April 5, 2007 - Unapproved Minutes

Printer friendly PDF version

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

Present: Mully Blight, Adina Desaulinier, Marjorie Rose, Mary Sachsse, Paul Tierney, Ann Waterfall, Jan Asmus and Linda Addante

Absent: Wayne Gersen, Rob Edson, and Sarah Curtis

Handouts:

1. Qualitative Sub-Committee Meeting Notes, 3.22.07
2. QED Qualitative Sub-Committee Meeting Agenda, 4.5.07
3. Summary Of Meting of Co-Chairs of QED, Monday, 3.26.07
4. Proposed Comparative Districts
5. Hanover High School Mission Statement
6. RUBRIC FOR MISSION & EXPECTATIONS STANDARD
7. Hanover High School NEASC * Expectations for Student Learning

To Do List:

1. Linda will type up notes, committee members will review and send correction/edits to her via email. Please send your corrections by April 10, 2007 (Note: meeting notes will be sent for posting to the QED web site on April 11, 2007.)

2. Committee members are to continue the work in their area of choice and write up their findings using the following suggested format.
1. Name your area of choice-describe the specific area/topic you are investigating
2. List the action steps you plan to take or have already taken to investigate/gather the information in your target area

1. Also list your resource needs-what do you need assistance with to complete your investigative action steps. Example: if you need to talk with a teacher, principal, inside or outside source/comparative district you will need to go through the SAU office i.e. Wayne.
2. Please include a list of your resource needs in your report

3. What are your findings? This could be in the form of a narrative description, list of documents, table of information etc.
4. What are your recommendations based on your findings? Since this is an interim report it may be to continue the work you are doing.
5.  What resources are needed to follow-up on your recommendations-remember this is the first pass interim report and your recommendations may be focused on identifying further investigative steps or avenues to be explored rather than listing “Standards of Excellence” (see SAU 70 QED Committee Mission, Expectations, Tasks, and Responsibilities.) This area of recommendations will no doubt be brought into sharper focus by the work of the other sub-committees and addressed at the larger QED meeting in May.

3. The Sub-Committee interim report will be worked on via email. Committee members should write up their respective areas and email their drafts to all committee members so that we can continue our conversation over the next two weeks.  Members should have their draft version ready for submission no later than April 23 so that it can be consolidated into an interim report for the April 26th due date.

4. We need to determine who will collect the parts and consolidate our individual work into an interim report for submission on April 26th.

Meeting Notes

I. Review of the March 22, 2007 Meeting Notes.
a. Corrections: Bob Bruce is not a member of the Qualitative Sub-Committee.
    Non-members will be listed in the future as Other Attendees.
II. Review Meeting Agenda: Add On to Agenda

1. Identify priorities of this Committee
2. Committee’s line of action

III. Review of Summary Meeting of Co-Chairs: 3.26.07 by Marjorie Rose
            a. The following comments were made:

1. Procedures for requests for information on SAU schools current assessment and for information on comparator schools outside of SAU 70 district.
1. All requests need to go through Wayne Gersen, SAU Superintendent’s office. Some information may be gathered more effectively through face-to-face conversations and should be arranged through Wayne’s office.
2. Objection voiced by member who expressed concern that this will limit individual research. Consensus of group was that individual web research, contacting out of state districts in California etc. is permitted. When seeking information from schools listed on  “Proposed Comparative Districts” a request for information must go through Wayne.
3. See notes from Co-Chairs meeting for additional information.

1. Review of revised Time-line for QED work:
1. April 26: Subcommittee provide interim reports on work to date and status of work, including findings, next steps and lingering questions
2. May 3: Full QED meeting to discuss subcommittee interim reports
3. May 7: QED status report providing interim summary of findings. Report will be sent to SAU board prior to SAU Board meeting.
4. May: SAU Board Meeting: The QED will present the interim report

1. Clarification on the use of the QED data:
1. Concerns were expressed at the last sub-committee meeting regarding the lack of clarification on what constitutes a Quality Education, and the concern that no matter what we do- what identified standard we meet and exceed we will never be good enough
2. Suggestion made to make use of existing measures and documents: NEASC Self Study, SAU Educational Model, etc.
3. Suggestion that we seek agreement on what we are using as a measure and be transparent-let everyone know what we are using as a measure
4. NEASC does not collect reports on all schools accredited and do comparisons.
1. This may be due to the fact that the NEASC self study is based on a school’s mission statement-and each school has a different mission statement-in fact a statement of what the school does-which may not lend itself to equitable comparisons.
5. No one seems to have a collection of comparative data or national standards for measuring Civic, Social Skills and the Arts.

IV.  Individual Committee member updates:
A. NEASC: Mully Blight and Jan Asmus; See handouts: Hanover High School Mission Statement, Hanover High School NEASC Expectations for Student Learning and Rubrics for the Seven Standards

1. Introduction: NEASC (New England Association of School and Colleges) accredits K-8 and 9-12 schools. This report focuses on the self report/accreditation of schools grades 9-12, specifically the NEASC self study done by Hanover High School
2. There are Seven Standards, “benchmarks”
1. Mission and Expectations Standard
2. Curriculum Standard
3. Instruction Standard
4. Standard On Assessment Of Student Learning
5. Standard On Leadership And Organizations
6. School Resources for Learning Standard
7. Community Resources For Learning Standard

1. NEASC self study. Re-accreditation every ten years.
1. A committee is formed for each of the seven standards. Each committee had as its members students, parents, community members and staff
1. 2-2 1/2 years before the NEASC Accreditation Team visits the school the school performs a self-study based on a format provided by NEASC.
2. The NEASC visiting NEASC Committee is composed of 14-15 educators from a comparative school/school district.
3. The visiting NEASC Committee visits the school for three days. Members of the committee interview teachers, parents, students and community members as well as administrators and principals.

1. NEASC Mission Committee:
1. Benefited from previous work done by ASAP (Large community forum to review the high school philosophy statement)
2. During the self-study work held several community/council/staff reviews of newly drafted mission statement.  First mission draft rejected-the committee went back and rewrote the mission statement based on recommendations received from community, council and staff.
3. NEASC requires evidence that the school’s mission is representative of all stakeholders in the district.
4. High school mission statement was approved by the Dresden School Board (12.18.01) HHS staff (12.13.01), HHS Mission Statement Committee (12.3.01) and HHS Council (12.18.01). It was also brought before ASAP, the Alliance of School and Parents steering committee.
5. NEASC Expectations for Student Learning
1. Expectations for Student Learning were identified at the time of the school’s self-study and included in the work done by the Mission Committee. Subsequently NEASC altered their requirements and new expectations: Core Competencies were drafted. See Handout: Hanover High School NEASC * Expectations for Student Learning.
2. These Core Competencies/rubric are used by teachers to assess student learning and academic skills
3. Review of the rubrics: Ascending levels of competency marked 1 through 4 in areas specific to the academic skill listed.
4. Question asked: How these are used to assess students?
1. Teachers make use of these rubrics
2. Departments are working on developing specific rubrics. For example a writing rubric was presented to COI for review
5. There is no rubric in the NEASC Expectations for Student Learning that addresses Civics and Social Skills because these are not measured in the same way.
6. The State of New Hampshire has mandated recently that graduation requirements will not be based on “seat time” rather each student must now demonstrate a level of proficiency.
1. In the high school COI is working with each department on ways to meet the NH mandate for demonstration of proficiency using the core competencies
2. N.H. Department of Education recognized HHS for being ahead of other schools in this work
7. Power School: is a system wide-district wide student assessment record keeping system. It takes a year or two to set up and get running. Once it is in place parents can theoretically follow their child’s learning progress, see individual assessments, homework, and rubrics that measure their child’s progress.
1. This system has some positives and negatives. It is possible for parents to hover too much and know every detail about their child’s school work-this may be too invasive for the child’s own sense of developing individuality.

1. Suggestion that NEASC standards and learning expectations/core competencies would be useful benchmarks. Rational for this suggestion;
1. The information provided by NEASC self-study is useful to the whole community
2. The information has value because it is well recognized-Accreditation is by an outside, neutral highly respected organization.
3. The High School Mission and the SAU Mission (adapted from High School Mission statement) has social and civic standards.
1. The mission statements capture the qualitative nature of some of these standards esp. relative to civic and social skills

1. Question asked: What has the school done with the NEASC self study? What has been done and where have they seen a difference-in what areas? 
1. Should the next step for Mully and Jan be to go back and see what outcomes have occurred? NEASC has scheduled follow-up reports. The school has a five-year report due next year. Mr. Jenisch is chairing the work on this report.
2. Jan expressed an interest in giving teachers a survey to see what needs to be done, put in place, etc. to improve individual student learning.

1. Recommendation made that the Qualitative Sub-Committee suggest to the QED that the NEASC self study and report including the Seven Standards and the Expectations for Student Learning/Core Competencies (to include the rubrics) be adopted as components of the benchmarks to be used by the QED Committee in its work
1. Members present agreed and supported this recommendation
2. It was noted that this recommendation is just a start in identification of district benchmarks to be use-other components of the benchmarks to be used may be identified
3. This is not all that should be looked at

V.  Parent Survey and Student Course Evaluation Survey: Marjorie Rose and Linda
      Addante
            A. Questions have been submitted at the previous meeting to find out more about
                 Parent Survey’s and Student Course Evaluation Survey being done in the
                 district.

            B. Observation made that there are three surveys being suggested at this time:
    Parent, Teacher and Student (Course Evaluation Survey). The follow points
    were made:

1. If we are going to survey parents, teachers and students we should also include a community survey to include all taxpayers
2. The objective of the survey must be identified first to guide what kinds of questions will be included on the survey. Suggestions for survey objectives included:
1. To find out what needs to be in place to help teachers support student learning
2. What needs to be in place to better support INDIVIDUAL student learning
3. Use of the survey as an educational tool-it was noted that surveys convey information as well as gather feedback
4. Use of the survey to invite feedback-The importance of gathering feedback from all stakeholders was acknowledged
5. Use of the survey as a communication tool. Early in the QED work an observation was made that there is an increasing rift between constituent groups in the district. The survey would be a way to improve communication amongst constituent groups:
1. Ask for feedback-How are we doing? IMPORTANT TO HAVE A YARDSTICK WHEN WE ASK THIS QUESTION-THIS YARDSTICK WILL NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY AND SHARED IN NEWSLETTERS, WEBSITES BEFORE THE SURVEY IS DISTRIBUTED
2.  Share what we learn with all stakeholders, and help stakeholders talk with one another-exchange of ideas/information/concerns.
3. Improve communication between groups: parents, community, teachers, and students.
4. Write an article in RIVER, district newsletter to inform stakeholders about the survey, give information on the measures/yardsticks used to identify quality education in the district.
3. Process for Development of Community, Parent, Teacher, and Student Survey. It was noted that the Athletic Field survey provided important feedback and guidance to the Athletic Fields Committee. The survey design process involved meetings with the Athletic Fields Committee members.
1. Survey Design: Need to identify what we want to get out of the survey. Make use of a survey consultant use of focus groups to identify survey focus-what does the community at large want to know about the schools? What do students want to know, parents etc. Need to ask the different groups-don’t make assumptions.
2. Survey Tool: how survey will be conducted
3. Survey Analysis-professional analysis. Want to be sure that survey conducted is valid both in design, and in analysis.

1. Resource needs to conduct recommended surveys:
1. Seek professional input-get estimates on cost/fee
2. Make recommendation to larger QED-carry to SAU board

VI. Adina Desaulinier is continuing to collect Qualitative information from RMS staff
      She will continue to list her finding on the A-A-A grid.

VII. Paul Tierney reports that he cannot find comparative data on SAT I, SAT II that span
      districts, or any type of national comparisons.
            a. Suggestion that ACT’s be explored. The ACT tests different skills/knowledge
                than SAT, and is required by some colleges rather than SATs.

VIII. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm

Respectfully submitted by Linda Addante at 7:55 pm on April 7, 2007