The middle school sub-committee is progressing in determining recommendations for the top three options with the Cause and Effect matrix.
BOE Chairman Scott VanWinkle, 2nd District, designed the tool, a “Cause-and-Effect matrix,” which is essentially a spreadsheet that outlines almost every consideration necessary for the board to make a determination on if and how they can implement middle schools in the community.
Last week, Director of Schools Rebecca Farley updated the committee that she and her team completed the next two sections of the C&E matrix that they were tasked with completing.
According to Farley’s organizational chart, her team of supervisors are Federal Programs Director Justin Whittenbarger, Special Education and 504 Director Marlene Holten, 9-12 Director Kelly Smith, PreK-8 Director Stephanie Speich, Career and College Technical Education Director Leslie Eldridge, and Title III Director, Student Support/Intervention Coach and Instructional Facilitator Sandy Helton.
The board recognizes each supervisor as a subject-matter expert in their field. The matrix is to be completed by subject-matter experts.
However, VanWinkle shared concerns about the way the two sections of the matrix were completed.
According to VanWinkle, there was a misunderstanding in how the sections were to be ranked.
When the matrix was first rolled out, VanWinkle explained that the matrix is a ranking system that uses numerical figures (0, 1, 3, 9).
The use of these numbers forces the data to create a geometric slope to encourage definitive choices and avoid the tendency for people to use a middle-ground “5” on every item.
The meaning behind the rating numbers is the following:
0: No correlation/impact to the input.1: Low impact to the input.3: Medium impact to the input.9: Strong impact to the input.
Once the tool is complete, it will develop a series of totals based on the weighted ranking that will help the committee determine the top three options to narrow the choices for implementing middle schools.
The miscommunication was in the word “impact.” VanWinkle said that a strong impact shows that the team is saying that this is the best direction to go.
Farley said that her team was happy to go back over the two sections and ensure it reads the way the team intended.
Farley also informed the committee she made a list of potential subject-matter experts for the committee to choose from when determining who would fill out the next sections of the matrix tool.
The tool is broken down into the following sections or “Priority Areas:”
Academics.Facilities.Specific student supports.Athletics.Extracurricular.Food services.Transportation.Maintenance.Mental.Safety.Students.Staff.Technology.
The sub-committee will hear updates from Farley about the matrix at the upcoming work session Feb. 19 and board meeting Feb. 26.
The sub-committee set another meeting for March 9 at 4 p.m. to discuss the next steps.