|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Crockett, Hackett, Huyler, Marcano, Pohl, Rizzo, Small- Miller, Stafford ABSENT:
Mr. Edwards A.1
Call to Order A.2.
Pledge of Allegiance A.3. Minutes of October 23, 2006 Ms. Hackett asked for a Motion to adopt the Minutes of October 23, 2006. Rizzo/Pohl s.v. The Manchester Board of Education moved the adoption of the Minutes of October 23, 2006, with two friendly amendments, i.e., in the final paragraph on P.9, line one, the word 'not' had inadvertently been omitted. The text should have read "this issue was most definitely not about alcoholism." and on Page 11, under Item G, the minutes should show that it was Ms. Hackett, not Mr. Rizzo, who had asked for a Motion to adjourn. The Motion carried 8/0/0. Ms. Hackett asked the Secretary for a motion to add "Communications" to the evening's Agenda. MOTION: Rizzo/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education moved that the Agenda be changed to add "Communications" as Item I; "Public Comments" would become Item J, and "Items for future agendas" become Item K. The motion carried 8/0/0. B. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT - Part I B.1. Relay
for Life Award Presentation Mr. Scorso said he was a volunteer for the American Cancer Society and gave a brief outline of the meaning of Relay for Life. The American Cancer Society had been known as a national community-based volunteer health organization but had become international. Teams raised money towards the prevention of cancer; saved lives and diminished suffering and it was appropriate, and an honor, to recognize the award winners present. Mr. Scorso thanked Mr. Miller for his generosity in providing the beautifully engraved trophies and Dr. Ouellette for her participation in the program. "Relay for Life, 2007", is to be held at North West Park, Manchester on June 1 and 2. Mr. Scorso concluded with the quotation "The things we do for ourselves are forgotten, but the things we do for others are remembered forever." Ms. Hackett thanked Mr. Scorso for coming, commenting on the magnificent trophies; the students, staff and parents, who had been involved in the initiative. The Board was proud of all of them. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Nino Pagani, 42C Bluefield Drive, talked about two serious concerns, i.e., the lack of parental support in the schools, and what he viewed as a terrible waste of food. Ms. Hackett told Mr. Pagani to feel free to submit his concerns, in writing, to allow the Board the opportunity to review them. Mr. John Tucci, 352 Hilliard Street commented on recent reports, which had stated, "There shall be no physical punishment, or any kind of punishment for any kind of discipline behavior." PBS had a new program on "How to Improve Discipline". He pointed out that all of this should have been known already; it was like reinventing the wheel. He likened it to "A bunch of liberals, talking to other liberals", coming up with the same solutions. He considered that talk about multi-culturalism was nonsense; Manchester had been multi-culturalized for twenty years and this had not worked. Mr. Tucci went on to comment on the theme "Closing the Educational Gap", which he felt was public education's main goal, instead of Excellence. This was all well and good but the bright children moved on; none of this equalization of programs which was not being done in Europe or Asia, and why America had to import all its engineers. The whole system was being held back to get equality. He feared for the real estate in town. The intentions were good but they were not going to work. Mr. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road, wished people who had intimated that Americans had cold hearts, could have been made aware of the efforts of the young people who had received awards for Relay for Life Awards that evening. Mr. Perlman commended voters who had shown up at the recent Election. Mr. Perlman thought a look should be taken at the curriculum to take account of the fact that a shortage of people with skills had recently been reported. Children were being educated to college level but should also be encouraged to pursue non-collegiate types of careers and made aware they could/should broaden their choices. Ms. Mary Angeli. 65 White Street, commented on recent rumors about elementary schools trying to create a balance. She would like to see the students from Nathan Hale, Washington School, Kindergarteners, 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders bussed to other elementary schools in town. She would like to see all of the 4th and 5th graders in town bussed to Washington and Nathan Hale. Middle School years started at 4th Grade; Early Childhood was pre-school to 3rd grade: this would create a balance. Ms. Angeli emphasized the fact that she was speaking as a member of the community and had no 'connections' of any kind with the Board of Education, other than on a professional level. Mr. Stringfellow, 183 Hills Town Road commented that it was Native American Month and recommended the book "Native American History" by Judith Nies. Copyright 1996. Veteran's
Day had been observed on Saturday, November 11 and "Manchester
Reminder" had a cover story on a Display by the Manchester Historical
Society, 100 Cedar Street, of WWII memorabilia, which would last through
year-end. Mr. Stringfellow mentioned another explorer, George Somers: the second civilization before Jamestown (1607). The Anniversary Year will be next year. Bermuda was named after Juan de Bermudez during the 1500's. St. Augustine, Florida was settled by the Spaniards in 1515. In conclusion,
Mr. Stringfellow had attended the Neighborhood Schools' Diversity Forum
and stated we all had to move forward, as Americans. The three 'I's'
should be remembered: Ignorance, Indifference and Isolation.We
needed to get back to basics; particularly watching out for racism. D. PTA COUNCIL REPORT Mrs. Merrill Kidd gave a brief report. The PTA had worked very hard since her last report on Community Conversations, which took place on November 9th, and proved to be very successful. She thanked the Board members for being there. Ms. Diane Kearney was working on a follow-up scheduled for December 13th. Mrs. Kidd said she was extremely pleased at the excellent collaboration between the League of Women voters; Manchester School Readiness Council; Manchester Board of Education and PTA Council also the many volunteers. She expressed her thanks to parents for coming out to support the event. Mrs. Huyler had a question about the location of the Community Conversations and was told that they were held at the Manchester Regional Academy. Ms. Diane Kearney would be the source of this information. Dr. Ouellette said that participants of the Community Conversations had been by way of invitation: a waiting list had been generated, in collaboration with the PTA Council; the Readiness Council and Ms. Kearney. Mr. Pohl thanked Mrs. Kidd and all those who had worked on the Community Conversations. He thought it was a wonderful thing to have brought together members of the Board, Board of Education; Community Leaders and people of the Community together to work on the issue facing us. A lot of positive things had been derived from the event. Mr. Rizzo thanked Mrs. Kidd, PTA staff and the Administration for organizing Community Conversations. He had been impressed by the numbers of attendees, including people he had not seen before. That was refreshing and helped the process to be opened up to different viewpoints. Mr. Rizzo reported the fact that elected officials present at the event had been told they were there simply as observers. He was irritated by the fact that not everyone present adhered to the rule. He considered it important that elected officials be allowed to contribute something to the focus groups, as some of the participants were not as au fait with things that are going on as those who were, and they could have cleared up some of the misinterpretations out there. He would welcome a change to the criteria when the session was repeated, to allow elected officials to participate fully. Ms. Hackett agreed with the point made by Mr. Rizzo and this issue needed to be ironed out. Some incorrect information had been passed around and she was compelled to correct it as further judgments were being made. The role of the Board members needed to be defined. Ms. Hackett concluded her remarks by thanking all the people for the role each had played in organizing the event with its subsequent success.
Dr. Reisman shared some new and exciting things going on with the Head Start Program, and databases, and how these were exemplified in the Head Start Program. He began by emphasizing that the purpose of collecting data, and the most important, was to become informed; the ability to inform ourselves as to what we want to do next. Data was collected and analyzed on two different levels, i.e., the macro level; the systems approach. The other, the micro, i.e., the individual child and family data collected. That was done on all fronts. Work was being carried out with children and families, with, and for, the Board of Education; all of the elementary schools, because the program was a natural feeder and a transition point for children going from pre-school through Kindergarten. Dr. Reisman identified, with the use of slides, a perspective of what was actually being looked at, i.e., Community needs assessment; Results of Federal monitoring; Self-Assessment Information; PIR data; Summary of Child Outcome data and other data sources. Hard copies of the slides were tabled. Dr. Reisman concentrated on the subjects under the headings: "Interpreting the Data" "Program Improvement Plan", "Training and Technical Assistance Plan", "Strengthening Your Program", and what that data told them. The results gave an idea of what technical assistance was needed, and helped in the deciding factors. Sometimes it was staff development, sometimes it was resources. The program became stronger because they had identified those sources. The second slide projected the PRISM Framework: Analysis of Areas to Strengthen and was broken down into sub-headings, Services and Partnerships; Child Development and Health Services; Family and Community Partnerships and Program Design. Dr. Reisman elaborated on each of the headings, and sub-headings, with emphasis on the sub-headings under "Systems". He thought these were the systems, which enabled them to see whether or not they were doing a good job. Until all the data was collected and analyzed they were not sure in which direction they should go, and how to go about making valid decisions. In terms of individual child and classroom data, Dr. Reisman referred to the slide which set out the Connecticut State Department of Education's Preschool Assessment Framework; identified thirty different performance standards and represented those skills that the State Department of Education considered important for children to learn as pre-schoolers. Teachers gleaned a lot of their information from this data. Dr. Reisman drew a comparison between the November and May Assessments, which highlighted an improvement in student results. This data was shared with teachers and parents and Dr. Reisman emphasized the importance of parents, equal teachers, when it came to this process. He said the best thing to do was to go back to the slide which dealt with performance standards; the sub-skills; the benchmarks, and how they could help children develop those skills; what they could do on a daily basis to improve their children's readiness for kindergarten. Dr. Reisman concluded by saying that The Head Start Program was all about loving your children; nurturing your children; spending time with children who really needed their help. On top of that, it was important to be able to collect accurate data so that children could be helped as quickly as possible. Teaching must be intentional. Mr. Stafford thanked Dr. Reisman for his informative presentation and asked about the parental participation for Head Start. Dr. Reisman responded that it was good; information was gathered on a monthly basis and given on a voluntary basis. Parents attended a breakfast meeting on every other Wednesday, and where food was involved, there was good attendance. Mr. Stafford asked if a track had been kept of children who had gone forward. Dr. Ouellette said they were in the process of analyzing that data at the present time and Dr. Riesman had previously shared information with the Board of Directors as far as tracking was concerned. Dr. Reisman said it was advisable to wait a couple of years until there was a good history before making statements about the effectiveness of programs. Dr. Richardson stated that Dr. Reisman was working on a Professional Development Project on the very same subject so they had had conversations early in the fall and looked forward to bringing the information to the Board of Education in the spring. Mr. Marcano thanked Dr. Reisman for his presentation and asked how many children were in the Head Start Program and was told there were 132 students, approximately of whom 110 of them who were 4-year olds, who would be kindergarten students the following year; the remainder was 3-year olds who had another year with the Head Start Program. Dr. Reisman said there were eight classrooms, six of whom were half-day classes, operating between the hours of 8:30-12:30pm: two classrooms, full -day, full-year, operating from 7:30-5:30pm. There were seventeen children in the half-day classrooms, with a teacher and a paraprofessional; full-day classrooms, which are more intensive, have fifteen students. They have three teachers and two paraprofessionals for 3-year olds. Mr. Marcano wanted to know how a teacher with thirty children could teach each child individually. He wished all teachers could only have seventeen children in the classroom. Dr. Reisman explained that individual teaching did not necessarily have to be done on a one-to-one basis. They could almost be described as environmental engineers who took the space they had; their materials and resources, and applied them to the children in groupings. One could be offset against the other. Ms. Hackett
asked about the waiting list and was informed that it was a long one.
The program was fully enrolled from the very beginning. This year there
were about forty families pre-registered and left after day one because
they were looking for full-time, rather than part-time. Dr. Reisman
hoped this problem would be eliminated when their new building was ready
as sixty new slots were to be added. Dr. Reisman thanked Board members for their involvement in the Head Start Program. Dr. Reisman mentioned having Board representation at their Policy Council. He would like to review the possibility of this; perhaps have Dr. Ouellette come to the meeting. Ms. Hackett requested that he arrange for someone to send her the meeting dates. Dr. Reisman informed her that these were held on the second Wednesday of every month 9:30-11:00am. (Breakfast included). She congratulated Dr. Reisman and his staff on his outstanding and extraordinary review. Mr. Marcano clarified the point that he had been informed by another Board member that when he had referred to thirty students in kindergarten, he had been using a hypothetical figure - there were not actually thirty children in Kindergarten. F. CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Ouellette reported on thirteen items on the Consent Calendar requiring Board approval. F.1. Personnel
Action F.2. Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $5,000 F.3. Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $,2500 F.4. Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $2,413 F.5. Appropriation
for Education Special Projects - $2,413 F.7. Decrease
in Appropriation for Education Special Projects - F.8. Decrease
in Appropriation for Education Special Projects F.9. Budget
Transfers F.11. Acceptance
of the Waddell Elementary School Fire Alarm Project F.12 Extended
Field Trip Request - Manchester High School F.13 Extended
Field Trip Request - Manchester High School Mr. Rizzo moved adoption of the Consent Calendar. MOTION:
Rizzo/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved G. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT - Part II G.1. SAT Update - Don Sierakowski Mr. Sierakowski called upon Dr. Tony Gasper who would accompany him on a portion of the report. Whilst relevant documents were being tabled to Board members Mr. Sierakowski highlighted some of the things that had happened with the last graduating class. This was a traditional fall report. He described himself as "the Bearer of good tidings" and reported on outstanding students and their accomplishments across all spectra, all levels and groups. He said the profile before the Board was what got sent out with every student's application, employment application, resume` and any other communication from students, either seeking employment or seeking some other college admission. In the interests of brevity, Mr. Sierakowski called the Board's attention to four statistical areas: first - Manchester High School's Mission Statement, the newly-edited Mission statement completed last year; approved by the Faculty and coming before the Board later on in the meeting. The second item was SAT scores, and Mr. Sierakowski was pleased to say that the numbers were holding very well, with an increase in percentage of students taking the test. Mr. Sierakowski made the editorial comment, shared by many faculty and students, that it was the support of the Manchester Board of Education to provide the PSAT experience for all sophomores and juniors that had made a difference in the growth and quality of scores achieved by students; in place for four years. Mr. Sierakowski commented that in our society, the skills required to succeed at work, to be successful in a college environment were one and the same. Students must learn to think independently; analyze the information coming before them and have the courage and initiative to take action on all of that. Eighty-nine of the last class had done just that! Clearly students had got the message and were responding to the challenge. Thirdly, the AP Score area was based on the 157 students in the senior class who sat for an advance placement examination that went out to all colleges and universities, as part of the profile. A single-page AP score document was tabled at this point, which showed that in the last year Manchester High School had 211 students taking the test. That was more than a three-fold growth in AP test takers since the year 2000. The total number of tests taken was 325. Manchester High School had 78% participation compared with 60% national. Mr. Sierakowski referred to statistics set out on a blue sheet (tabled), which was a quick summary of what happened to students who did not meet the proficiency level. Only six students did not actually meet the CAPT designated graduation requirements, as outlined in the Board policy. The importance of that was to note that not everyone matured on the same day; the CAPT tests measured the progress over a four-day period; two hours a day. Mr. Sierakowski stated that by spring of 2005, three hundred and eleven students had met the CAPT requirements on the first attempt, and he hoped that trend would go forward. Students were responding to requests of staff to increase their aspirations and meet increasing expectations. Mr. Rizzo asked Mr. Sierakowski for an explanation of a district test, and was told that it had been decided that students needed other opportunities to demonstrate skill. Staff at central office and the high school had put together tests that were similar to the CAPT tests. As part of the process, students had a portfolio preview to see if they would be able to meet the standards over time. Students do not do well sometimes on a standardized test. Mr. Rizzo said he had wanted to explain that a district test was made up of retired CAPT items put together, rather the assumption that it another easier test. Mr. Rizzo told Mr. Sierakowski that he was impressed with the numbers, and thought it was the first time he had seen the results of the graduation policy. He had been concerned with making a policy and having huge numbers of children not passing the CAPT. He felt this had not happened and was owed to the creativity employed, allowing children to demonstrate that they knew the material. Mr. Rizzo said he realized that there was still some work to do but it was encouraging to note that policy seemed to be working. It was good for Manchester High School to have a graduation requirement while giving students a number of methods to meet the requirements. Ms. Hackett said she was very encouraged by the numbers. She had helped to craft the policy and in its revision. She was pleased at the number of students who were meeting the requirements by virtue of passing the CAPT. She acknowledged that "we still had a way to go". Ms. Hackett thanked everyone who had done their part, parents, students, etc. On the last page of the profile there was a cumulative list covering the last three years of the colleges that Manchester High School graduates had attended. Ms. Hackett asked the Administration to make sure this list was repeated again. It was very interesting, and validating, to the community. Mr. Crockett had a question concerning SAT and was told by Mr. Sierakowski this was not on the profile; there was no standard of comparison at the moment and he did not know. As an indication, students had done competently well on the writing portion of the CAPT but this was speculative. Mr. Marcano wanted to know how the African-American and Spanish students were doing. Mr. Sierakowski responded that he would do his best to get that information. Ms. Small-Miller questioned if we were doing so well, why was there still an achievement gap? Mr. Sierakowski said he had already alluded to that when he stated he had great concerns about students who were not meeting proficiency on the CAPT tests. This was an issue of great concern and something they wanted to discuss once Dr. Richardson had given the score report. At this
point in the meeting, Dr. Ouellette agreed that Item G4 - "CAPT
Report" would precede Item G.3 - "Graduation Policy Profile". Dr. Richardson announced that Dr. Gejda and Ms. Diane Kearney would assist her in the slide presentation, as it had been a team effort. Dr. Richardson began her presentation with the reminder that this examination was a little different from the CMT, which was reading, writing and math. This test included Science. It was a comparison between 2005 and 2006. Of particular importance was the percent, proficient and above, when it compared to the two years and State target; there was growth within mathematics. The State had cautioned that they should not make comparisons, although this was being done that evening. There were very different items on the tests so it was like comparing apples, oranges and bananas. This was a flat profile, in mathematics, however, compared to a third generation. Dr. Richardson pointed out that a very important slide was the demographics of sub-groups and where they fared on the CAPT test over time. Data revealed that results of students of color were disproportionate with those of white students: this was of great concern and needed to be highlighted throughout the report as well as the end results. Dr. Richardson said there was also concern about the Special Education students; also several of the students within the subgroups were appearing, not just in one column, but also in other columns. Dr. Richardson elaborated at great length on her report with the use of twenty-six slides (hard copies of had been included with the agenda package to the Board). The final area to look at was the Science area: there was no target identified in the Math, Writing and Reading area but we were holding our own over the previous year, when it came to the whole school. Paramount to consider was closing the Achievement Gap so that every student had the opportunity to score the same as their counterparts. Dr. Richardson talked about Manchester Public Schools' specific initiatives, i.e., to deliver strong development. For those who would like detailed CAPT results, they can be researched on the website. Dr. Richardson talked about consistency and restructuring professional development to meet the needs of all students. Dr. Richardson recalled Glen Singleton - who was a supporter of the Courageous Conversation programs about race - saying "Not only do I believe all children can learn, but I can help all children to learn." Dr. Richardson
concluded by talking about AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). Some times
this was confusing to people. It was measured by the percentage of students
reaching the State target - illustrated in the data charts, such as
reading, writing and math. It basically looked at the proficiency levels
in those areas of CMT, as well as high school. Ms. Hackett thanked Dr. Richardson declaring it was one of the best CAPT Reports she had seen over a number of years and realized a significant amount of work had gone into it; it was comprehensive and revealing. Ms. Small-Miller remarked on the gap between students of color and white students, which was widening and wanted to know if there was a program in place to alleviate the problem. Why were they not progressing to the same degree? Dr. Richardson responded that they were bringing more culturally responsive literature into the classrooms. Ms. Small-Miller would like to see an actual program. Ms. Kearney responded that part of the reason was because there was a complete disconnect between students of color and the Educator: this was nationwide. Part of what was being done to address that was to come up with a district-wide equity plan to look at leadership, create a student-centered learning and teaching environment with reflective teachers: involve families and the community, and do whatever it took to empower parents to remain involved. The way to do that would be through professional development for all staff holding courageous conversations about race: multi-culturalism; the most important piece that would bridge the existing gap. They needed to continuously look at the data as a reminder that there was a gap that must be addressed. Mr. Stafford found the presentation informative but asked for an explanation of the template they had been shown and how this would help teachers in the classroom to show students who might not be scoring as well as they should, so they could be supported individually. He thought the need was to look more at transforming educators' practices, processes and relationships in the classroom. Dr. Richardson responded that a student's name was identified on the template so it was an actual personal record for the growth of the student: also the ethnicity was identified. All of the data was criterion reference testing and showed how students were performing on skills they were actually able to achieve. Mr. Stafford wanted people to understand that the template was not just another piece of paper, but actually part of the program that was being used to address the 'Gap' issue and that over time we could watch our students and help them a lot sooner. Dr. Ouellette pointed out that it would be best to say that this was the accountability structure. It was very important for the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent to have conversations with the Principals on how they were working with their teachers, and how they were looking at every student's score at the three data points Dr. Richardson had shared. These were benchmark assessments. Mr. Stafford queried if we would be drawing teachers into this more wholly than we had now. Data teams were in place and were starting to work. Dr. Richardson responded 'Absolutely!' An important point she had omitted to mention earlier was that top part was actually by classroom teacher. Dr. Ouellette said that this was the second year the pre K-12 Accountability Structure was reported in depth. When they had their data review sessions with the principals, many teachers came, as part of the team, to join in the discussions: it had been a great process and they had finalized the template, of which they were very proud. It had taken a year to get to that point. Ms. Huyler thanked Dr. Richardson and her team for the report. She thought this was a very exciting time for the district. She could see a theme of customization going on as she had listened to Mr. Sierakowski and Dr. Richardson's statistics. We were going after the adage of teaching to the tests. We had a long way to go: there was a huge gap we had to bridge but were beginning to see results. Students were engaging and stepping up to the plate. Clearly there was a plan in place. She was glad to be a part of the change. Mr. Crockett congratulated Dr. Richardson for her in-depth presentation and asked about a template for teachers. Were they looking at teachers who were successful/unsuccessful? "Was there a study in place on this aspect?" Was there any accountability for our staff?" Dr. Richardson said the Evaluation Plan identified support for teachers where it was needed: when one talked about accountability, the template itself was classified 'Class", which identified not just groups of students but also the teachers. Dr. Ouellette stated that they had a very strong administrative team and principals who were very knowledgeable of the teacher evaluation tool between the districts walk-through plan: between working with teachers on an individual basis: day-to-day, through either grade level meetings or team meetings. They knew the data very well and worked with teachers who had different areas of strengths. They were being used as role models in classrooms to assist other teachers. Mr. Rizzo said that in looking at the scores it appeared to him that the proficiency numbers went up, in some cases by a lot, at the expense of advanced and goal. Basic and below, in a lot of cases, were flat. Considerable time had been spent over the years talking about proficiency and he thought we were not getting basic and below basic scores out of those bands. Part of the student population was already performing at acceptable levels and seemed to be moving around the acceptable ranges. Was he wrong, or did this look to the experts present as if that was happening, and why might this be the case? Dr. Richardson agreed that Mr. Rizzo had a valid point; Mr. Sierakowski and she had had some dialogue about this, and actually there were students who had moved from basic to proficient and there was some focus on that, and some concern. Mr. Sierakowski might have further details about some programs on that. Mr. Sierakowski confirmed that Dr. Gasper would be giving more information on the Proficiency Project. Additionally, there was talk earlier about not all students getting to the same point at the same time, but according to one of the documents that had been tabled; it showed what happened, with individual students maintained at Manchester High School to get them to the skill level required for graduation. He thought this might not be enough, but at least they were meeting that standard. Unfortunately, students of color were still lagging behind. The goal was to make sure students had the skills by the time they graduated. Mr. Rizzo said a good point was that after students take the test they did have two more years where more time was spent with them after the test than before the test to get them up to speed. Mr. Rizzo thought that what he was seeing was 'good news', compared to when he had first sat on the Board. More people were taking the test. 99% of our students had taken CMT and 98% had taken CAPT. It had already been mentioned that the test scores were flat. If more students were taking the test, and it is widely held that the more people who took the test, the worse they did, then he would make the point that Manchester was doing a fairly good job at keeping students, at least where they had been scoring. This point was worth bringing out to the Board and the public. Over the years our scores had stayed level. Dr. Richardson, while agreeing that Mr. Rizzo had made a good point, stressed the fact that students of color were still not making progress. Mr. Rizzo congratulated Ms. Kearney on her explanation of what a culturally responsive multi-cultural environment was. He hoped that any members of the community who were listening in would get the message. Mr. Rizzo referred to earlier comments by a member of the public who had remarked that multi-culturalism was a 'bunch of hogwash'. Mr. Rizzo disagreed with this. It was essential for our minority students to identify with teachers, classmates, environment, so that they felt comfortable performing and did the best they could. Mr. Rizzo agreed with Ms. Small-Miller's comment that we still had some work to do in that area. However, over the last few years, particularly with what Ms. Kearney was doing, we were trying to get people on staff to understand what it meant to teach somebody who looked different to themselves and to understand their particular background. This would take a systematic change over a period of time. Mr. Rizzo
referred to the AYP for CAPT chart for Math, it said the unadjusted
score was '66', and in an earlier chart the figure was '69'. If that
was a mistake, our adjusted target three points higher. If this was
a mistake then the figures throughout the report were inaccurate. Dr.
Richardson said she would check this to make sure it was not simply
a typographical error. The State target was '69.9' and had been taken
from the computer. The information that evening was cautionary. Ms. Hackett said a lot of great points had been under discussion. She thought that the Board and the Community should know that they had to do more to improve student achievement for students of color. She requested the Board get a periodic report on them: it warranted a separate report at each meeting. There was no single program that could be implemented that would bring about a sudden improvement. If there were, it would already have been implemented. We needed a multi-pronged approach. Ms. Hackett asked what was happening on the home front. "What happened when a student did not make adequate yearly progress? What notification was sent home?" Ms. Kearney responded that the test sometimes went home: telephone calls were made: a request for a meeting with the parents. This was followed by an outline of what strategies could be put in place to make a difference: changes in programming: a SAT (Students Assistance Team) which looked at why a child was not performing, and other programs. Mr. Sierakowski said there would be more about this in the Proficiency update, but a lot of what had been discussed had already taken place. Ms. Kearney stated that as far as the parental piece, last year she had begun to educate and create workshops for parents but target the group so that she had an all African-American, all male, adult parent group and an all-Hispanic Male adult parent group, to focus on pressing issues: come up with goals and action plans to address the needs of the targeted group, and would be expanded in the coming year to include females. Ms. Kearney gave some anecdotal data, which she described as exciting, concerning one student of color. Ms. Hackett was glad to hear that this had been done, and the program developed. She had questions on feedback and any strides made by individual students. The answer was "It was too soon to be able to answer these questions, as one case could take six months." Ms. Hackett
talked about the data in relation to AYP and asked if anyone had looked
at where students of color had the most critical gap. When did it start?
Was there a critical year? Ms. Kearney said they had no data specific to Manchester. She knew that Grade 4 was a critical year because that was when young people understood who they were, etc. The gap seemed to be most prevalent in Grade 9 as that was when children were lost, particularly students of color. Dr. Gejda said she supported what Ms. Kearney said about Grade 9. She also agreed that around Grades 4 and 5 was the time when young people decided that their achievements and success depended upon themselves. Ms. Hackett asked if there was a trend that once a child did not make AYP, that trend continued, for students of color. What data could the Board get to help determine how many students' results proved inadequate yearly progress, versus those who did not. Dr. Richardson said that people did sometimes get off the list. It was easier to do so at this time, rather than later on. Ms. Hackett would be interested in looking at individual students to see whether or not they were making AYP, and review the data when it could be sliced and diced in multiple ways. She suggested Dr. Richardson bring the matter back at her first presentation to the Board on "Achievement of Students of Color". Dr. Ouellette stated that would take place on December 18th. Dr. Richardson had already started to work with principals, and would begin working with supervisors in that regard. Mr. Marcano thanked Dr. Sierakowski, Dr. Ouellette for all the information and was happy to be on a Board, which was progressive, and, although they had a lot on the plate, the Board was beginning to make great strides in closing the achievement gap. Ms. Small-Miller echoed Mr. Marcano's thanks and remarks. G.2.
Proficiency Update Dr. Gasper elaborated on the multi-page handout, which had been tabled, pointing out that within a semester; students were being given unlimited attempts to reach proficiency without penalty. There were only two possible grades in the Proficiency Initiative - Proficient or Not Yet Proficient. Dr. Gasper said that in the end the Proficiency Initiative was telling them, as the High School Leadership, who was ready for CAPT before rather than after they took it. Right now teachers were taking their best educated guess at what children needed. Dr. Gasper talked about MHS Proficiency Initiative handout "Steering Team Feedback". This helped to ensure the quality of the proficiency program, and involved what they called "The Proficiency Steering Team" - a group of colleagues giving very critical, very targeted feedback to their colleagues. Dr. Gasper said it should be remembered that children had different learning styles. One of the things to be looked at when tasks were critiqued was children had some choice in how they implemented the task. Children needed autonomy. Dr. Gasper quoted "There is more than one way to be smart." In conclusion, Dr. Gasper talked about how the quantity of the initiative was being monitored. Mr. Stafford told Mr. Sierakowski and Dr. Gasper that he found their report very promising and looked forward to seeing it all work. He had noticed that it was no longer acceptable for students to get by with a 'D'. Ultimately, the price had to be paid. Dr. Gejda picked up on a comment by Dr. Gasper on student performance. She said it lessened the idea that it was solely the student's responsibility and caused us, as educators, to look at their practice, as well asking how they could help children meet that proficiency. Dr. Gasper tabled two handouts: a booklet put together by staff which had been used on Professional Development Day the previous Tuesday; a training manual for inter-disciplinary connections to get children thinking in new and different ways: secondly, a booklet on "Using Instruction to Close the Achievement Gap." Mr. Rizzo told Dr. Gasper that he was curious to know if children in the classrooms knew what was really going on with respect to proficiency; did they understand the concept? Dr. Gasper thought it was greatly improved from last year. They are about to begin a Proficiency Profile monthly installment program on the MHS TV News, featuring a teacher who has just implemented a proficiency task and feature a student who needed more than one try to reach proficiency. Mr. Rizzo said he was not unaware of the 'monumental task' facing Dr. Gasper. In response
to a question from Mr. Rizzo, Dr. Gasper said his rough guess would
be that we were probably one quarter of the way through the task of
retooling the courses, and the ramifications of this was discussed by
them at some length. Ms. Hackett asked about attendance on proficiency days. Dr. Gasper responded that on the last proficiency day there were only three staff members present - significantly lower than on a regular day. Student attendance had remained constant. They were bearing in mind Mr. Crockett's suggestion to get the days either next to a long weekend or next to a holiday and this suggestion had been well received by the students. Ms. Hackett asked for confirmation that students who reached proficiency were still getting the benefit of critical feedback from teachers, and was told this was absolutely correct. Lastly, Ms. Hackett said she liked the way the whole concept of proficiency was framed, it was not lowering the standards but really raising the bar, so that students were not in a comfort zone all the time but were being asked to improve; demonstrate mastery and work harder. Ms. Hackett said she would like to get regular updates at Board meetings, and thanked Dr. Gasper for his patience. G.3. Graduation
Policy Profile - Don Sierakowski H. NEW BUSINESS H.1. Manchester
High School Mission - Don Sierakowski Ms. Hackett asked for clarification that the document the Board was being asked to approve was the new one that had been adopted by the Faculty in the spring and, in order to meet accreditation standards, it required the approval of the Manchester Board of Education. Mr. Pohl talked about the Civic Expectations portion of the Mission and wanted to know if we currently had a community service requirement for graduation. Mr. Sierakowski said he believed this was coming into play in 2008/9. He was told the community service requirement was folded into several social studies electives and listed in the course description, starting with about twenty hours. Mr. Pohl thought it was important to instill a sense of community in students, and many organizations in town could use their help. Ms. Hackett said this matter would come back as "Old Business" at the November 27th Board Meeting. I. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Crockett reported on a jocular challenge he had received concerning a Thanksgiving game. Dr. Ouellette and the East Hartford Superintendent of Schools plan to attend the game. Ms. Hackett reported receiving a letter of resignation from Mr. John Rowe, which became effective on receipt of a letter from the Board. The resignation created a vacancy on the Board of Education: this would be dealt with by the Board at a later date. Ms. Hackett thanked Mr. Rowe for his resignation and extended her good wishes to him. J. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Stringfellow,
expressed support of Items 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 & 13 on the Consent Calendar.
He wished best of luck to Ms. Huyler and her family - this was her last
meeting. Mr. Stringfellow supported the reports by Mr. Sierakowski and
Dr. Gasper. They had brought up some good items and he had passed on
some relevant items to them dealing with "How to keep dropouts
in School", October Edition of "Education Digest": "Help
for Working Class Students"; Mr. Perlman
referred to the time he was teaching at Howell Cheney Technical School
when it was often discussed how poorly some 8th grade students performed
and how they would have to be raised to a higher level. The thought
had occurred to him that perhaps the problem at the High School could
be that students come in reading on a 5th grade level. Mr. Nino Pagani said it was a pleasure for him to come to the Board Meetings and it upset him that more people did not come to listen to what was taking place. People voice opinions but they do not do anything further about it. K. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS No items were proposed for future agendas. Mr. Pohl asked for a Motion to adjourn. MOTION: Pohl/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education adjourned at 11:20pm. 7/0/0. Respectfully submitted,
|