Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-12-Diamond-min DIAMOND MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE-BASED SCHOOL COUNCIL April 12, 2010 MEETING MINUTES Attendees: Peg Mongiello, Co-Chair; Matt Schnall, Co-Chair; Deborah Strod, David Kluchman, Ann Redmon, Cindy Starks, Amit Roy, Ed Dube, Judi Robinson, Kelly Tzannes, Diane Corbett and Janice Whittemore. No members of the public attended. 1. Approval of Minutes The minutes of January 13, 2010 and March 10, 2010 were unanimously approved 2.Progress Report on 2009-10 School Improvement Plan Principal Mongiello will report formally on progress made toward the goals of the 2009- 2010 School Improvement Plan. She described elements of the work done, and accomplishments of the school outside of the goals of the Plan. The Council members encouraged her to share these other efforts in her report. The Council discussed the parameters for school improvement plans, which are supposed to identify the educational needs of students in the building and be consistent with district goals and state mandates. Goals for individual staff are also meant to tie to the building and district goals. Teachers who have been working for the system 3 years or less are evaluated annually, while those who have been here longer are evaluated on a rotating basis. Some of the elements of progress on the Plan included: Goal 1 and 1A related to Professional Learning Communities – active PLCs have been developed during the year which gather staff in relevant groupings, such as by subject across all grades, or all the teachers in a grade; there are also active collaborations with Clarke faculty across departments as well, working on common assessments and ensuring that students leave middle school and enter the high school with enough in common to ensure a smooth transition for the high school programs. The School improvement Plan also has goals related to closing “the achievement gap.” Math Intervention has been established, as well as the guided study program. The test scores for students involved in these initiatives have improved. They are looking ahead to some co-teaching with Special Education professionals, mostly focused on Math. Students’ individual progress is evaluated, as well as groupings of students. The Plan involves SMART goals – which stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timebound. Much data has been gathered and is used currently, from common assessments to MCAS and other testing data. Previously only MCAS scores were used to assess whether a student might need to be in Math Intervention, now the common assessments are also used, and the student can be scheduled for needed services even prior to MCAS results being received (English and Language Arts results should be received in mid-summer, Math in August). One of the next steps in implementing PLCs is to use the data even better. A group of teachers is going to data use training this summer, so that they can design how data is used better. Another focus is on building community. Diamond has had many parent information meetings recently, school-wide events all year, from presentations to dances and community service projects. Communication from school to home has been enhanced with the weekly “Newsflash” on email, the revised Diamond website (thanks to Michelle Tengue) and teachers’ web pages. Open PTA meetings round out the list. Ms. Strod asked whether a “behavior gap” might also be addressed at some point. She expressed sense that there are students who may or may not need services, who are disruptive to classes or the learning of individual students, whether in group projects where a single individual’s effort can affect a whole group’s progress, or in the general classroom. This involves situations where students who are rude or physically active or ignoring the content of the classroom can take teacher’s concentrated efforts away from the lessons, or make it hard for other students to concentrate. This is not part of the Equity and Excellence committee’s purview in working on the academic achievement gap, but teachers generally assented that this kind of lower level but still interfering behavior does happen, and might be worth looking at. The fourth goal in the 2009-10 Plan is better articulation between middle school and high school for students with Special Needs. A reorganization is resulting in Educational Team Supervisors (ETS), with supervisory duties, replacing Educational Team Leaders. Some programs will be only at Clarke, some only at Diamond, some at both. The Supervisors will report directly to Linda Chase, the K-12 Special Education Director. There will be one ETS at each school. Clarke will retain the Intensive Learning Program which supports students on the autism to asperger’s spectrum; Diamond will have a Developmental Learning Program which will be more self-contained, and will be developed and implemented over the next few years. Language Learner Programs will exist at both schools. The changes will be phased so that no students will be moved from one school to the other. 3. Community Garden Update An LEF grant was received for a community garden, which was to be started last Fall and th so the money must be spent before the end of the Spring. Chris Carter, 7 grade science th teacher, integrated some work for the project into his classwork, so the 7 graders will be working on designing, organizing, weeding and maintaining the garden along with volunteers from the rest of the school. The areas to be addressed include the “L” as one enters the front of the school (removing the overgrown bushes), and the area between the portable classrooms and the library, which it is hoped will become an “outdoor classroom” with tables and benches, such as Clarke has. The garden also may inspire composting efforts in future years, as it is intended to be an organic garden. Two free bushes were given by Wilson’s farm in recognition of the Diamond community’s participation in a fundraising effort. An email has gone out looking for volunteers to lead the effort this week and over April vacation. There is a Boy Scout who is interested in part of the work as an Eagle Project. 4. By-laws/Election Process for 2010-11 Site Council The Council discussed the election process. There were some technical issues which need to be corrected in the process used in the Fall, which have been made in the bylaws. Spots cannot be reserved for grade-level representatives (they cannot be reserved for any special group). Every parent must receive a ballot and be free to vote for anyone on the ballot. Ms. Strod suggested that if the election resulted in elected members who did not represent a particular grade, that the practice of the School Council be to invite a member of that grade to attend regularly as a non-voting member. New members will be invited to the June meeting to ensure some overlap and continuity. After some discussion of teacher terms, it was agreed that two-year terms worked for the teachers as well, and that as they drop out over time, new perspectives will be added, but that formal staggering was not needed at this time. Mr. Schnall had received initial suggestions from one member prior to the meeting based on the emailed document sent, but those changes were not available at the meeting. Mr. Schnall will send draft revised bylaws to the Council members as a result of the discussion and any suggestions received, for approval at the next meeting. 5.School Improvement Plan Survey A small subgroup presented a draft potential survey document for surveying teachers, parents and students to elicit information about these three constituencies’ opinions on various elements which are important to a middle school. It was anticipated the survey would be taken via Survey Monkey online, so that the results could be easily tallied. The council discussed the pros and cons of doing a survey now, prior to the new principal arriving. Some felt it would obligate her to respond to the results, others felt that if the Council did the survey, it would be obviate that concern. Some questions were considered to be negative by some members, and neutral by other members. There was concern that a teacher had not been on the small group which developed the survey, and it was noted that teacher input into a final teacher version was expected from the beginning and would be needed to move forward. It was agreed that a revised survey would be necessary, if a survey would be done. Peg felt the scope of the survey was too broad, some members felt it was too long; the teacher section had not been developed yet, but some suggested questions were presented, and the assumption was that much of the parent survey would be used in the teacher version as well. The Student version of the survey had been written to engage students with some humor, but was not discussed. Some members felt that it would rile up the community to survey now, and undermine the new principal’s own opportunity to engage the community in her own way; others felt that if some in the community are “riled up” a survey which allows individuals to feel heard might be just what is needed, and a new principal might be glad to not be blindsided by issues of concern to the community. Further, some council members recognize that often times individuals are not able to make public meetings or do not feel comfortable coming to school for one-on-one meetings, and a survey gives such community members an opportunity to be heard as well. Lastly, some of the parent representatives felt that it was part of their role as representatives to elicit unknown issues from the community this year, and to provide some additional “flow up” into the School Improvement Plan as well as “Top Down” district goals which in fact involve administrative “flow up” from principals and the Administrative Council members. There were concerns about individuals being identified, and that unfair criticisms might be levied with no recourse; it was suggested that the instructions clearly state that the survey is not a mechanism for addressing individual issues, and that the results be presented in aggregate form. Peg Mongiello indicated that her expectation is that, although over the next few years the school improvement plan schedule will move back to being completed in the Spring for implementation the next September (as it had been years ago), this year’s plans would still be completed in September. Nevertheless, several members of this year’s council feel it is important to get some work done this Spring so that the new principal is not faced with writing a plan during her first few months of getting to know the school, and so that our duties are properly discharged this year. Peg Mongiello will consult with the incoming principal, and get back to Matt this week, and those Council members who volunteer would revise the survey quickly, if an affirmative decision is reached. A subgroup would be willing to revise the draft to a version more acceptable to all members. It would be necessary to send the survey out soon after April vacation, in order to have the results tabulated and considered at the next Council meeting.