Customized Arrow Academy Vindicated: Board Praises Program’s Efficiency and Quality After In-Depth Review

Northeast Radio SD News - Watertown, SD - The Watertown School Board has affirmed its support for the Customized Arrow Academy (CAA) at Watertown High School following a thorough review and debate over the program’s current structure and historical performance. The discussion concluded with board members acknowledging the program's efficiency and its vital role in serving the needs of a significant portion of the student body.

Principal Patty McClemans and CAA teacher Chelsea Brink presented the update, confirming that the CAA has successfully adapted its structure and methodology over the past decade.

Program History and Evolution

The concept for customized learning began in July 2011, leading to the launch of the "Middle College Arrow Academy" in August 2014. The program received significant startup funding, including an estimated $150,000 donation from the Arrow Education Foundation.

During the historical overview, Board Member Jean Moulton inquired about the initial financial support, specifically the amount of money contributed by the Arrow Education Foundation and the value of the three-year grant from TIE.

The program was renamed the Customized Arrow Academy (CAA) in the 2017-2018 school year to broaden its focus beyond college preparation and serve a wider array of students who benefit from a customized learning pace. Early elements, such as mandatory shadowing and internships, were phased out as those opportunities were already accessible to all high school students.

Efficiency and Consistent Enrollment

The CAA has maintained a consistent enrollment, serving approximately one-quarter of the high school population, with 307 students currently enrolled. The program operates at a highly efficient staffing level, with staff members now utilizing flexible scheduling and collaboration with non-CAA teachers to meet student needs.

A key point of discussion centered on the program's efficiency, with board members praising the staff’s output. A review of teacher workloads indicated that CAA teachers are handling high volumes, with some staff generating totals of 172 and 159 student credits. This was cited as evidence that the program is providing a high degree of educational value, countering early criticisms of a low student-to-teacher ratio.

High Standards, Mastery, and the EdTech Perspective

CAA’s core methodology focuses on mastery-based learning, requiring students to demonstrate a thorough understanding of concepts before advancing.

·        Mastery Standard: Students must achieve an 80% or higher on work; scores below this require correction and resubmission to ensure quality.

·        Rigor: Staff confirmed that students are not taking an easy route, noting that nearly all eligible 11th-grade CAA students chose to take the rigorous AP Dual Credit English 11 course.

Board Member Bailey Raml, who works for an EdTech company, offered an industry perspective on the CAA model, supporting its current functionality. Raml argued that technology-enhanced learning is designed for personalization, flexibility, and building student autonomy, not for replacing the teacher.

·        Raml noted that the active, interactive role of CAA instructors—having to be content experts for multiple concurrent subjects—requires a significantly larger cognitive load than traditional lecture-based instruction.

·        She added that online tools allow students to access material quickly and then use valuable in-class time to engage in active dialogue with the teacher, rather than passively receiving information via lecture.

Historical Scrutiny and Final Endorsement

Board Member Roshal Rossman, drawing on six years of experience working with CAA students and high school accreditation, initiated a detailed questioning of the program’s long-term success. Rossman's primary concerns focused on the program's historical impact on the traditional high school, including:

·        The academic depth and scope of the curriculum compared to traditional college-prep courses.

·        The historical lack of balance in student-to-teacher ratios between CAA and non-CAA classrooms, which Rossman said resulted in "oversized classes" for the majority of the student body.

·        The initial high costs of proprietary software and the financial commitment to build a dedicated CAA science room.

Administrators and staff countered these points, assuring the board that the program has undergone continuous quality improvement and that issues regarding class size balance and software costs have been addressed.

Vice President Kari Lohr offered a parental perspective, confirming the program’s value based on her own family’s experience. Lohr, whose family has children in both the CAA and the traditional track, testified that her child’s learning in the CAA has been "no different from the traditional classroom," confirming the academic quality. She also praised the rigorous application process and the student accountability fostered by the program.

The consensus was that the CAA is now an "integral part" of the high school. Board members concluded that offering a variety of learning models is essential, as a "one-size-fits-all" approach would not meet the diverse needs of the student body.