Tuesday, March 27, 2007 – 7:00 PM
Roy Morrisette Alumni Room – Exeter High School
PRESENT: Sally Oxnard, Kris Magnusson, Ray Trueman, Lucy
Cushman, Patty Lovejoy,
Townley Chisholm, Tomasen Carey and Barbara RigordaEva
ABSENT: Kim Casey
ADMINISTRATION: Arthur Hanson, Victor Sokul, Tom O’Malley, John LeSage, Bill Perkins,
Melanie Faulkner, Andy Littlefield and Nathan Lunney (late)
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Oxnard opened the meeting at 7:01 PM followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC INPUT:
2.1 Sue Bendroth, ERCSD Clerk, spoke to an email dated March 9, 2007 addressed to Ms. Magnusson (see Attachment #1 pdf) from Elyse Gallo that Ms. Magnusson shared with the board at the March 20th board meeting. Ms. Gallo questioned “… a discrepancy in the amended 07 Annual District Meeting Warrant Article #4 and what I am reading here in my annual report as posted on the official ballot.” Ms. Bendroth described the research she had done on the warrant article in question (reviewing all her notes from the meeting, the notes from Attorney Diane Gorrow and speaking with the ERCSD Moderator Charlie Tucker) and explained that she stands by the wording and intent of Warrant Article #4 as it appeared on the ERCSD ballot.
2.2 Walter Morrell, Exeter, his daughter is a student at EHS taking cooking class and has to be bused to the Tuck Learning Campus for the actual cooking lab. He asked why she has to be bused away from the school for this class as she ends up being 15 minutes late to her next class. EHS Principal Sokul responded that yes, she is a little late to her class, but that he questions the time of 15 minutes. Ms. Cushman noted that she was Chair of the Facilities Committee when the decision was made to have the cooking labs remain at the Tuck Learning Campus. This was a conscious decision to not have labs at new high school because the numbers that would be involved with specific cooking labs versus classroom instruction were very low, ten or less and the enrollment numbers seemed to be on the decline. Chair Oxnard asked to Dr. Hanson and Mr. Sokul to investigate and get back to the board on the status of the enrollment numbers in this program, busing between the building and students being late, how we deal with handicap students in these programs and if these facilities could be installed at EHS.
3. CHAIR’S REPORT
3.1 Review of 2006-2007 Board Goals: Dr. Hanson asked appropriate administrators to review the status of the 2006-07 Board Goals (see Attachment #2 pdf, 2a pdf, 2b pdf).
3.2 A/P Courses – Victor Sokul: EHS Principal Sokul introduced Pam McDonough, Director of Guidance and Kevin McQueen Learning Area Leader (LAL) for the EHS Math Department and explained there are here to respond to the inquiry from the board as to why A/P calculus is not offered at EHS. Ms. McDonough shared historical information on calculus and chemistry classes, college acceptances and college results by decile. Principal Sokul explained how new course proposals are presented and shared a copy of the form EHS uses for new program proposals (see Attachment #3 pdf). The LAL fills out this form to request a curriculum adjustment. Ms. McDonough related that she and Principal Sokul have found that colleges perform their own advanced placement tests to determine if incoming students can test out of a given subject area and because of this, feel that is one of the reasons, along with the cost factor, that less students take the A/P exams while at EHS. Mr. McQueen shared his background of previously being an A/P calculus teacher for 20 plus years; that his Calculus 100 class for next year has a record enrollment of 41 students (2 sessions); his Calculus 100 has the same rigor as the A/P course he taught and he even uses same textbook and covers some subject areas that go beyond the A/P curriculum. Question if school offers “Running Start” where students can get both high school and college credits? EHS does participate and we publicize information with students, etc. Also explained what an Extended Learning Opportunity is: where a student wants to participate in something we do not offer, it is educationally sound and wants to get credit for it is something the school is currently looking to define. Superintendent noted that Seacoast School of Technology has a large number of students involved in “Running Start” credits. Board discussion on when and possibly why students at EHS get off math track (Algebra II or Advanced Math) that keeps them from continuing on to Calculus.
3.3 CMS Math Committee Report – Tom O’Malley: Introduced individuals present who were members of the Math Task Force – Sarah Cook, Melanie Faulkner, Kim Houghtaling, Debbie Merrill and John Le Sage and shared background information on the committee, noting eight of the twelve math teachers were on the committee. Mr. LeSage was present to speak to the recommendations from the committee (see Attachment #4 pdf for full report and below for recommendations):
RECOMMENATIONS
Placement of students
· Add a third level in 6th grade math – This recommendation is supported by the 6th grade math teachers. Initial placement in 6th grade math will be determined by established criteria and recommendations from 5th grade teachers.
· Re-evaluate placement criteria in 7th and 8th grade - The math teachers have refined the placement criteria and made adjustments to better place students in math classes.
· As the school year progresses, math teachers should continue to use formal and informal assessment to evaluate student progress to ensure that students are appropriately placed. Teachers should be given the latitude to change students’ schedules to reflect a change in placement, as necessary.
Time allotted for testing
The start to the school year is a critical time of the year. Teachers value this time in order to establish daily routines and expectations and to develop a cohesive team. In addition, this time is used to observe and to evaluate students to ensure proper placement and to gain an understanding of their students as writers, thinkers, and learners in the context of the classroom environment. The disruptions due to testing greatly impacted the early establishment of these practices. These interruptions had dramatic effects on grade 6 as many of the students were already very anxious about the transition to middle school. With that in mind:
· The Math Focus Group recommends that NWEA testing be administered in the spring only. The initial purpose of the fall administration was to gather student data to inform classroom teachers and guide instruction. It is possible to use spring data to collect this data and to determine growth from spring to spring.
· Further discussion points pertaining to the amount of testing in the fall included:
o Preparation for NECAP needs to be a focus in the fall.
o Additional testing (NWEA) impacts NECAP preparation.
Programming
· Replace the current 8-1 math curriculum with a pre-algebra curriculum.
· We recommend that the district fund after school math skills/extension program, which is currently funded through the SINI/DINI plan.
· Continue with the use of a standards based math program supported and supplemented by various resources and materials as deemed appropriate and necessary by the classroom teacher to ensure that the Grade Level Expectations are achieved.
Instruction
· The Math Focus Group recommends the use of common planning time for math teachers. In January, 8th grade teachers were provided the opportunity to meet every other day in place of their assigned duty period. This time was utilized to discuss instructional practices, curriculum implementation and assessment. We ask the administration to provide similar opportunities for 6th and 7th grade teachers as the schedule allows for the upcoming school year.
· We recommend that the school district support the continued staff development being provided by the New Hampshire Impact Center. Dr. Ferd Prevost, Co-director of the NH-IMPACT center at Plymouth State University, has initially met with math teachers to determine their needs. The staff development will target specific areas of instruction (challenging high achieving students, meeting the needs of challenged learners, and reinforcement in the area of basic skills).
· A point that the Math Focus Group would like to bring to light is that elementary school students have approximately 75 minutes of daily math instruction. This is possible due to the nature of a self-contained elementary classroom. However, students at the middle school have, on average, 50 minutes of math instruction.
The Math Focus Group believes that these recommendations will increase student achievement, but caution all stakeholders to keep in mind that we educate 11-14 year olds. Middle school students are developmentally diverse. At no other time during a child’s education will they change so drastically and at such varied rates. Therefore, it is necessary to develop programs (academic, social, emotional and physical) that allow the flexibility to make adjustments as needed. The Math Focus Group would like to make one point abundantly clear. Middle level education emphasizes educating the whole child. There is an emphasis on “who” we teach as well as “what” we teach.
We are proud of our school and the success that it continues to demonstrate, not only on state testing, but through the daily successes demonstrated by students and teachers. These successes are observed in the classroom, on stage, on the athletic fields, and in the contributions that our students make to the community we serve.
Mr. LeSage spoke to the third level in 6th
grade math that is being requested. The administration would like to give math
teachers the ability to have a Math Extension group that would be comprised of
students the CMS math teachers feel should be instructed at either a higher
level or lower level. The 6th grade math teachers would like the
freedom to decide at what level the Math Extension group would be according to
what level is most needed. The 6th grade teachers shared with Mr.
LeSage today that they use MathScapes, but also like having the freedom to use
other math programs when they feel it is more appropriate. Discussion
continued with Mr. Baldasaro sharing his personal experience as a CMS science teacher
one year removed from the classroom on the use of flexible grouping and why it works
so well at CMS for all students. Ms. Cook, 7th grade English
Language teacher, also spoke to how she uses flexible grouping and why she
likes having the ability to group the students as needed. She shared that when
the school was leveled, the teachers differentiated in the classroom as well.
The way we currently assess and evaluate has to be more creative and that has
made her a better teacher, role model, etc., with mixed ability grouping.
Regarding the re-evaluation of placement criteria in 7th and 8th
grade, Mr. LeSage noted that we use more criteria now. He further noted on the
third recommendation of continuing to use formal and informal assessment to
ensure appropriate placement of students, this is something that is being done
and is not a change. The “Time allotted for testing” recommendation was
discussed and Ms. Carey would like to have further discussion on it and would
volunteer for a testing and curriculum subcommittee, as would Ms. RigordaEva
and Mr. Chisholm.
Mr. O’Malley spoke to the recommendations on Programming and Instruction noting
a lot of the recommendations have been implemented in some ways; common planning
time with sister teams is occurring; and the statement concerning the 50
minutes of math middle school instruction time is more of a statement than a
recommendation as the Math Focus Group realizes the constraints involved in
changing that instructional time.
3.4 NECAP Subgroup Data Report – Tony Baldasaro: due to time constraints, deferred to first meeting in April
4. SUPERINTENDENT/ADMINISTRATION REPORT
4.1 Nominations and Resignations: Superintendent recommends the board approve the Spring Coaching appointments (see Attachment #5 pdf) that were in the board’s packet. One assistant track coach has been added. Motion by Ms. Lovejoy, seconded by Mr. Chisholm and unanimously board voted with no further discussion to approve the recommended Spring Coaching appointments and to thank all those who volunteer their time.
MS State Report – Nathan Lunney: Mr. Lunney has a state report that the board members need to sign tonight and explained that have the ERCSD voted in three warrant articles with money attached and all of that has to be culminated into a single report “Report of Appropriations Actually Voted – MS 22”. Each board member needs to sign the form in four places.
By board consensus, agenda item 5. SAU 16/ERCSD Committee Reports was deferred to the April 10th board meeting. Superintendent asked Ms. Cushman to speak to the district acquiring a buyer for the bleachers at the Tuck Learning Campus. Ms. Cushman noted that Mr. Pierce had put information out to other schools districts regarding the selling of the bleachers at the Tuck Learning Campus and have received only one offer from Goffstown School District. They are willing to pay $20,000 for the bleachers and will come and remove them. We will also need a certificate of insurance to do this. Motion by Ms. Cushman, seconded by Ms. Lovejoy to accept this offer since it has been advertised for a while and this is the only one we have received. Discussion of if we can designate where revenue from this would go and it was noted that by state law, we cannot. Since no further discussion, Chair Oxnard called for a vote: unanimous.
5. SAU 16/ERCSD COMMITTEE REPORTS – deferred until April 10th meeting
5.1 SAU 16 Technology Committee – Next meeting March 30th
5.2 SAU 16 Policy Committee Meeting – Next meeting April 16th – 7:00 PM – Second Reading: IHBBA – Limited English Proficiency Instruction; KB – Title I Parent Involvement in Education; and LEB – Advanced College Placement
5.3 SAU 16 Chairs Meeting – Next meeting April 4, 2007 – 5:00 PM
5.4 SST Governing Board – Met March 26, 2007
5.5 Great Bay eLearning Charter School – next meeting April 19, 2007
5.6 SAU 16 Superintendent Search Committee
Superintendent spoke to SAU Joint Chairs meeting scheduled for April 4th and that this meeting can legally occur before all boards have had their organizational meeting per statue RSA 671:3 Terms of Office.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6.1 March 20, 2007 – Board Meeting: Motion by Ms. Lovejoy, seconded by Ms. RigordaEva and unanimously voted with no discussion to accept the March 20, 2007 board minutes as presented.
7. NON-PUBLIC SESSION: None at this time.
Ms. Cushman spoke to the board addressing an issue as to whether an EHS graduate met college admission requirements. Superintendent noted 95% of EHS students exceed our high school graduation requirements and Mr. Sokul has a committee currently reviewing graduation requirements. Chair Oxnard referenced the article she included in the board packet. Question on why “A Brief Perspective on Math at CMS” was passed out. Superintendent asked if board had any questions of teachers, we could ask them to come in or have speakers during an afternoon board meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Ms. Lovejoy, seconded by Ms. RigordaEva and unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:22 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally S. Boyd
Secretary
.