The Planning Process
The planning process at Schreiber High School dates back to the conclusion of the school’s last seven
year accreditation for growth period. As a pilot AFG school Schreiber underwent a mid point review
in 2002 – 2003. At that point objectives were modified as the original objectives had been met.
In 2004 – 2005 a new Principal, Mr. John R. Lewis, was appointed at Schreiber. As this coincided
with the regularly scheduled planning year in preparation for a visitation in 2005 – 2006, the school
sought an extension of its accreditation for one year. This request was approved by the Middle States
Commission and a validation team visit was scheduled for the 2006-2007 school year.
In June 2005 the principal attended a Middle States workshop in Philadelphia and upon his return met
with the administrative team and the Superintendent to commence preparations for the Accreditation
for Growth process. It was decided that Mr. Miller, an assistant principal, would serve as an internal
coordinator. Mr. Miller sought a co internal coordinator from the faculty and Mrs. Lauren Giliof, an
English teacher, accepted the position. Mr. Lewis, Mr. Miller and Mrs. Giliof worked cooperatively to
develop a Planning Committee and asked for volunteers to serve on it. Efforts were made to ensure
that all constituencies were represented yet still create a team small enough to work effectively. The
Planning Team, as it is currently constituted includes the following:
Mr. Jay Lewis – Principal
Mr. Charles Piemonte – Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
Mr. David Miller – Assistant Principal / Internal Coordinator
Mrs. Lauren Giliof – English Teacher / Internal Coordinator
Mr. Mark Rothman – Social Studies Chairperson
Mrs. Joan Lisecki – English Chairperson
Mr. Jeffery Lesser – Mathematics Chairperson
Ms. Trish Burr – Special Education Chairperson
Ms. Andrea O’Brien – Science Teacher\
Ms. Nancy Zove – Foreign Language. Teacher
Ms. Valerie Seiner – Mathematics Teacher / Member for Compact Committee
Ms. Kris Murphy – Art Teacher
Ms. Julie Gross – Parent / Member of Compact Committee
Ms. Eileen Zupnick – Parent / HSA Executive Board member
Ms. Sidney Ginsburg – Student
Mr. Jason Lifton – Student
In October of 2005 Mr. Miller and Ms. Giliof attended a Middle States Association workshop for
Internal Coordinators in Philadelphia. Upon their return they met with the planning team and
developed an outline for Schreiber’s AFG process. The principal then met with the Superintendent
and the Board of Education who approved the use of contractually obligated professional development
time as well as two early release days so that staff could work on Middle States. The Superintendent
also approved the dedication of his conference day to Middle States related activities.
Schreiber began a self study to determine the extent to which it meets the twelve Middle States
Standards in October 2005. Faculty was asked to volunteer for one of 13 committees. One committee
was assigned to work on the Context of the School document while the others would work on a self
assessment of each Standard area. Care was taken to balance faculty requests and maintain
departmental balance in each committee.
The Standard area committees were each assigned a chairperson and began the process of a school
wide assessment. Each committee met twice as staff and members of the planning team conducted the
self assessment. During this time a school-wide needs assessment was also conducted. This internal
scan was conducted so that all staff members could comment on all areas of the school regardless of
their standard area committee. After the second standard area committee meeting chair people
forwarded their committee’s reports and recommendations to the internal coordinators. After the
internal coordinators received each Standard Committee’s work they were reviewed with the
chairperson. The collected and reviewed self assessment committee reports were then presented to the
Planning Team for approval. After review by the planning team the Self Assessment was distributed
to the entire faculty for acceptance.
In order to develop objectives the planning team decided that surveys of the parents and student were
necessary. A parent survey was conducted utilizing the Middle States parent survey available on the
MSA web site. In conducting the parental survey the planning team decided to use both the Survey
Monkey web service as well as provide an option for parents to answer on paper. Each student was
distributed a letter and survey and were asked to bring them home. Parents with the Internet available
were encouraged to use Survey Monkey. Parents of limited English proficiency or who did not have
the Internet were asked to respond on paper. Translation services were made available. After the
survey responses were collected the web and paper survey response data was merged. The student
survey was conducted using the pilot Middle States survey made available to the school by Kenneth
Castle at the Commission offices in Philadelphia. Students answered in classes using the Survey
Monkey service. Surveys were translated for students of limited English proficiency.
At this juncture, the self assessment, the parent survey, the student survey and the needs assessment
were all reviewed by the planning team and the Compact committee. The Compact Committee is
Schreiber High School’s Site Based team. After the review the team decided it was time to share the
results with the faculty and then move into the objective setting phase. A faculty meeting was held
where a PowerPoint presentation was conducted to train the staff on the writing of objectives and to
review the self assessment, the parent survey results, the student survey results and the findings from
the school wide needs assessment. The faculty and planning team was then broken into Objective
Committees and were tasked with developing ideas for a series of objectives. After refining feedback
from the Objective Committees the planning team established three objectives which were presented to
the faculty for approval.
After the objectives were set the internal coordinators met with the planning team to develop statistical
measurement devices so that progress towards the objective would be quantifiable. These indicators
were then revised and the process of obtaining benchmark data began. The objectives and indicators
were sent to the Middle States for approval and, after one revision, were accepted. The faculty and the
planning committee were pleased to be told that one of the chosen objectives, on information literacy
was considered highly impressive and that as a result statistical indicators would not be needed until a
committee began work on the objective in 2006 – 2007.
The next step in the process was the development of action plans an activity steps. The same
Objective Committees that created the school’s objectives met to provide ideas for the action plans.
The feedback from the faculty was reviewed by the planning team and the action plans were presented
to the faculty via a PowerPoint presentation. At this same presentation training was conducted on how
to write activity steps. The internal coordinators used the existing academic departments to develop
activity steps for the first objective which focused on academic achievement. A special education
teacher, ESL teacher and guidance counselor was infused into each department so that there crucial
and specialized feedback would be heard. A committee was created to work on the second objective,
information literacy, which was comprised of a member of each department, elective area teacher a
special education teacher, a guidance counselor and an ESL teacher. Work on activity steps for the
third objective, character and citizenship, was conducted by two teams. Each team had a member of
each department, elective area teacher a special education teacher, a guidance counselor and an ESL
teacher and was chaired by an Assistant Principal. Any elective area teacher not assigned to one of the
aforementioned committees was tasked to work on activity steps for a part of the first objective that
specifically discussed increasing enrollment in elective areas. The internal coordinators then edited and
revised the activity steps.
In June of 2006 a presentation was made to the Board of Education where the objectives, action plans
and planning process were shared with the public. The Board of Education was inquisitive and
supportive and looks forward to regular reports on the school’s progress towards meeting our Middle
States goals.
The faculty, the planning team and the school administration are committed to the ongoing nature of
the Accreditation for Growth protocol. Work towards Middle States goals will be addressed during
departmental faculty meetings and administrative cabinet meetings. At the conclusion of each school
year responsible faculty members will be asked to submit a formal report on their work towards
completing activity steps contained in the plan. A rotation system was also set up for membership on
the planning team so that ideas and energy remain refreshed.
This has been a thorough and energizing process which has given the entire educational community a
stake in the process. Schreiber High School looks forward to making this strategic plan and vision
become reality.