5:00 Work Session
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
All present.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
IV. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
A. INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Board Goals 2011-2012
Dr. Hagerman reported that the goals document has been revised to include the following: - Start and end dates for each goal and evidence of progress
- A Board goal to develop a financial policy for budget development and compensation practices
- An appendix that reflects the difference between continuous annual improvement in Mathematics and curriculum review process
- Various other minor edits
Progress toward these goals will be reported monthly beginning in November 2011 via a written report and administrative presentations. The Board will develop a mechanism for reporting progress on their Board-specific goals: Improved Interactions, Informed Decision Making, Policy Review and Development and Finances.
The evidence goal for the Student, Parent and Staff Satisfaction Survey (scheduled for first quarter 2012) was increased from 70% Satisfied to 75% Satisfied.
Click here to review the goals document.
2. Administrative Evaluation Instrument
Dr. Hagerman presented the District's administrative evaluation tool. The four areas addressed are: Job Performance Rating Scale, Job Performance Narrative, Goal Setting, and Attainment and Professional Development.
Administrative evaluation is an ongoing process that begins with goal setting during the first months of the school year. Administrator goals are linked to District Improvement Plans and School Improvement Plans.
Dr. Hagerman described his approach to evaluations as collaborative, and explained that the document is designed to align with Senate Bill 7 (SB7) changes, which require evaluations to be tied to student performance data. Additionally, the evaluation instrument includes Standards for Administrative Certification: Illinois Professional School Leader Standards.
3. Work Session Schedule Special Board meetings (work sessions) will be scheduled at 5:00 P.M. (prior to Regular Board meetings) through the remainder of the year. A proposed Board calendar that will drive the agendas for these working sessions was presented. Statutory and logistical items will be added as required/necessary. The public is invited to attend all work sessions and Board meetings.
4. ED-RED Calendar
Most Board members agreed to attend a presentation by Charlotte Danielson on February 6, 2012. Ms. Danielson's work is focused on teacher and administrator evaluation.
B. ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of School Board Goals 2011-2012
Approved unanimously. 2. Budget transfer ($115,000) from the Working Cash Fund (Fund 70) to Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund 50.
Approved unanimously. 3. Approval of Public School Vendor Contracts.
Approved unanimously.
V. DATA ANALYSIS-DISTRICT-WIDE
ISAT, GRADE, Year-End Math, and the New Trier freshman perception survey results were reviewed. ERB data presented in spring 2011 was included in the Board packet. This information is used to inform District and School Improvement Plans and to inform and improve instructional practices.
Assistant Superintendent Trisha Kocanda presented 2011 ISAT results and trend data. District 36 students continue to perform well above state and national averages in both math and reading. 69-82% of Winnetka students score in the top-quarter nationally in reading and 67-88% score in the top quarter nationally in math. 88% of eighth grade students had scores in the top quarter for math and 74% had scores in the top quarter for reading.
Phil Earvolino, psychometric consultant and statistician, presented a comparative analysis of District 36 and 16 other benchmark school districts' ISAT scores, as well as changes over the last four years. While District 36 student 2011 math scores are within or slightly below average of north shore schools in the cohort for students in grades 3-5, they trend upward and are above average for students in grades 7-8. Year over year changes indicate that Winnetka students demonstrate some of the highest gains when compared with benchmark districts.
Scaled scores were examined by gender and school; highlights of that analysis include the following:- 2011 math scores do not vary by gender
- 2011 reading scores were slightly higher for girls in grades 5-7
- When elementary school results were compared by building, grade, and subject (12 total comparisons) three statistically significant differences, all third grade results, were revealed. There is not enough information to indicate that this is a trend. The ISAT is administered for the first time in third grade and although the deviations deemed were statistically significant, the actual difference in the number of questions students answered correctly was small. This situation will be monitored.
Assistant Superintendent Trisha Kocanda presented spring 2011 GRADE (Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation) scores, which measure student growth in the areas of listening, comprehension and vocabulary. The test is administered in spring and fall to third and fourth grade students when average growth changes at rapid pace and annually in the spring to students in grades 5-8.
The average growth for District 36 third graders who took the test last spring was twice the national average; fourth grade growth scores were above the national average.
There were no gender or school discrepancies in the spring 2011 GRADE test results. Trend data will be developed over time; this was the first year this assessment was given to all students and scored by an outside company. GRADE scores were mailed to parents and will be discussed at fall conferences.
Year-End Common Math Assessment (YEA) data was presented by Trisha Kocanda. The YEA is a locally designed test with open-ended questions. It is used to evaluate curriculum design and inform instruction. Strengths and weaknesses are identified; these are used for School Improvement Plans and District curriculum adjustments. Phil Earvolino noted that there were no statistically valid concerns.
Dr. Cathy Rosen presented New Trier Freshman Perception Data. This survey is administered by the high school. Although the information is used (in conjunction with other data) to inform decision-making and programming it is a perception survey and is not correlated with grades or any other quantitative performance data.
Graduates of Carleton Washburne School generally feel well/adequately prepared for both core subjects and non-core areas although there is room for growth in writing and foreign language. Orchestra and Band is another area that will be investigated.
A higher percentage of District 36 students take Level 4 classes (as compared to the entire freshman class) and students rated their K-8 experience highly.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
7:15 Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
All present.
III. WELCOME BY BOARD PRESIDENT
Ms. Crumley recapped the information that was presented at the 5:00 P.M. work session and reminded everyone that the both the materials and the meeting podcast are available on the District website.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
V. COMMUNICATIONS & FOIA REQUESTS
A FOIA request for bus bids was reviewed.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Approved unanimously.
VII. SUPERINTENDENT REPORT
A. Recap of Work Session
Dr. Hagerman commented that the Board has committed to a 5:00 P.M. work sessions prior to all Board meetings. The public is invited to attend. He commended Trisha Kocanda, the administrative team, and staff for the comprehensive data analysis and presentation in the earlier session and for the outstanding data-informed School Improvement Plans.
B. School & District Improvement Plans
Assistant Superintendent Trisha Kocanda welcomed the building principals and gave an overview of the planning process. School Improvement Plans (SIP) are required by the State and are intended to help schools focus on specific goals. SIPs include state report cards, demographic and community information, and information about teaching and learning in addition to the goals and action plans. Each of the District's schools has a team of administrators, classroom teachers, specials teachers, and parents who meet throughout the year to design and evaluate the SIP.
The process began last summer with a review of existing data. It was agreed that all schools would have a math goal, a writing goal, and a goal of choice. Coincidentally, all schools chose communication as their third goal. All goals are supported by quantitative data and the objectives are paired with evidence/evaluation measures. Building administrators worked collaboratively on their plans to insure consistency, and will continue them, both individually and collectively, throughout the year.
School Improvement Plans are available on the District website and can be viewed by clicking on the school's name:
The Board and administrative team discussed implementation of the school improvement plans. A summary of the comments:
The District is being asked to verify practices in ways that have not been required before. Professional development time is important to insure alignment across grades, from grade to grade and with the Common Core. Team meetings and grade-level meetings will systemize expectations and implementation. Common assessments play a key role as well. The District and Curriculum office will provide support for, and monitor, these activities.
Although Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is not a stated goal, it is embedded in District practice and continues to be an important focus area. Teachers are very aware, and supportive, of this.
Crow Island School is piloting an early math intervention program. Early reading intervention is common practice; screening for number sense in the lower grades is a relatively new idea. This ground breaking work is being done in conjunction with educational leaders. Additional details about the program will be presented at a future Board meeting.
Dr. Hagerman concluded this portion of the meeting by stating that the District has ambitious goals for this year. Expectations are both complex and dynamic and there is much work to be done. Resources will need to be realigned, and there will be a fundamental shift in budget, time and other resource allocations.
He reminded the Board that, "We are stretching teachers to their full capacity. Their job is teaching our kids. Beautiful things are going on in our classrooms everyday. We need to be careful about our changes and expectations. We must provide appropriate supports and resources when we are asking so much of them. This is all great on paper but to operationalize these initiatives we will need to really focus our efforts and realign our resources."
VIII. PERSONNEL REPORT
A. Action Items (Tab 11)
1. Appointments, Non-Certified Staff
2. Appointments, Maintenance Staff
3. Appointments, Long-Term Substitute
4. Change of Status, Certified Staff
5. Change of Status, Maintenance
6. Resignation, Non-Certified Staff
Approved unanimously.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
Matt Hulsizer reported that the Lake Forest and Lake Bluff school districts are contemplating leaving NSSED. Their decision must be made by December. There is currently a discrepancy in what high school districts and elementary school districts pay to NSSED. If it is equalized, District 36 could see a cost decrease. A timeline for implementation has not been determined. This will be discussed at a future Board meeting.
Bill Meuer announced that The Alliance for Early Childhood has a new website.
Beth Moritz shared a prototype the District's Community News website page. It was presented at the October Central PTO meeting and will be "live" in early November
Beth Moritz reported that teachers discussed their projects at a recent Winnetka Public Schools Foundation meeting and that the WPSF hosted an event for families new to the District.
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
|
