January 23, 2007 - Unapproved Minutes

Printer friendly PDF version

Quality of Education Committee Meeting
Tuesday, Jan. 23
Richmond Middle School Library
3:40-5:15 pm

Present:
Niko Dela Cruz, Margaret Caldwell, Paul Tierney, Mully Blight, Bruce Williams, Mary Sachsse, Rob Edson, Pam Force, Susan Finer, Joanne Roberts, Wayne Gersen, Jan Assmus, Adina Desaulnier, Bob Bruce Bill Mlacek, Marjorie Rose, Tom Blinkhorn, Deb Gillespie, and Linda Addante

Absent:
Ann Waterfall, Allison Litton, Susan Harper, Will Anderson, Olivia Jovine, Stan Williams, Kari Asmus and Bill Bender

Handouts distributed at the meeting:

Success In Vermont Schools-a handout developed by the Vermont Superintendents’ Association, the Vermont Principals’ Association and the Vermont School Board’s Association to highlight the areas where Vermont schools excel as compared with other schools across the country.
Vermont School Quality Standards Status Report-The Vermont State Department of Education will be using the data gathered in this survey to measure the performance of individual school in Vermont
SAU 70 Staff Development Plan-The staff development standards and procedures apply only to the three New Hampshire schools within the SAU. Vermont has an analogous process that is governed by a council of teachers at the school as opposed to the structure described in this document, the individual goal setting process is similar to that described in this paper.
Updated SAU Quality of Education Committee Membership list
Data Collection Parameters
Marion Cross School Current Assessments (1.16.07)
Ray School Current Assessments (1.17.07)

I. Opening activity: Committee members were asked to write on a 3 X 5 index card, “What they expect this Committee to accomplish.” As individuals introduced themselves, they said their name and the group they were representing, and they were asked to share their answer to the above question. The following is a list of responses.

Establish an affective and credible trust generating process involving different stakeholders in the district: teachers, administrators, board members parents, and community-about specific initiatives that can make our schools even better than they are. Bob Bruce
I expect the Committee to gain a better understanding of the type of effective assessments we currently use district-wide
I expect this Committee to reaffirm the excellent quality of our schools by measures that various constituent will accept as measures of excellence and to add to these with plans to publicize this info
…to convey to the communities of Hanover and Norwich the excellent services received from their schools.
Analyze performance benchmarks and make recommendations and improve communication to all constituencies esp. two community. Tom Blinkhorn
I hope we will learn how to prove to ourselves as well as to the public not only that education in this district is worth the tax dollars but also that our school are among the best and trying to get better.
…to develop a solid foundation to discuss the “doors and windows” of quality. Adina Desaulnier
Improve school quality. Bill Mlacek
To improve the quality of education for the benefit of students and to address any problems which may arise that prevent the utmost ability of learning in our schools. Niko Dela Cruz
I expect this Committee to help advance an ongoing conversation on assessing what we say we are doing in our schools so that we can figure out if we’re dong what we say we are and if it is supporting our learners. Linda Addante
To help our district (students, parents, teachers, administrators, board, public) focus on the question: “What could we be doing better?” to prove that its worth the tax dollars.
Define Qualitative: Quantitative assessable criteria. Develop Comparables. Identify standards or practices to identify schools with better performance possibly (note: I am not sure if this is accurate. The words in italics are the ones I could not read-no name on card)
Gain perspective and then help with strategies for achieving quality
I expect this Committee to help the public understand what we are accomplishing in our schools.
I expected the Committee to come up with a set of quality indicators-non-arbitrary objectives that the school parents, community can use to measure how we’re doing and improve. Marjorie Rose
Organize and publish (benchmarks) that reflect the quality of education provided by this district. Deb Gillespie
To make transparent the workings and complexities of our schools, celebrate our achievements, and help keep getting better. Margaret Caldwell
To reconcile the difference between how we think we’re doing and what the public believes we are doing. Wayne Gersen

II. Benchmark Report: Each sub committee was invited to report out on their work to inventory the benchmarks in each school, Hanover High School, Richmond Middle School, Ray School and Marion Cross.

A. Hanover High School-Deb Gillespie reporting out. A summary of points is listed below: (Also see Hanover High school Quality Assessment handout 1.18.07 draft)

Deb gave overview of meeting process. Stated that the group started with a July 2005 Benchmark list and added on from that starting point
Suggestion to add ACT to list. Suggestion accepted, ACT will be added to the list.
Deb stated that the grid is not complete-it is evolving even as we discuss it now. One question that came up at subcommittee meeting was what SAT test score is sent to high school. Ans. The score of the last test the student has taken
Deb noted that the Richmond Middle School list had on it Foreign Language National Exam and said that high school also did this and so it should be added to the High School Benchmark list too.
Notation that qualitative data is more difficult to identify
Comment made from member who attended meeting was that there was not enough time to brainstorm ideas for possible benchmarks to try in the future
It was noted that it is helpful to have a teacher at all subcommittee meetings and a request was made to schedule meeting times when teachers can attend.
Use of Dartmouth Courses-number of students taking has been used to evaluate what other courses high school should offer. For example the Math Modeling class was added to accommodate 20 HHS students who would have signed up for a Dartmouth class
NEAP-a state standardized test that is not being taken anymore. Do have past year’s scores
NECAP-this is first year at high school-a pilot was done.

State is not releasing these scores. Would be used in the future. Probably the 11th grade will be tested. A pilot was done this year - administered this fall and subjects assessed were Math and Writing.
Another portion of the pilot will be administered this spring (07).
An objective is to try and keep the cohort the same, for example testing10th graders in spring and 11 graders in fall.

Futuristic Survey: Results go back as far as early 90’s.

Deb said that survey goes to seniors (this year graduating class of 2007) and alumni two years post graduation.
The survey to alumni is longer than survey to seniors
Should have this year’s results by fall of 2007
Concern expressed about need to evaluate this assessment. Specifically about the quality of the current questions. Deb said that they did look at the questions and how they were worded. There was a discussion in COI. Pros to changing wording would be to make it a better tool; Cons would be that this survey has long history of collected data that can be used for analysis over time-to look for trends etc.
Suggestion may be to keep original questions and advocate for adding new ones
Deb said this year only budget for using same questions without wording changes-it cost more to change the wording of the questions
Note made that there is more information on the testing company’s web site
Comment from QEC member: How well are we tracking how well our kids are dong? We have a plan for kids falling off the wagon but how are we following each student to see if they are on track, behind? Places where this seems to be happening is in k-12 assessments, Guidance Advisory System

In a school teachers meet with teachers when a student moves up in a grade
When a student goes from one school to another, for example middle school to high school, guidance meets with guidance reps from each school
Important to watch transition times-students can be doing well in middle school and have difficulty in high school
I want to advocate for assessment on how our kids are doing that goes beyond the report card
Doesn’t this beg the question about needing more guidance counselors?
A student observed that they found the “Buddy System” useful when they were a freshman. Students/parents of students select to be involved with the “Buddy System” it is optional, and voluntary. Comment made that a freshmen may not know enough to be able to assess whether they could benefit from this option or not and may miss out on great opportunity for support.

B. Richmond Middle School-Adina Desaulnier reporting out. A summary of points is listed below: (Also see RMS Current Assessments 1.18.07 draft)

Described meeting as wonderful, animated and that what is before us not just touches the tip of the iceberg on everything that is being done at RMS
In some categories on the grid it is blank because the committee ran out of time
NECAPs positives and minuses of this test discussed:

Given early in year before all content covered, then scores come back too late to be useful to the school or to the student
Timing of test administration has been discussed locally and at state level. October date was selected in response to some feedback. Can this date be changed?
Suggestion that we work to identify shortcomings of test schedule and give this feedback to school board and superintendent. They are the ones to carry this conversation for consideration at state level.
Comment made that data is not flawed just arrives too late.
Process at RMS for notification to families-If a child ahs scored less than expected or gotten the lowest test score in an area the parents are called before the child’s test results are sent home. There were approx. 60 calls made this last test cycle.
NECAP results marginally useful because as a school district we are in top level of scores-doesn’t show us what we need to do to improve. Better to use ERB (Educational Research Bureau) test, used in some private schools and a select number of public schools.
It was noted that the RMS subcommittee had just begun to discuss the many qualitative assessments at RMS-which means there is more to add to the benchmark list.

C. Ray School-Bruce Williams reporting out. A summary of comments is listed below: (Also see Ray School Current Assessments 1.17.07 draft-handout distributed at meeting)

To start Bruce noted that he was not clear at the onset what was meant by assessment benchmarks. This listing is a reasonable inventory of quantitative assessments but there are some things not listed on this document that have been added since this draft was sent to Wayne.
There are lots of qualitative measures that are done daily that are not on this draft.
It was noted that this process of listing benchmarks for each of the schools is an evolving process that extends beyond the first meeting of the benchmarking subcommittees’ work.
Comment from subcommittee member, a parent: What was striking was the quantity and quality of the assessments being done. I have a child at the Ray School, I thought I knew the school but there is so much more happening that I was not aware of. Having this information available for community members and parents is extremely valuable and a valuable contribution has already been made by this committee.
Brief discussion on how to address the evolving nature of the list of benchmarks-how to convey the list is not static or final. Suggestion and agreement by committee to re-name the assessment Data Collection Parameter grids as drafts and list the date. Do not use Final Draft in title.

D. Marion Cross School-Rob Edson reporting out. A summary of comments is listed below: (Also see Marion Cross School Current Assessments 1.16.07 draft)

1. Rob explained that much of the meeting time was spent describing the school’s Local Action Plan, how data is collected, what is collected who is on the committee.

The Local Action Plan has parents, community members, teachers and administrators as members
Norwich does a parent survey every years-comment made that this was interesting to find out, not aware of this as a Ray School parent
The Local Action Plan works towards identification of school goals each year and assesses progress towards those goals
Comment made by parent that as a previous member of the LAP committee it was a wonderful way to learn what the school was doing and it was a wonderful example of action research model
It was noted by a committee member that Rob brings critical expertise on the interpretation of data and an ability to explain it to others.

III. Handouts: Wayne went over handouts listing what for committee what was to be picked up today and why he included these specific items for the committee’s purview.

Pink Sheet-Success in Vermont Schools: purpose for sharing this is to show how successful Vermont schools are and this is a good model in that if the QEC can get its final work down to one sheet on both sides people will be more likely to read it.
Goldenrod-School Quality standards Status Report 2006-07 School Year. A listing of Quality Standards that Vermont will be implementing. Of interest is that in New Hampshire the discussion is what constitutes an adequate education/school. Committee may opt to use some of these quality indicators.

Example: The Marion Cross School has compare NECAP scores to other schools that don’t offer free and reduced lunch- (an economic indicator to get schools comparable to MCS). MCS used this and also split out gender.
There may be a handful of school in Vermont that out be comparable to our district’s schools.
Comment made that the Dept. of Ed. in NH web site is useful resource and using criteria like per pupil spending, 500-1000 population, range of grade can pull up comparable schools like Portsmouth, Bow, Exeter, etc.

Staff Development Plan-does not apply to all four schools since MCS in Vermont. Vt. has individual over site for awarding credit hours.

This document describes how staff development connects to individual goals and school goals
Wayne said there is an extension on final approval of this document until end of this year

IV. Subcommittees-Wayne gave an overview of the subcommittees, description and duties. The idea is to take the documents we just discussed and start to flesh them out-fill out the grids. It would be ideal to do a gap analysis-identify whether there is aspect of the pool that important to measure that we’re not measuring?

A. The following is a summary of Wayne’s comments;

Example: NECAP-spending time on NECAP may not be the best use of our teachers’, students’; administrators’ time-it may not be the most valuable assessment tool for us to use.
Question to Wayne: “Was this addressed in the Baldridge Quality measurement group? Ans: Wayne said Baldrige is not “prescriptive” it encourages districts/schools to figure out what works best for them-the process of discovering what fits best is critical unto itself.
The Baldridge group which includes administrators from several school districts has met a couple of times to focus on figuring out what data is worth collecting and useful to schools.
We might want to look at comparable districts that is, districts that are more of a match to the Dresden District
The question is what information should we be collecting that would be helpful to teachers-that will give them useful information they can use in the classroom
The public may not be aware of all that the schools are doing like RAC at RMS, COI (Committee On Instruction) at HHS, Council at HHS, Local Action Plan at MCS, etc.

B. Wayne asked for feedback on the proposed subcommittees. The following is a summary of feedback comments:

Identifying comparable schools, wouldn’t that be a starting place so that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel? Look at Cambridge, Princeton-what are they doing, find the state of the art.
Suggestion that we move ahead with a view of discovery-digging for gems of what is happening in our schools. As stated today there are many things going on that are great that we don’t know about-its messy but important work to be done and doing it this way lessens the chance of us missing something that is great and unique to our district/our schools
Why not find schools with a high SAT score and figure out what that school is doing to get that better outcome?
It would be a good time to use the ERB (Education Research Bureau) tests
Lets use this process of discovery, and not get caught up in deciding between the two points they are not mutually exclusive. Lets get started.
Don’t we need to have some common understanding of what constitutes quality to decide what we should get rid of and what we should keep. The NEASC accreditation process was very specific in its guidelines and involved constituent groups with a process and a way to look at quality. I suggest we start with what we value, its important to know if its test scores, how many kids get into Ivy League Schools.
Why not take time to define quality as a group-what does it look like, taste like, feel like? Use Back To Futures Protocol, like RMS did.
That’s possible, we could take a couple of hours-use outside facilitator.
Too difficult to get teachers there-we want their input. Why not do a survey on line-it would get us the info?
Not the same-do both survey and meeting, they give different information.
Important to develop work plans for each subcommittee to avoid doing parallel work, duplication of efforts, set up shared sessions with outside resources
We have documents on record that address quality-these documents should be shared with this committee. They would include but may not be limited to:

The SAU #70 Educational Model-see packet handed out at this meeting for a copy
The District Mission statement, individual school mission statements
Ray School Quality of Education

Suggestion made to move ahead. To have subcommittees stay in touch with each other. Use the SAU #70 Quality of Education Committee web site.

Comment that there is already an overwhelming amount of information to follow and that it is not possible to keep up with it
Expressed concern that this may cause some members of committee to fall behind in on-line committee discussions
Even though decisions will not be made on-line concern was expressed that a discussion without all voices participating can lead to a decision that does not reflect the work of all members when a decision is finally made in committee meetings
Consensus to send this dilemma to the Process subcommittee to wrestle with and make recommendation to QEC large committee and to look at other ways to work together as a large group with subcommittees.

C. Wayne went around the room and asked members which committee they would prefer to be on. Wayne will make the final decision taking into account individual requests but working to have “cross fertilization” on each subcommittee meaning an effort will be made to limit the number of individuals from one school on any one subcommittee.

Wayne will send out subcommittee member list tomorrow, Jan. 24, 2007
Reminder that any meeting needs to meet Open Meeting Law, which means it has to be advertised 24 hours before the meeting, and the listing has to be in two places. In this case the SAU # 70 web site serves as one place and putting it on a bulletin board is the second place.
Wayne went over how to assess the SAU # 70 QEC web site

D. Next meeting date: Thursday, Feb. 1, 2007. All committee members will meet in the RMS library and then break into subcommittees.

Respectfully submitted by Linda Addante 1/24/07 11:48 AM