Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes March 4, 2008

Teacher Quality Committee
Official Meeting Minutes
Educational Resource Center
Tuesday March 4, 2008

• Meeting was called to order at 4:32 PM by Barb Motes.

• Present: Barb Motes, Mark Schweer, Chuck Story, Kim Jones, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Linda Hahn, Marilyn Wandersee, Kent Stopak, Barb Grell, Sean Dunphy, Jeanne Bartholow

• Absent: Dave Black, Tom McLaughlin, Kim Muta, Laurie Thies

• Sean Dunphy moved that the minutes from the March 7, 2008 meeting be approved, second by Chuck Story. Voice vote was taken and minutes were approved.

• General Education report to be made at our next meeting March 12, 2008.

• Process Committee report by Barb Grell. Handout was given at the meeting highlighting the recommendation for changes in the Professional Assessment document. The committee made observations within the document that is now in place and have suggested changes, some of which are in red in the handout. The following notes summarize the discussion and changes recommended:

 Page 5: The document discusses a committee consisting of teachers and administrators in place to annually review the document. The recommendation was that the TQC be that committee, since this is one of the charges of the committee already.

 Page 6: The recommendation was made under the Career Teacher cycle – Year three to add language to the last bullet to indicate that a copy of the summative evaluation, once signed, should be forwarded to ERC and placed in the teacher’s personnel file. This process is to already happen, but it is not stated anywhere in the document. More discussion followed around the requirement of the district to have a copy in the personnel file and also where the accountability for this would happen. Dr. Schweer responded that the superintendent should have a list of those teachers who are on cycle for a summative evaluation to compare with the evaluations that are submitted for a checks and balances system. It was also discussed and concluded to keep the May 15 deadline as a target goal for having all summative evaluations to ERC.

 Page 8: In the diagram of the Career Development Plan Process a recommendation was suggested to clarify the definition of “coach” within the process. During the discussion it was noted that the original Assessment document was created during the time, in the district, that Cognitive Coaching was an active and integral part of new teachers’ training in the district. Since then the emphasis of Cognitive Coaching has diminished and most likely half of our teachers are not trained in Cognitive Coaching and the implied meaning of some terms are lost. In the end the recommendation was to clarify in the following way. On page 7, first paragraph begin the sentence “Teachers select a coach (teacher peer or administrator)….” Also on page 8, discussion was had concerning the intent of an ‘informal conference’ with an administrator between October and March. In the end the recommendation was to leave the language the same. Finally, on page 8, it was noted that the May ‘reflective conference’ component does look different at different buildings. Some celebrate the progress, others conference one on one, etc. Discussion revolved around whether it should have a standard look or not and the conclusion was to clarify on page 7 with a sentence or two about how this could look different per building, but that there would be a May piece to fulfill, whether it is a celebration in small groups, conference, etc. The Process Committee will develop this language for the next meeting of TQC.

  • Page 13 and 25: Much discussion was had over the Pre-Observation Form currently used and the functionality of it. During the discussion the following changes were recommended.
  • Switch question 1 and 2 around. Target the goals first, and then talk about the students in relation to the goals.
  • In either question 2 or 3 include benchmark language to identify which one(s) the lesson is targeting.
  • There needs some wording in the assessment document to clarify the purpose of the pre-observation form, which is to be an informative document and also a base to have a pre-observation conference that can be reflective for the teacher and clarifying for the administrator. The committee will look into developing that wording.
  • Rephrase question 5 “What difficulties and/or misconceptions do students typically experience with this concept, and how will you address this?” or some similar phrasing.
  • Omit question 8.
  • There are a few other revisions that Barb G. will work on at the end of the document to reflect what the teacher might want the administrator to target during the observation, etc.
  • Page 23: Delete the page since the same information is on the summative evaluation document already.
  • Page before page 35: Take off the bulleted pieces.

• On all the intensive assistance pages take off the ISEA icon.

• Page 35: Change the first sentence to read: “Intensive assistance means the provision of organizational support and technical assistance to career teachers who have successfully completed one year in the Lewis Central district.”

• At this point in the meeting it was suggested by Barb G. that we stop and continue where we left off on the handout at the beginning of the next TQC meeting. There was additional discussion about the Awareness Phase, but it was put on hold until the next meeting.

• Jeanie Bartholow moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Sean Dunphy.

• Meeting adjourned at 6:14 PM.