More on SLC's

I alluded to the problem of improper SLC implementation at my previous district in an earlier post. I offer this out as an example of what NOT to do if you want your SLC's to operate properly...

First, our superintendent (now retired) met with all middle school principals during the summer. He told them that he was "tired of kids slipping through the cracks" and that he believed SLC's were the answer. Principals were directed to either develop a working model within a year or let him know that it is time for a transfer to elementary.

With a timeline of one year, staff meets weekly to develop a plan for implementation. We were told that "nothing was sacred," but ran into friction when we wanted to change the daily schedule, design three academies instead of four, etc.

Staff that had developed strong working relationships with their instructional teammates were split up, and all of our existing intervention programs (with the exception of special education) were scrapped.

Results:

Several staff members were left out of the program entirely since we couldn't find a way to attach them to an academy through the models the district would allow.

New intervention programs were developed "on the fly" and were taught by our newest teachers (usually outside of subject-matter specialization as well).

Since kids were kept on their academies for math, there was less flexibility in scheduling, and we were able to offer fewer higher/lower math intervention choices.

It was harder to split up students with behavior issues since there were fewer alternative classes in which to place them.

There was no reduction in the number of academically "at risk" students on campus.

I say this not to dissuade those interested in the SLC model (it has many strong points), but as a warning in how NOT to implement. Take your time, do your homework, and be FLEXIBLE as you implement.