WIN Under Review: Administration Weighs the Debate

There is no perfect answer, or we would already be doing it. — Mr. Marceau

Mr. Marceau - Assistant Principal/IT Director

Mr. Lehn - Head Principal

WIN was created by the admin to give students what they need, yet across North Scott High School, students and teachers are increasingly questioning whether this new system is delivering that promise. 

In recent interviews, administrators addressed these concerns, exploring the perceived benefits and challenges of our current system, the requirements shaping the schedule, reactions to recent teacher and student surveys, and potential changes for the future.

Pros and Cons of WIN

Mr. Lehn and Mr. Marceau largely agree on the intended benefits of the WIN system. Mr. Lehn emphasized it is a good educational practice to have a multi-tiered support system, and prioritizes that all students receive each tier. He notes that this practice should promote diversity and equity within the student body. Both administrators noted that WIN has effectively increased student time with teachers by improving attendance and engagement, as well as increasing accessibility. 

Where their perspectives begin to diverge is in their concerns about the system. 

For Mr. Lehn, the greatest drawback is cultural rather than structural. He is most concerned about not upholding students’ desired daily experience, workplace happiness, and a positive staff cultural climate.

“The student and staff responses glaringly pushing toward P6 eat at me,” he said, noting that all responses leaned toward the former system. As a building leader, he is always looking for improvements in systems to make everyone happier. 

Mr. Marceau's concerns focus less on school culture and more on habits surrounding intervention time. He feels that P6 taught everyone unproductive patterns. As a building leader, “I feel I have not done enough to help students and staff learn to make better habits easier to obtain and sustain,” he said.

Through these interviews, it was clear that these two administrators see academic value in WIN, while also recognizing the frustration it has created. 

Parameters and Requirements

In every leadership role, there are expectations that must be upheld. The North Scott Administration team has certain parameters and requirements regarding intervention time that must be met. 

Mr. Marceau first addressed the RIC, which is a factor many students and staff currently deem irrelevant. 

He shared that “one of the biggest drivers for WIN was the new campus, as it also needed to run on a block schedule.” 

It is difficult to balance a block schedule that allows for student travel between two different buildings. Therefore, the administration moved the intervention in the middle of the day to help with this issue.

Both also shared that the school has to, as a system, provide guaranteed time for student support that does not pull from class time. This time is referred to as the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which is currently recommended by the district leaders to occur every day for 30-45 minutes. 

Mr. Marceau shared his thoughts about this system, stating that it “gets interesting in a high school setting since we live and die with a block schedule.”

In his mind, there is not much wiggle room because of such factors. 

He closed his discussion about parameters by saying, “This is just the way it has to work.”

Mr. Lehn offered another perspective, choosing to focus on academic performance.

“I can be convinced either way,” he said. "It ultimately comes down to ISASP scores.”

North Scott is currently in the low 70% proficiency range, which means that roughly two-thirds of students are meeting expectations. For administrators, intervention is closely tied to improving those numbers. 

“There’s a piece of about 20% of students that hopefully the current MTSS system is hitting,” Lehn explained.

If the students consistently maintain higher scores, he suggested the administrative team could reconsider different scheduling models in the future.

While the current system remains in place, Mr. Lehn did not rule out the possibility of revisiting P6. 

“I have to figure out a schedule that works with the RIC and keeps a majority of students here,” he said.  

Mr. Lehn suggested an opt-out model, where students with higher grades would earn flexibility.

“I would like it if students could only earn an opt-out if they receive all A’s,” he said. 

He also noted that documentation from P6 attendance was limited, making it difficult to effectively evaluate the system. 

Despite challenges, he emphasized that P6 as an option is not permanently closed. 

“It is not a non-option,” he said. “There is hope for the people who want it back, and there is a process for me that I will be entering with my team very soon.” 

The change may not currently be achievable, but it is not hopeless. Our fight is not over yet.

Reactions to Teacher Surveys

Mr. Lehn admitted he was a little surprised by the teacher survey responses, expecting a balance between WIN and P6. 

He also shared mixed feelings about anonymous surveys.

“I do not like anonymous surveys because I value opinions,” he said. “I am not going to think any less of my staff members because of their opinions.” 

He is hopeful that his staff feels they can openly communicate with him about concerns. 

Mr. Marceau instead reflected on implementation. 

“We have not done enough to support the ‘why’ and support best practice with implementation,” he said.

If teachers are feeling that it is a top-down decision, as a building leader, he believes he needs to do a better job explaining and supporting its purpose.

Teacher Voice

Many questions regarding teacher involvement in the decision-making process arose during the interviews. 

Mr. Lehn emphasized that he inherited the current system after arriving at North Scott. 

“I inherited this shift. It was already in place when I got here,” stated Lehn.  

Moving forward, he shared that he hopes to gather teacher input to help guide decisions, relying more heavily on his leadership teams. 

He closed by saying, “I want to pull all the input and pull what's good for collective efficacy.” 

Mr. Marceau acknowledged the challenge more bluntly.

He did not want to dismiss anything but shared, “There will always be people who disagree with decisions. That’s a frustrating part of leadership.” 

Even though teachers wish to discuss decisions, he explained that not every decision can ultimately be made through votes. 

Regardless, Mr. Marceau did share that he has focused on the line between recommendation and decision.

“That has been a growth area for us this year, and I would not say that it is perfect, but I think we have tried to reflect on that,” he stated.

Reactions to Student Surveys

Student feedback has been another factor in this ongoing conversation.

Mr. Lehn summarized the student responses simply: students are asking for greater flexibility. 

Mr. Marceau does not want to be dismissive; however, he questioned whether the survey captured the full picture of the problem at hand. 

In his words, when people respond, they feel strongly. Whereas if the status quo is fine, they don’t respond. 

He feels the discussion should not focus on choosing between the two systems, but rather on the structure of the intervention time. 

“How do we structure the support we do offer students?” he asked. 

He also argued that the idea of P6 as a catch-all make-up time wasn’t sustainable, no matter what.

Student Autonomy

Student autonomy is one of the most debated aspects of WIN. 

Mr. Lehn said, “We want to take student input, and we value that,” but he also noted that “We potentially have to go against the grain to meet needs.”

Regarding communication between teachers and students, he stated that teachers should direct students to their most needed areas, allowing flexibility when appropriate. 

“I know this is happening, but not as well as I would like it to,” he concluded.

Mr. Marceau focused on the wide range of student needs in the building.

“I understand the student autonomy, but there is also a population of students who need that deeper level of support,” he shares. 

Balancing needs in a school of roughly 1,100 students is incredibly difficult. Some students only need a few minutes, while others require weeks of sustained intervention. 

He closes by stating that “there is no perfect answer, or we would be doing it.”

Changes in the Future

Although there are differing perspectives within the administrative team, it is clear that the current system will continue to evolve with time.

Mr. Lehn shared that he and his team are looking for improvements within the current system. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency with the junior high schedule. 

He does, however, plan to ask the new superintendent this question: “If we don’t make the change this year, what does this look like long term?”

Mr. Marceau stated, “Of course, there will be changes. It is not a perfect system.”

He personally believes the biggest areas of frustration are the required number of students the teacher must assign and the two-week time frame. He would like to focus on adjusting those two areas for the next evaluation.

Conclusion

While the future of intervention time here at North Scott remains uncertain, it is clear that the conversation is far from over. WIN was designed to give students what they need, but the conversations surrounding it show that what students, teachers, and administrators need may not always look the same. 

Teachers, students, and administrators all acknowledge the issues with the current system. Finding the right balance may not be easy, but there is hope for those wishing for change. For now, WIN will stay. 

But one thing is clear: The debate over intervention time is not ending. It is just getting started.