January 4, 2007 - Unapproved Minutes

Printer friendly PDF version

Quality of Education Committee
Richmond middle School Library
Thursday, January 4, 2007
3:30-5:15 pm

Present: Marylyn Blight, Adina Desaulnier, Susan Finer, Deb Gillespie, Bill Mlacak, Marjorie Rose, Stan Williams, Pam Force, Tom Blinkhorn, Robert Bruce, Paul Tierney, Kari Asmus, Ann Waterfall, Mary Sachsse, Joanne Roberts, Wayne Gersen, Allison Litten, Bill Bender, Margaret Caldwell, and Linda Addante

Absent: Jan Assmus, Susan Harper
Note: Students have volunteered to be on the committee and will be contact by Superintendent Wayne Gersen before the next meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007

Handouts:

Packet of information mailed to members prior to this the first meeting
Handouts distributed at meeting included:

League of Women Voters, Quick Guide to the NH Right-To-Know Law, and Best Practices for Local Public Committees in New Hampshire
Vermont-From Cradle To Career, A Special State-Focused Supplement to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2007
New Hampshire- From Cradle To Career, A Special State-Focused Supplement to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2007
SAU #70 STANDARDS OF BEST PRACTICE (2003)

I. Meeting opened with Wayne asking committee members for feedback on the SAU 70 QEC Mission, Expectations, Tasks and Responsibilities. The following comments were made:

It would be helpful to note that the committee is composed of unpaid volunteers. The mission statement needs to be sharpened, it could be clearer- to whom is the committee reporting? Answer from Wayne Gersen: The committee reports to the SAU Board in May
How will decisions be made in the committee-by voting or consensus and will more than one student be permitted on the committee? Ans. from Wayne Gersen: Decisions will by made by consensus. My experience is that voting just drives a wedge between individuals. Students, who are juniors at HHS, have volunteered and will be invited to the next meeting. Having more than one student will make it more likely that we will have at least one student present at all of the meetings.
After reviewing the materials in the packet and the committee’s charge, I was became more aware of the incredible gargantuan task ahead-we have a lot to accomplish!
I see our task as not just to develop outside parameters of measurement but also to strengthen what works and improve the mechanism already in place inside the schools.
We need to revise the timeline-its currently a meeting every six weeks with two significant tasks needing to be accomplished by the end of February. Ans: W. Gersen-the timeline will be revised
Right To Know Law-we need to be aware of this with regard to this committee’s work. (See handouts)
What kind of email protocol are we going to have?

Hit “send all” when communicating or answering an email. This is what we do on the school board when subcommittees are doing their work
Sometimes this works-sometimes it does not-it presented a bit of a problem last year during the committee’s work
If you send something relative to this meeting it becomes a public document; esp. if you’re addressing it to more than a quorum of the board
Communication leading to a decision or discussion that should be done in “public” should not be carried out on line
Actually the law is not that clear about email communication we have discussed this at the school board level
The problem with email communication is that you can miss a day when everyone is sending messages and miss a whole discussion
I am for a free flow of information even if we end up in jail-its important to be able to talk freely for us to do our work
I would be happy to set up a public website: A forum on line that facilitates discussion and reaching consensus by permitting an exchange of information. I could set up a domain through SAU and make it available to the community at large
Can you add the consensus building option-like Wiki? Answer: I am not familiar with that and so it may take longer to do
No matter what the website would it be open to the public? Members may not want their email addresses shared with the public
Any website would have to be open to the public-the information, work of this committee is public
A public website could be used to post meeting agendas, minutes, share information/articles relevant to the work being done
Important rule: anything sent needs to have your name on it
Using technology sounds great, but are we leaving anyone out of the process if this is our primary way of sharing information? I would suggest that we keep in mind those that don’t use email or computers and have parallel communication avenues that reach folks not as familiar with the technology.
It shouldn’t be a problem-You can access computers in public libraries

II. Wayne proceeded by reviewing materials in the packet with specific reference to TQM, Total Quality Management and Benchmarking Best Practices In Accountability Systems. Wayne shared that he, and several superintendents attended a conference at Hypertherm on these topics. The following comments were made:

Wayne referenced Pg. viii. In the executive summary of APQC Benchmarking Best Practices. He pointed out the following bullet points as ones he felt esp. applied to this committee’s work:
- Under Leadership: “Ensure district-wide understanding, support an acceptance of measurement and accountability approach”. Does everyone understand what the schools are being asked to do, and do we have a way to get across to everyone what the schools are doing?
- Under Operations: “Establishes a performance measurement system that incorporates quantitative and qualitative measurement organization-wide.” Not everything we do can be reduced to numbers.
- Wayne referenced pg ix same document: “Numbers are helpful for identifying gaps in performance, but true process benchmarking identifies the “hows” and “whys” for performance gaps and helps organizations learn and understand how to perform at higher levels.” Gaps can be seen as shortfalls or they are “opportunities for growth” that’s what we’re trying to accomplish here.
Wayne said that the Baldrige National Quality Award was included in the packet of information to give the committee ideas on ways to measure things that are hard to measure-the qualitative measures

Observation made by committee member was that at the end of the Baldrige report most of the measurements were quantitative, yet if a system is set up with intent to measure qualitative data and it has integrity and objectivity it can be done and have credibility.

Wayne said that the SchoolMatters: STANDARD & POOR’S 2004 is old but it gives an idea about where you can get data on the districts SAT and ACT test scores- these test scores were a piece of data that the SAU Long Range Planning Committee had expressed an interest in last year.

Observation by committee member: Both VT and NH focused on proficiency standard. I think our district is beyond this.
Wayne: The kind of test used for NCLB (No Child Left Behind) doesn’t give us a way to measure the changes in our district-just that we are staying near the top.

The following comments were made by committee members:

The SAU 70 Standard of Best Practices is a worthwhile piece of information that should be distributed to committee members. This packet was handed out to the school board and will be reviewed by staff, the school board and the public in the next few months
We need to figure out what dimensions of our school district aren’t measured by the parameters and tools described in the handouts that the committee has received
I’m interested in the difference between what is attained versus potential for a given student. Is there a way to measure this?
Value Added Measurements may address that. Wayne presented this concept at a school board meeting. It makes use of technology to follow each student and track each student’s progress. I believe it is the direction we want to go but at this point it is beyond our ability and budget.
I think if you look at SAT 1 we are in the top nationally but if you look at SAT 11 we are average nationally. This should be looked at.
What are we doing, what’s already being done? I vote for Value Added Measurement and suggest that we begin by breaking into sub groups to do this work. Looking at Value Added Measures would be advanced by examining assessment data we currently have. I need to know what I am going to be doing over the next month.
There are many assessments going on, for one the Foreign Language, K-12 committee has had assessments in place for several years. These assessments test at three levels and 3 different abilities. This K-12 assessment work could be used to look across various curricula in the district.
The Foreign Language K-12 curriculum committee is further ahead than some of the other committees.
Part 2 of the staff development packet covers Development of professional growth plans has teachers ask themselves about what they do and how and what they will do to access they’re progress. It specifically asks how they are going to measure whether they achieve the professional goals they identified. I would like to see this document distributed to the committee since it addresses the internal workings of the district.
Who are we benchmarking against, our district’s population has a high income, higher education, and lack of poverty, which puts us in need of finding a comparable school to benchmark against. This history needs to be pulled out.
Value Added Measurement: At the time this was first presented the testing we had in place in the district was not compatible with SAS-the statistical Company that was doing Value Added Measurement.
Lets have subcommittees follow up on strands: NECAP, SAT I, SAT II, and other existing assessments. These may or may not be the final benchmarks we choose but let’s start by reviewing those in current use.
Qualitative measurements may require different methods of assessment
We have four different schools doing data collection. I suggest that the parent representatives from each school meet with the school’s principal and collect a list of that school’s benchmarks.
I just want to be sure that the benchmarks we are looking at are the ones we want to look at. In the past a benchmark has been identified and then when the data was reported out the committee said it was not what they were looking for.
What is it we want to access? -Lets identify that first. Are there assessments for everything we want to measure? -Maybe there are things we value that do not have an assessment already in place. Is the assessment we are using or choose to use valid? We should assess the assessment for its validity. The assessment tool used has to be diverse for it to be seen as credible by the larger community. Don’t force a qualitative measure into a quantitative assessment.
There are larger issues here, the internal forces in the district: the values and incentives. I don’t want to loose sight of measuring how well we are doing what we say we are doing and what’s supporting it or not.
How do we capture the different cultures of the schools?
I suggest we have 3 subcommittees: Assessing performance benchmarks, governance of the system, and qualitative measures.
Could you explain what you mean by governance of the system? Ans: Culture of the institution, the relationship between the superintendent, the school board and the community. The elements of the institutional framework. I want the committee to recognize the structural pieces that exist; the internal workings of the district that support what we do.
I would like to volunteer to draft terms of reference and describe what these subcommittee would be expected to do and send that out to committee members
I would like to take the assessment focus to the level of the individual child. The high school did a presentation one year where several high school students, very diverse in their experiences, presented their educational journey over the four years. There is power in the story-this was also seen in the NEASC (New England Association of Schools and Colleges) accreditation process. Parents and students were chosen by NEASC and talked about their own experiences at the high school.
One thing that came out in the focus groups we did was the advising mechanism at the high school, and the individualized education. I want to hear how we are targeting our efforts for different kinds of kids. Can we do a better job of reaching the middle kid?
We need to do an inventory and we need to decide which things we want to measure.
Quality administrative leadership and quality staff do lead to quality education
There is a lot of work to be done on different foci we should target some individuals as leaders and proceed
Parent reps meeting with principals should let everyone on the committee know their meeting date/time so others can attend if they are interested

III. Consensus was reached on the following items:

The concept of a common site-Wiki or other will be explored to facilitate communication but not to be used for decision-making. Decisions will be made in the public meeting only
When emailing all members should hit “respond to all” to ensure that all members are included in the exchange of information
All meetings of the QEC will be conducted with respect to the Open Meeting Law
The timeline will be adjusted accordingly. Next meeting Tuesday, Jan. 23, at 3:30 pm
Students will be invited to the next meeting-more than one student will be invited to be on the committee
Parent representatives for each school will meet with the principal of their respective school and gather a list of benchmarks that are:
- school specific
- about the governance of the system: i.e. the internal workings that support what is done
- qualitative measures
The committee chairs are:
- Deb Gillespie, Principal HHS
- Marjorie Rose, Parent Representative Richmond Middle School
- Bill Bender, Representative from the Hanover and Norwich Finance Committee

IV. To do list and who is doing what:

Linda will type and send notes to Wayne for review and corrections by Jan. 8, 2007
Wayne will send out Meeting Notes of 1.4.07 to all committee members
Wayne will follow up on possibility of Committee webpage or wiki
Wayne will invite student representatives to next meeting
Parent representatives for each school will arrange a meeting time with the principal of their school to collect information on benchmarks (school specific, governance of the system, qualitative measures) before the next committee meeting on Jan. 23
Parent representatives will send meeting dates/times with principals to Wayne so that he can notify other committee members in case they want to attend.

Next meeting:
Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Respectfully submitted by Linda Addante 7/7/07 5:34 PM

Printer friendly PDF version