Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010Implications of the implementation of Option BImplementing this option would involve a significant administrative process to address the individualtransfers of the almost 8,000 teachers who would be switched from one-year contracts to being hiredby MINED. A decision would be needed as to whether transfer would be automatic or based on certainperformance criteria and conditions. The transition calendar should be coordinated with the fiscal yearplanning calendar. The change in policy and the transition process will be confusing for the ACEs andthe affected teachers. To reduce problems, a substantial investment in a public relations and communicationsplan will be necessary. Even more important will be the implementation of a large-scale trainingand orientation program for Departmental Education Offices, school principals, and ACEs to informthem about the implications of the change. It will also require the revision of the ACE manual andprocedures for hiring and firing teachers as well as several adjustments to the Teaching Profession Law.Option C. Keep EDUCO with Changes in the Nature and Responsibilities of ACEs,Stressing Governance over Administration and ManagementThis option changes the regular work of the ACEs. It takes away their day-to-day responsibility forschool administration, financial resources management (purchasing plan, school budget, etc.) and reducesthe ACE’s involvement in teaching as an element of teacher supervision. Changing the ACEs’ regularwork could be achieved by appointing principals with positions, who would assume the daily administrativeand managerial responsibility for the school. Since it might not be realistic to appoint fulltimeprincipals, it might be necessary to review school facilities and enrollment, because it could be possibleto be creative and identify a principal for a group of small schools. The role of the ACEs would change:they would be responsible for the strategic decisions involving the school, setting educational goals, settingthe school’s mission and vision, and approving plans and budgets, as guarantors of governance, butthey would not manage resources or daily activities. The ACE Governing Board would participate inthe school’s management and direction. The ACE would participate in school planning; it would monitorstudents’ academic achievement and would carry out an accountability function, advocating for theschool.In the case of the teachers, they would continue to be hired on annual contracts and would continue tobe liable to dismissal, but these processes would be professionalized under the principal’s direction;performance reviews would be handled together with the school principal, based on clear performancestandards. Any change or improvement in educational outcomes in EDUCO would be achieved throughthe introduction of clearer standards and tools for performance evaluation of the schools’ teachers andprincipals. MINED would continue managing two teacher payment systems, but would clarify the rolesof the principal and the ACE in management and governance. This option would only apply to EDUCOschools; the CDE system would not undergo any changes. The advantages and disadvantages of this optionare as follows:6 The status of specific benefits for teachers, such as inclusion in the Teachers’ Welfare system, could not be conclusively determined, as the¡¢¡£team heard different explanations and opinions.¤¥37