It's been about a month since I discovered that the problems with the St. Mary's County Public School System are all my fault. That they are my fault is a discovery that took place during Board of Education's celebration of the U. S. Senate and Maryland Quality Award in a presentation by Mechanicsville Elementary School. At the time, I suggested that such an award seemed to be the result of applying for it and paying the application fee.

Since then, I have received a copy of the feedback report that Mechanicsville Elementary School (MES) received. The report has a “good news/bad news” sort of format. They begin each section of the report by citing the school's strengths, then go on to cite its weaknesses, or as the report calls them, “opportunities (for improvement), concerns, or vulnerabilities.” The reviewers were much more perceptive than I expected.

For example, two of the three “strengths or outstanding practices” listed in the report were that the school is “committed to using data driven decision making,” (i.e., using the reviewers' preferred method) and “has applied the continuous improvement approach of Plan Do Study Act (PDSA)” (the reviewers' approach) “to its learning centered processes.”

“Opportunities” include the fact that “MES's approach does not appear to encompass the use of data for organizational learning,” (There are data binders all over the school. Why are they are not using the data?) and “It is not clear what MES's overall strategic planning process is, what the key steps are, and who are its participants.” Oops! Do we have a plan just for the sake of having a plan or winning an award?

Two of the three most significant “strengths, opportunities, vulnerabilities, and/or gaps” are strengths based on what the students are doing, not what school management is doing - “good to excellent trends in student achievement measures . . . ,” and “good to excellent trends in parent and student satisfaction.” Then later it says, “Although MES reports (emphasis mine) good to excellent and improving levels of parent satisfaction with parent involvement programs and activities from 2003 - 2004, neither trends nor comparisons or segmentation into parent stakeholder groups as described in the organizational profile are evident.” Are they not evident because they don't exist? Remember, the MES report is written by the applicant, MES.

Moreover, “While MES states (emphasis mine) that it has received excellent ratings for its annual budget, current levels and trends in key measures of budgetary and financial performance are not evident.” Hmmm.

Further, “It is not evident what levels or trends are for key measures of work system performance and effectiveness. . . faculty and staff well being, satisfaction or dissatisfaction.” The reviewers could ask Mrs. Margaret Palko about faculty and staff satisfaction. She was so satisfied that she took an unanticipated retirement rather than continue to deal with the work situation. She and her husband will be leaving St. Mary's County soon, and St. Mary's County school children will lose a summer school principal, a football coach, and two highly qualified and experienced teachers. The reviewers could also ask the numerous other MES staff members who left in the last three years, but they can't ask the School System about those who left because the system does not track turnover on a school-by-school basis.

In another section the feedback report notes, “Results for key measures of ethical behavior and of stakeholder trust in the governance of the organization are not evident.” I refuse to comment on that one. You know why?