March 22, 2007 - Unapproved Minutes

Printer friendly PDF version

QED Qualitative Sub Committee Meeting
Thursday, March 22, 2007
RMS Room 602
3:30-5:15 pm

Present: Rob Edson, Mully Blight, Adina Desaulinier, Marjorie Rose, Mary Sachsse, Paul Tierney, Sarah Curtis, Ann Waterfall, and Linda Addante

Absent: Wayne Gersen, Jan Asmus and Bob Bruce
________________________________________________________________________
Next meeting: Thursday, April 5th, RMS room 602, 3:30 to 5:00 pm
To Do List:

1. Linda will type meeting notes and send out to all committee members for review
2. Committee members will review meeting notes and bring corrections to next meeting
3. Mully will send NEASC web site to committee members so that we can review NEASC format for consideration of a process structure for Qualitative sub committee data collection
4. Mully will send Souhegan’s Futuristic Report web site to committee members so we can see model of futuristic data analysis
5. Marjorie will take identified questions to tri-chair meeting on Monday, March 26 and report back to sub-committee members to inform our work
6. Sub-committee members will continue to work on their topic of choice. Members who have not chosen an area to work on should do so and email their choice to Linda

________________________________________________________________________
I. Handouts Available at meeting for review:

1. Meeting Notes 3.8.07 updated version (includes addendum on topic chosen-see end of these notes for 3.8.07 addendum)
2. Meeting Notes: 3.8.07 with corrections from Paul Tierney-
3. Qualitative Data Collection table format
4. Marjorie/Linda meeting notes from 3.15.07 (included a list of proposed questions to be asked about parent surveys and student course evaluation surveys)

II. Handouts distributed to members present:

1. Q of E Qualitative Subcommittee MCS Surveys: 2003-07 prepared by Rob Edson
2. Quality of Education Qualitative Sub-Committee Information Collection prepared by Ann Waterfall and Mary Sachsse (copy attached at end of these notes)
3. Meeting Agenda for March 22, 2007

I.    Meeting called to order at 3:40 pm Agenda Review: No additions or changes made to agenda
II.   Review of Ground Rules: Discussion/recommendations

• Too much information being shared, keep it simple-there is information overload-difficult to know what is important. Send out only one copy of meeting notes. Corrections will be made at the beginning of the next meeting before notes are accepted.
• Corrections to meeting notes 3.8.07; Add at top of notes: PLEASE NOTE-These notes are for working purposes only. No final conclusions have been reached-Please read cautiously.
• Put “To Do List” at top of meeting notes, not at end

III.  Update from Marjorie Rose: Review of questions she will bring to QED tri-chairs Monday morning, March 26, 2007. Marjorie read her proposed list of questions for other two tri-chairs and Wayne. She asked for feedback and additions. Discussion summary and list of questions below:
 
1. We realized that we probably have further specific questions on current assessments in the schools than were answered by the school specific meetings last month.   We need to figure out how to organize the subcommittee work to obtain the info that each of us need without creating an undue burden on the administration and staff in our schools.  If we are all asking for different things at different times it could be overwhelming. Maybe we need to ask the principals for their guidance?

2. We're interested in finding out what some comparator schools and districts are doing (e.g., maybe some from the Menchik study).  Again, other subcommittees probably want other info and it might be good to have  2-3 point people from the committee--maybe one from each subcommittee--to be the conduit.  A random parent from a committee doesn't always hold much sway in securing information from other school districts-having Wayne, our superintendent ask for this information might be a better way to secure this kind of out of district information.

3.  Bill Mlachak has raised the issue of communication between the committee members and about meeting times to enhance transparency. We need to have a clear understanding of:  what type of info--e.g., minutes/meeting times need to be posted on the website, and who does the posting; when the entire QE needs to be notified; and when subcommittee communication can be between members or to the entire group.  

4.  The guiding framework we are using to organizing the work in our subcommittee is the A-A-A one that was presented to the whole committee. Adding an outcomes column allows us to include the evaluation of outcomes after the action is done.  We realize that it feeds back into analysis--but it would be useful to have a clear understanding by the whole QE committee that this is the overriding framework we are using.  If we are really trying to move to a benchmarking system--we need to have that outcome measured explicitly to see what the results of the action are.

5.  Suggestion that there be a designated facilitator for the QED meetings. There are a number of people that have had facilitation training in the group who might be willing to step up to the plate.

6.  Need to identify our audience for the QED qualitative sub-committee work. While the School Board is the identified audience for the QED committee work the consensus was that it would be helpful to get clarity on what the qualitative information collected will be used for? A status report, future planning-that is-providing information that will give feed back to school administration and staff to guide action steps for improvement.

7. Need to identify scope of our sub committee work. We need to prioritize and need the help of the tri-chairs to establish guidelines for prioritization. We can’t look at everything-we need to identify what’s most important, what is most useful etc.

8. The sub-committee needs a time line to organize its work effectively and efficiently. The QED needs to establish an updated timeline to assist in framing the subcommittees’ work. Date of future QED meeting/meetings?

9. Where do the topics like, choice of foreign language offered in our district fit into this larger QED committee work. When do we address these current hot-topics in our district? Will it be done in the context/work of the QED?

10. Suggestions from Qualitative Sub-committee members to be taken back to Tri-chairs:

1. Recommend that we establish/identify a way to check back and make sure that what we are addressing is what we said was important. For example use of SAU #70 Education Model. What is it in this district that we value?

IV. Tackling Data Collection-the work of our Qualitative Sub Committee; Comments made by committee members;

• Make use of existing mechanisms. Don’t create new assessment models use what is in place, collect that data.
• Be sure we stay within parameters of what this sub-committee was charged to do
• Identify our audience and be able to report out to the community.
• There are standards defined-we don’t need to define them-that is the work of professionals-we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
• It is difficult to find how other districts in other states are doing in meeting standards. California has multi page listing of curriculum standards but show no data on how well they are meeting these standards. 

V. Reporting out on member’s area of choice
1. Rob Edson: Parent Survey Marion Cross. Rob handed out a summary of information that answered many of the questions proposed by Linda and Marjorie about parent surveys, which he applied to the Marion Cross Parent Survey. The list of questions proposed by Linda and Marjorie are included below for your convenience:

• How is the parent survey information analyzed? Who does the analysis? Please give examples of data collected, and how the analysis was accomplished.
• Who was responsible for the parent survey design and collection of data? Was it a paper survey or electronic?
• How is the information shared and with whom-who constitutes the audience for the summary of the analysis of the data collected?
• What action steps have been taken as a result of the information collected?
• What outcomes have resulted from the action steps taken-expected and unexpected outcomes?
• How is the data collected used-for example is it shared with teachers? If so how?
• How are parent surveys designed-over the years have they been done more than once?
• Besides the district survey done in the spring of 2006 has there been any previous district surveys to parents, and parents of student alumni?

• Questions/Answers on information Rob presented:
• How often is the parent survey done? Annually as part of the Local Action Planning Committees work
• When does the LAP (Local Action Planning) Committee start meeting. In the fall of each school year. The survey is done in the spring.
• How did the LAP come into existence? The LAP was legislated.
• Comments from Rob:
• All school improvement goals, professional development goals are driven by the LAP
• Over the years the process is that results from Parent and Faculty surveys are used by the LAP along with other sources of information/data, like the NECAPS are used to determine the School Improvement goals. The goals are brought before the Norwich School Board for approval in June.
• Reports are shared in the principal newsletter, a formal report on the LAP goals goes out to parents

• Paul: Standards that exist outside of Dresden District-global standards
• Question Paul proposed is: “What are reasonable expectations given our demographics in this district?
• Web Site for California Standards: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/
• Global assessment not available on web. Lots of information on standards but no information on assessment of data.
• Wants to identify standards we can use as yardstick
• Measure for some areas may be portfolio, narrative, a performance
• Suggestion to look at schools known for their music programs
• Check out futuristic survey to see where our grads went after graduation from HHS, what they are doing and what they have to say about HHS post graduation
• Look at Magnet Schools-for music/arts standards and assessment
• Paul looked at colleges to see how they access-typically colleges asked for a performance tape
• Committee members discussed standards. What standards exist and in what subjects. Standards for comparison, in our district, outside of our district. The lack of results-how a district is doing relative to its stated standards.
• SAU # 70 NEASC self study-offer framework for self examination and framework for what we should be looking at to identify quality education

• Ann and Mary (handout) TOPIC: Investigate whether most of our students emerge with an enjoyment of the Arts (the whole child) and are they able to fold it back into their ability to enjoy the world?
• Statistics to examine (if available) or consider gathering if not already being gathered:
• At the elementary level, percent of children who continue to participate in chorus once it is optional. Also, percent of students who join band, orchestra. Marion Cross does not currently keep track of this information.
• At middle school level, percent of students who participate in a performing art—chorus, various bands, orchestra, drama.
• At the high school level, percent of students who participate in a performing art group. Also, number of students who try out for All-State music groups.

• An understanding of this topic could be broadened with input from middle high school students. Relevant questions might include:
• Are you a member of any community-performing group (choir, theater, etc.)?
• Do you expect to continue your participation in performing arts after graduation from high school?
• What factors have influenced your decision to participate in the performing arts?
• Specify the benefits you derive from your participation in the performing arts?
• Have you found it difficult to balance your academic load with performance rehearsal/practice schedules?
• Do you think there was sufficient emphasis, opportunity to continue to explore your interest in the arts throughout your K-12 years?

• Additional comments from sub-committee members:
• What other factors may contribute to students dropping out of the arts/music program. For example instrument lessons may be offered before school day starts and students do not have transportation or students may need to miss an academic class (in the past) (social studies/math) to take an instrument lesson offered at the school.
• How many students from each of the sending schools, M.C., Ray School and RMS continue arts at high school level.
• Use of Futuristic Survey-not sure if Dresden actually analyzes results. Souhegan does do an analysis and post it on their web-Mully will get the web site and share with committee members. We may want to suggest a similar analysis and report be done in Dresden-use Souhegan-no need to reinvent the wheel.
• Theater awards-high school theater group invited abroad to perform. This is qualitative assessment data.

• Adina: RMS continue collection of Qualitative Data at RMS
• Adina described the process she used to gather more qualitative data-she met with teachers in 6, 7, 8 grade electives, forty minutes each. They brainstormed list of qualitative measures being used at RMS.
• Adina in process of collecting this information and will see if it fits into table of three A’s.
• Adina noted that her request had an added benefit of sparking increased awareness of what is being done at RMS amongst staff/ across grades. Staff are continuing to identify qualitative measures and giving them to her to add to the list.
• Comment made that this kind of work is beneficial at all levels and information gathered is useful in training/mentoring new staff in skills, tasks and gives a representation of the school’s climate and culture

• Parent Survey/Student Course Evaluation Survey
• See notes from 3.15.07 Marjorie and Linda meeting. Questions for parent survey see notes above. Questions for Student Course Evaluation Survey:

• Student Course Evaluations:
• Linda gathered information from the HHS Council Curriculum Committee on development of Student Course Evaluation Survey
• Deb G. will be contacted to ask about status of current course evaluations: Linda and Marjorie will work on this together.

Questions to be asked about Student Course Evaluation Surveys:
1. Is there a policy or written recommendation that teachers provide students with an opportunity to evaluate their courses. Where is this recommendation written – staff handbook, student handbook? If it is not written how is this expectation communicated to staff, to students, is it a recommendation or a mandate that teachers do course evaluation student surveys?
2. Who is responsible for the design of the Course Evaluation Surveys done at the high school? Does the teacher of the course develop the course evaluations? Are there any questions on the course evaluations that are by conscious design asked by all the teachers in all of the courses at the high school? Do teachers have a chance to add questions to their own course evaluation to find out specifics particular to their course?
3. Are course evaluations done in every course? How often? Has the frequency of surveying and number of staff participating been assessed? If so what percentage of teachers give students course evaluations to fill out and how often?
4. How many teachers give students course evaluations to fill out midway in the course?
5. Do students have feedback on the course evaluation survey’s development and implementation?
6. How is the feedback collected analyzed and by whom?
7. How is the feedback used-who gets to see it: Teacher of the course?  Department Chair? High School Principal? Is it a part of Supervision and Evaluation? If so how is it used?
10. What action steps have been taken as a result of the information collected in the course evaluation student survey? Please address actions taken at the classroom level, at the individual teacher level and at the school/district level.
11. What results have occurred as a result of any action steps taken-please list expected and unexpected results?
12. How long has the high school been doing course evaluations by students? How has this information been used historically? Can you name specific actions taken as a result of the feedback received? Please address actions taken historically at the classroom level, at the individual teacher level and at the school/district level due to course evaluation feedback received by students.
13. Do parents get a chance to participate in any type of Course Evaluation Survey? Have they ever had such an opportunity historically? If so when, how and what came out of it?
14. How are students given information about and directions on how to fill out the course evaluation survey-is this process standardized or does each teacher do it individually?
15. What information is collected by graduates of the high school-in what areas. How is collected and how is it used? Please list action steps taken as a result of this data collected and any outcomes seen, expected and unexpected. With whom is this information collected shared? 

• Additional comments/discussion:
• Marjorie proposed doing another parent survey this spring as a follow up to last year’s, to establish parent survey’s as routine annual data gathering.
• It was noted that Marion Cross has already done a parent survey as part of their annual LAP work
• Discussion about negative fallout from survey last year and pros and cons for doing another survey this spring.
• Important to think about added value provided by a survey this year-is there any added value-if so we need to identify?
• How will the parent survey information be used?
• Possible time frame for survey could be May
• The Menchik study was an expensive professionally done study that did not find a district that was a perfect match for our district. Yet the results are worth examining.
• In this district the problem is not identifying standards, the problem is having the standard pushed aside as not valid when it is met or exceeded
• NOTE: No conclusions reached. Discussion closed at this time due to end of meeting time.

ADDENDUMS TO 3.8.07 MEETING NOTES & DATES THEY WERE ADDED

1. Action Steps Addendum Added March 14, 2007

• Teacher Surveys-coming up with relevant questions addressing the schools' Cultures- Jan Asmus
• *NEASC and Futuristic Survey  (NEASC along with someone else look at it and report back to sub-committee. Futuristic Survey-help along with someone else.)-Jan Asmus

2. Action Steps Addendum to above notes added March 15, 2007:

• Investigate whether most of our students emerge with an enjoyment of the Arts

(the whole child) and are they able to fold it back into their ability to enjoy
the world. Ann Waterfall and Mary Sachsse

3. Action Steps Addendum to above notes added March 20 2007

• To look at ways students (at least grades 9-12) are able to provide input into this process. Mully Blight