Curriculum and Philosophy Committee Minutes

Tuesday, Aug 30, 2005 7 PM

 

1)      Called to order 7:05

2)      Present:  Dr Hanson, Tom O’Malley, Peter Stackhouse, Sally Oxnard, Patty Lovejoy , Lucy Cushman,   Kim Casey ,  4 visitors.

3)      Tom O’Malley- District in Need of Improvement  presentation

                    We are fortunate to have a new DINI coordinator, Esther Asbell who was a CMS guidance counselor.  CMS and EHS are both SINI because groups of students did not make adequate progress on the state tests. The group of students with the poor progress which merited this designation was the “identified students. These were the NEAP tests which are being replaced by the NECAP tests.  Mr. O’Malley predicts that this year we have done well enough to make “safe harbor” in reading, but may still be DINI in Math.

 PLAN: target resources on where they are needed

                                  Switch to the NECAP test-  (logistical hurdles)

                                  Focus on the data

                                  Appoint Esther Asbell as DINI coordinator

 Teaching goals:

a)aligned and rigorous math goals by end of 2006

                                        b)train teachers in using data/scores by end of 2005

c)Good communication with the community by 6/06

d)Literacy across the curriculum by  6/06- more reading

e)Ongoing efforts to optimize instructional time in the schedule ( CMS day 10 min longer, shorter lunches, fewer study halls, more reading in the 7th grade, implemented mathscapes, more time in the related arts.

f)Change the culture in the SAU to a professional community

 

4)      Peter Stackhouse- grade 10 NHEAP scores-

            We have been doing the NHEIAP in grade 10 since 1999, in Reading and Math. We have a state goal for the percent of students who do BETTER than Novice.  The groups we struggle with are once again the educationally disabled and the economically disadvantaged. These are small group but they need more focus. In reading and math our over all scores are above the state average but not much.

                 Historically we tend to have more students in the Advanced and Proficient group (A + P) than in the Basic plus Novice group (B + N). In reading we are improving steadily with the # of advanced progressing from 9 % to 19 % over 5 years. Great progress!! Even with following the same group (cohort) of students they have improved from 2000 to 2004 in the % of A + P. so we must be doing something right.  In math, we are also seeing an increase in A + P and decrease in B + N. We appear to be moving kids out of Basic into Proficient, not out of Novice.

 

                                           ’03                      ’04                         ‘05

 

                   % advanced       9                        13                           20

 

                  (state av)             6                         9                            16

 

However the cohort of the class of ’06 seems to have changed little from 6 to 10th grade.

 

SO we expect we have made AYP in math in 10th grade, NOT in reading. 

Comment: how can we motivate students to do their best on these tests??

 

5)      Peter Stackhouse: NWEA results- year one , baseline data, comparing fall to spring scores . We have lots of data- by town, by teacher, etc. we have looked at the growth a  student made from fall to spring in grades 6 to 9., in Math, language usage, reading. Grade 10 was done in the fall only, and can be compared to their scores this fall.  Our goals are to share ownership of the results, to avoid pointing fingers, and to look at areas of strength and concern. The question of motivation on these tests remains. We are looking at RIT scores- units of growth, for grades 6,7,8, and 9.

a)      math- 8th grade jumps out with lower  scores  (5.5 , 6.8, 3.6, 5.8)

     math for 6th grade lower than national normative study – may be due to the units we did not get to in 6th

      9th grade Geom, measurement, trig lowest

b) reading - 8th grade lower again      (4.5, 3.6, 2.6, 2.2)-

      we do not expect to see as many units of  growth in reading, and expect it to decline over the years.

b)      Language usage – numbers more flat

8th grade low again

 7th and 9th growth > the normative study

 we are weak in grammar,  usage , capitalization-

 

Discussion: why would one grade be lower- may be that cohort, may be harder to motivate 8th graders.  How can this data be used to jump start remedial activities/ help teachers etc.

 

We will come back with the fall to fall comparison, with results by pod, etc. These results may be most useful in the individual classroom. Or we may be able to follow the top math group or the lower math group. Etc.

 

6)      Committee Goals-  goals from our retreat distributed by Dr Hanson,  they include

a)      DINI, SINI  planning

b)      High school transition issues- change the culture especially with respect to the professional staff

c)      Improve personalization of educational programs

d)      Continue implementation and improvement of high academic, civic, and social expectations (standards)

e)      Continue data driven decision making process.

 

These goals need to be fleshed out by the administration before our September meeting, as well as looking at our previous goals to see which hang over.

 

7)      Meeting adjourned at 9: 00 PM

 

Respectfully submitted

Sarah C. Oxnard MD