• Most parents and students think the teachers and staff genuinely care about the students — a perception that is much stronger in this school year than in the past.
• The Cape Girardeau School District offers more variety in student groups, curriculum, activities, etc., than any other district in the area. This includes college prep and Career and Technology training.
• The Cape Girardeau School District is more diverse ethnically and socioeconomically than other regional districts and is more like an urban (district). The district tends to be reactive rather than proactive on diversity issues.
• Career guidance seems overly focused on college preparation at the expense of the Career and Technology Center. Awareness of the CTC option and requirements needs to begin in junior high or even middle school.
• Food options at the high school are well-received. Food options at the other schools aren’t as highly regarded, and the healthiness of these options are questionable, mainly breakfast. The participants acknowledged it’s difficult to balance healthy/required food versus food students like to eat.
• Special services for students can vary greatly in access and resources. The district is seeing an increased need for special education and mental-health services; at the same time, the district is cutting back on advanced-placement courses and the gifted program.
• The effect of poverty, mental health and parent disengagement/involvement are real and pervasive in school life, to the point at which they negatively affect student performance and teacher effectiveness.
• At the elementary level, there are big perception differences among the schools that seem to be driving access to resources. For instance, some schools turn down community services because they don’t want to be perceived as “poor kids” at school.
• Communication and avenues for feedback need to improve for all groups. This is a broad-spectrum issue. For instance, some parents receive too much communication when they have several students. Students don’t feel as if they receive enough information. Principals “filter and spin” messages from the district to their schools. Feedback from parents is sometimes received well, and other times it is not — it depends on the staff member. Follow-through when resolving problems is also hit-or-miss.
• There is inconsistency in the school system (e.g., building to building, teacher to teacher, year to year, student to student, etc.). This includes dress code, discipline, Challenge program, math methodology, communication platforms from teachers to parents, technology, etc.
• There is a perception the board and administration rush into things, then quickly retreat when faced with opposition. The dress code was the most common example given; most participants seemed to believe the board should have stuck with its original decision and give it more time. Other examples include “fad” teaching methods and technology.
• Technology efforts are erratic. CTC can purchase what it needs (they acknowledge funding differences), while other teachers are coping with old computers and know of no plans to update. Some classrooms don’t have basic tools such as smart boards.
• Implementation of the 1:1 initiative seemed to be rushed, with “cheap” devices. Students think the devices are overused in subjects such as math and underused in subjects such as language, music and art. The staff need to be better trained in advance on the technology before it is rolled out to the students. Access to the internet isn’t available to all students in their homes.
• The district doesn’t seem to be spending its funds in the most appropriate places. Some think sports and/or arts are overfunded versus classroom resources. The district builds buildings without heeding input from building users/occupants. All groups agree teachers aren’t paid enough and that teachers do more than teach.
• Teachers think only a few 10-minute observations held two or three times per school year are not enough to properly assess classroom effectiveness. Non-core-subject teachers are ineffectively evaluated with the same tools as core teachers. Workshops and trainings are foisted on all, whether germane or not.
• Most participants agreed the district has two main overall responsibilities: to educate students and to prepare them for life after public education. When asked to rate the district’s success at this, the average rating was 3.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 at the high end.
• Most participants lay significant blame on the media for contributing to negative perceptions of the district.
• Most participants feel the various school buildings are as safe from external violence as is practical. They also believe most threats to safety come from student-student bullying, fighting, etc.

Hendrickson representatives referred all inquiries about the strategic-plan process to the district’s director of communications, Dana Saverino, who told a reporter there was nothing to update.

The district complied with the Southeast Missourian’s open-records request, waiving all fees associated with the search for materials and communications relating to the strategic plans.

ljones@semissourian.com

(573) 388-3652

Pertinent addresses:

301 Clark Ave., Cape Girardeau, Mo.

715 Clark Ave., Cape Girardeau, Mo.