Teacher Quality Committee Meeting Minutes 03/23/2010

Teacher Quality – March 23, 2010 Minutes
The meeting was called to order by Dave Black at 4:17 p.m. Members present: Barb Grell, Linda Hahn, Jeanne Bartholow, Sean Dunphy, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Mark Schweer, Kim Jones, Dave Black, Chuck Story, and Laurie Thies.

Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Sean Dunphy to approve the February minutes, seconded by Chuck Story.

Market Factor Pay Plan

Dave Black proposed adding content area specialties to the special education listing for the MS and HS certification areas. Sean Dunphy proposed adding an area of emphasis for candidates seeking the Middle School Generalist endorsement. The law changes on July 1, 2010 to require this addition. After this date, the grade 5-8 listing will not be sufficient and candidates seeking this endorsement must have an area of emphasis.

The committee approved these additions.

There are currently two teachers seeking the Middle School Generalist endorsement. Sean will speak with them about the new law requirements. The committee agreed that, if needed, these teachers can reapply to obtain compensation for extra classes required.

In round 1 of money distribution, 8 candidates applied. Two have completed their endorsements and 5 are still working toward completion. In round 2, the four applicants are still working on their endorsements.

There is currently $5,200 available, so the district will offer a round 3 application process. Information will be forthcoming. Applications are available on the district website and are due by April 15th to the building principal.

Some modifications to the form are being made: adding the endorsements discussed above, changing the monetary amount available, and fixing the date due to the principal.

Chuck raised the question about using the money to assist potential new hires in obtaining their required endorsements. The committee discussed the point. It was decided that this money would be used for people currently under contract at the time of the offering. The TQC could offer another round, if there is money remaining after round 3 that could be used for this purpose.

Barb moved to accept the changes and proposals and to offer round 3 with Mark seconding. It was a unanimous vote to accept the changes.

Reflection on the District Day
Dave shared the information gathered from the District Leadership Team as they reflected on the district day. The TQC shared similar views: felt the day went well, well organized, appeared that all participants appreciated some part of the day’s presentations, provided 2 ways of looking at the Iowa Core.

Teacher Evaluation System

Part I

Dave shared information from the accreditation team visit. The team found the district was lacking evidence that everyone was being evaluated on a consistent basis. Dave proposed having the principals complete a checklist that documents completion of the professional development plan, the two reflections (December, March) and the final reflection. Chuck wondered if it would be sufficient to put the professional development plan and the final reflection together in the file at the ERC. Barb and Sean said they already used a sort of checklist of their own to keep track. Kent agreed. Kim proposed a master list that would allow all the people at the high school to keep track so no person was overlooked. Sean suggested a Google doc where all staff would be listed and all principals could access it. Dave agreed that would be helpful in that all the district employees could be listed and all supervisors could access the same document.

Part II

Dave then brought up a question sent to him by Barb Motes concerning portfolios. There seems to be confusion about whether a teacher must create a portfolio or not. The committee checked the references to a “portfolio” in the evaluation document. It is in two places; the mentor section and the summary sheet. The summary sheet (pg. 39) also provides the district definition of a portfolio: A portfolio is an adequate collection of evidence for each teaching standard that reflects a teacher’s practice over time.

The committee discussed their understanding of the definition. The consensus was that a “portfolio” could take on any form (folder, box, electronic, etc.) The important component is the need for a collection of evidence, over time, for each standard. The TQC felt that the document language was sufficient. People with concerns may still address their TQC and LCEA representatives who can use the Evaluation handbook pg. 39 for clarification.

Part III

Dave raised the issue of incorporating student achievement data into the teacher and principal evaluations. This has arisen as part of the federal focus on tying school monies to requirements that include this expectation. The Race to the Top application made by Iowa includes language about this. The push seems to be towards a growth model (how much the student has improved over the year) rather than the current model of all shall be at grade level proficiencies. This would require multiple assessment measures tied to demonstrating growth.

While Lewis Central is not currently part of the Race to the Top application, this model is a part of the federal and state movement. Dave’s concern is that the district needs to look at professional development around writing good professional development goals that with a focus on improving student achievement. This will help keep the district in alignment with federal and state movements.

The committee members expressed some concern of what types of measures would be used, how many would be considered necessary, the need for the focus to be on growth of a student over the course of a year rather than proficient/not proficient, and the need for the district to work with teachers on this issue.

Membership
The TQC is seeking applicants at the elementary level to fill an opening on the committee. The LCEA is working to fill the position.

Laurie Thies moved to adjourn and Al Lorenz seconded. The meeting ended at 5:20 PM.

Teacher Quality Committee Meeting Minutes 02/16/2010

Teacher Quality - February 16, 2010 Minutes
The meeting was called to order by Dave Black at 4:33 p.m. Member present: Barb Grell, Tom McLaughlin, Kim McLlaughlin, Linda Hahn, Jeanne Bartholow, Sean Dunphy, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Mark Schweer, Kim Jones, Dave Black, Chuck Story, and Laurie Thies

Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Sean Dunphy to approve the April 1st minutes, seconded by Barb Grell.

Budget – Dave shared that because the budget was cut by 10%, we did not have enough money to cover 2 days of PD this year. With the current staff, it takes about $59,000 to cover the cost of one PD day. We currently have $92,069 in the budget. We will pay for some committee work this year and carry the remaining balance into next year. There was also some discussion on Market Factor Pay. We have had two rounds of applications for this money, 8 teachers were approved during the first round and 4 were approved in the second round. The district plans to offer a third round, with $4,300 left in this pot of money. The district will identify the areas of need and get information out to staff.

Professional Development Day – March 1st – Kim shared a tentative agenda for the day and explained that much of the work on March 1st would be around gaining some common understanding of the Essential Concepts and Skills. There were some concerns expressed about the need for communication and dialogue among the DLT, content teams, and teachers. Teachers expressed the need to have “two way communication” and more information about the implementation plan that is due on July 1st, 2010. A motion was made by Tom M. to accept the plan for March 1st and seconded by Kim M. Vote was unanimous.

Site Visit Reflection – Dave shared some strengths that the site visit team noted in the district (climate, CTE, DLT, Co-teaching, alignment, etc.) and also shared that there were some areas of non-compliance that are already being attended to. Some of these included the lack of a SIAC, notifications of non-discrimination were missing a protected class, TAG identification at the primary and secondary level, and some issues with “offer and teach” at the HS.

Next Meeting Date – March 23rd from 4:15-5:30

Adjournment – Motion made at 5:45 by Barb G. to adjourn, seconded by Kim M.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes--4/01/2009

April meeting TQC – April 01, 2009

The meeting was brought to order at 4:32 by Dave Black and Barb Motes. Present were Chuck Story, Jeanne Barthelow, Pat Thomas, Barb Motes, Al Lorenz, Kim Jones, Tom McLaughlin, Dave Black, Linda Hahn, Laurie Thies, Kent Stopak, Barb Grell and Sean Dunphy.

Approval of minutes. They were emailed previously to committee. Motion by Motes, second by Jones. Unanimous.

Review/Discussion of PD Days funded by the TQC monies. Those were held on October 6th and 7th. At the secondary level, Literacy in content areas was the focus with some time spent on PLC curriculum issues, and at the elementary level the focus was science materials. Feedback was overall positive, with the continued sentiment that back to back days were still difficult to pull off successfully. Barb Motes shared that the literacy work done was inclusive, and helped bring in some curricular areas. Jeanne reported that at the elementary level it would be nice to have more “all day” PD days, as seemingly nothing gets wrapped up. Dave also pointed out that there will be more to do in the future (Iowa Core, for example). General consensus is that if the days are funded, the vehicle for PD delivery should continue to be the current format. Discussion ensued concerning the dates on the 2009-2010 calendar for TQC-funded PD days, and that there are school law reasons for the removal of the 2-hour early out the day preceding Thanksgiving. Barb Motes is going to work on getting some clarifying information disseminated to the instructional staff of the district.

Proposed Changes to the Market Factor Application. Dollars remain that can be allocated according to the Market Factor agreement initiated last year. The endorsements listed as shortage areas reflect changes in state-identified shortage areas and changes in local needs as a result of our fall BEDS submission. In other words, both statewide shortages as well as helping existing staff to meet BEDS requirements for highly qualifies status are impetus for the changes in the list of endorsements for which applications will be entertained. In addition, the leftover money from hiring incentives remained unused from 2008-09, and the intent would be to add it to the endorsement “pot” and use it in that way. Discussion also included moving some of the timelines in the original document.

Changes to the application: April 15th deadline moved to May 1st. Notification on May 8th. Endorsement areas changed as listed. Use of the money from hiring incentives for endorsement work. Motion by Stopak, second by Grell. Unanimous.

Update on Iowa Core Curriculum Planning. Dave presented a copy of his presentation that will be given to the Board of Education later in the month, and a similar presentation was delivered to a community group in March. The purpose of the Iowa Core is outlined, along with its intended outcomes, impact on content, instruction, and assessment. In essence, the ICC reaches further that “What we teach?” and into the “How we teach?” and “How we assess?” Formative assessment will be a focal point, as well as effective instruction. It outlines the 5 content areas touched by the ICC – Math, Science, Literacy, Social Studies, and 21st Century Skills. While other areas do not have directly mandated content, they are integral players in the 21st Century skill category, as well as supporting the other 4 areas. The vision for the Iowa Core was also shared, as published by the state. Timelines include spending 2008-09 in building leadership capacity, with developing implementation plans that allow for full incorporation by 2012 for high schools and 2014 for everyone else. At LC, our plans are more aggressive, and will move the entire system together instead of breaking off the high school as a separate entity. Dave’s presentation also includes resources available for further study. Buildings also shared how they have been disseminating ICC information to staff this spring.

Monitoring Evaluation. Sean shared the plan/implementation of staff evaluation at the Middle School.

Adjournment. Motion by Sean Dunphy, second by Barb Grell. Unanimous. Meeting was adjourned at 5:20.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes--10/30/2008

Lewis Central – Teacher Quality Committee Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2008

TQC was called to order at 4:33 by Dave Black.

Members present: Barb Motes, Dave Black, Al Lorenz, Pat Thomas, Kim Muta, Kim Jones, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Barb Grell, Linda Hahn, Kent Stopak

Members absent: Tom McLaughlin, Sean Dunphy, Mark Schweer, Laurie Thies

Motion by Chuck Story, seconded by Barb Motes, to approve the minutes of the September meeting. Motion carried.

Implementation of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Process

Administrators for Titan Hill, Kreft, and the High School presented how they monitored the staff: who is where on the three year cycle, an overview of what the process looked like in each building, and where they were in the process of evaluation those on cycle this year. Middle School’s presentation will be at the next meeting.

Titan Hill – Kent Stopak

Stopak explained that Genie Wickham and he divided staff on cycle into two groups. Wickham works with the first and second year teachers, while he does the others. They have 4-5 meetings scheduled for all staff. Those on cycle meet with the administrators while the others meet with peers to discuss their Career Development plans. All staff members have Career Development plans. All teachers on cycle turn in a week’s worth of lesson plans four times a year. Administrators are on track to have all the first observations completed by December. Dave Black asked if all new teachers had mentors and if every staff member was on the right stage of the cycle. Stopak affirmed that was true.

Stopak explained that he uses the pre-observation form but modifies question eight, which asks what data the principal could collect. He rephrases it during the discussion with the teacher to “What information can I collect for you that will help you reflect on your teaching?” He explained that this is to move the question information from data on students to data on how a teacher works with students. Barb Grell explained that she also had her staff talk about this question in a similar way to Kent’s question.

There was discussion on whether the evaluation document should be changed to reflect this new question. If administrators thought that is provided better information than the current phrasing, shouldn’t it be in the document? It was decided to leave it for now, with the option of returning to it at a later date.

There was discussion on the two groups, Wickham’s group and Stopak’s group. Muta asked if this was two different systems with different forms. Motes spoke about how the process was supposed to be the same in each building, including the forms used. Stopak explained that he and Wickham used the pre-observation form in the Evaluation Handbook. There was not a second form. Muta asked about the lesson plan requirement. Did teachers have to fill in form? Stopak explained that Wickham had tried working through the form with a few teachers, but it didn’t provide them with the information they thought it would. Now teachers on cycle turn in a copy of their plans. There is not a form required. Muta clarified that the Stopak was saying that the discussion occurring were more valuable than the form used and teachers were not evaluated. Stopak agreed.

Muta asked about the process Stopak mentioned when explaining what Wickham was doing with her on-cycle group. He explained that Wickham works with the first and second year teachers using the Explicit Instruction Model. This is from the Every Child Reads initiative. Wickham meets individually with a teacher to work through a process to create the teacher’s lesson plan. Muta wanted to know if teachers were evaluated on this process. Motes asked if it was a different path. Stopak explained it was more like a professional development piece. Wickham is teaching them a method for creating lesson plans. Motes asked it teachers would have to do it once they were past the second year and Stopak said not at this point. Lorenz stated that professional development is overwhelming as it is. Was this explicit instruction just another thing to do? Stopak explained that it is a support to a new teacher. The administrator talks through designing a lesson with the teacher, coaching them, rather than having a new teacher do it cold and on their own. Motes clarified that the evaluation piece was still the pre-observation form and not this lesson discussion. She wondered if Wickham could show the TQC how this worked. Stopak reported that the staff response was favorable. Thomas wanted to know if this explicit instruction was new so it wasn’t reasonable to expect new teachers how to do it. Stopak replied that colleges were not giving new teachers enough instruction. Black said it is professional development; one more way that we can help teachers. Stopak said it fit with the current building professional development. Muta asked if the plan was for everyone in the building to do it this way. Stopak said no. Black said it is just one more strategy a teacher can use. Grell said that information about explicit instruction was available on the Every Child Reads website. Thomas mentioned that is was similar to what teachers in Second Chance Reading do.

Kreft – Barb Grell

Grell presented a list of where all the staff was regarding the evaluation cycle. She mentioned this may change if staff changes occur. She explained that she meets with all her staff for an overview of the evaluation cycle. She speaks with all the staff currently on-cycle again to go over the document and the standards. She also modifies question eight as she goes over pre-observation forms with teachers. She stated that all on-cycle people will be observed once by the end of November. She explained that for those teachers whose time is split between buildings are observed by administrators at both buildings. Information is shared and the summative is then the responsibility of one building administrator.

Black asked several questions. Have all Career Development plans been turned in and are they aligned with building professional development? Was anyone accelerated? Did all new staff have mentors? Grell said yes, but technically Career Development plans aren’t due until Oct. 31. Motes asked how important was it that all staff be evaluated every three years. Black explained that it was a priority for Dr. Schweer and that they were trying to ensure that no one was missed. Motes pointed out that Grell is the only administrator in her building and other buildings had at least two. Who did Grell talk to when she had questions? Grell explained that she spoke to Black and Schweer, as well as some other building administrators.

High School – Chuck Story

Story provided a sheet with his staff broken down into groups with one of the four administrators assigned to each group. When assigning the administrator, the High School administrative team looked at the curricular strengths of the administrator, how many observations need to be done each year and the amount of time needed to complete those observations. Story expects to have most of the first observations done by winter break. He is working with the staff to develop smart goals that tie to building and district goals. He stated that it has taken three years to get all staff on the evaluation cycle in the right spot. He reported that he ensures the original of the summative is filed at ERC while the teacher and he get a copy. He explained that the spotlight is a program at the High School where a different teacher is chosen each month and the students write about that person for a wall display.

Black asked his questions about mentoring and first year teachers. Story responded that all were matched. He also explained how they work with teachers who share time between buildings and how it is similar to the elementary schools. Kim Jones explained that she meets 1:1 with her people since it is hard to get everyone together at one time. They go through all the forms and steps together.

Muta asked Story to explain what the evaluation for activity people looks like. Story deferred to Motes. She said they discuss goals, strengths, areas to work on, budget, equipment needs, supplies, and the like. Story said its purpose was to see what could be done to make things better for the students and the teacher. Motes praised Mike Hale, the administrator doing activity evaluations, saying he puts in lot of face time; more than she has seen anyone do before. Black said that there needs to be an instructional attachment so this was a good approach. Story said they were looking into ways to help Hale by using off season coaches to help with some areas of coverage at events. Al Lorenz asked if the forms Hale uses should be in the document as an addendum. Black said they never have been. Since the contracts are separate, the state doesn’t require it.

Jones explained how they do observational walk-throughs. She said they had divided the building into pods and each administrator rotated through them. That kept a teacher from having several people walk through her room because they didn’t realize others had done so previously. Muta said that was helpful. She also said that the more often administrators do it; the less disruptive it will be for students. It won’t be such a big deal to have the principal in the room.

Middle School – no administrator present, will hold until November meeting

Iowa Core Curriculum

Dave Black provided a financial breakdown to show how much money was in the fund for this item. He also provided a form that explained how the money may be used LC to carry out the expectations of Iowa Core. He explained that unused monies would be rolled over into the next year’s fund to take care of the next stage of implementation.

There was also a document that explained the vision of Iowa Core. Black explained that this will change the way we do curriculum development and refinement in the district. Muta asked when teachers would get access to the real core curriculum. Black replied that the website does not yet have it. Right now there are standards for reading, math and science at the 9-12 level. The benchmarks are broad and vague. The plan is to create grade level bands (primary, intermediate, middle, high), but they are not completed. State level teams are working on this. Amy Higgenbotham (writing), Nancy File (math), and Trudie Kimball (reading) are some LC people on those teams. There are not yet documents that show what is in the core.

Black explained that this year is about processes and solid design methodology, not the actual curriculum. The State has created a unit planning form and is working on creating models, samples, and processes to assist school districts. The purpose this year is to train LC staff to do this for our district. The District Leadership Team (DLT) will be involved at this level. He explained that there would be six morning sessions that the DLT would attend. Funds would be used to pay for food, transportation and substitutes for the teachers on the DLT to complete this work.

Black then proposed a motion to approve the use of Teacher Quality money for the Iowa Core Curriculum to pay for teachers on the DLT to develop the needed portions of this plan. Motes moved, and Muta seconded, to take a vote. Bartholow did not vote since there was one more teacher than administrator at the meeting.

Lorenz – abstained, Motes – yes, Thomas – yes, Muta – yes, Jones – yes, Story – yes, Grell – yes, Hahn – yes, Stopak – yes, Black – yes

Motion passed.

Review Membership

Black asked if there had been any response to the request for new members for the TQC. Muta said she hadn’t heard from the elementary school representatives yet, but would put it on the LCEA agenda. Black said if they knew who it was, to let him know and he would add it to the Board agenda. He also said the new member could attend meetings, but not vote, prior to Board approval.

Next Meeting

The meeting will be November 19th, at 4:30. Items to discuss include: reflection on the October PD days, the Middle School Evaluation plan, and membership.

Muta moved to adjourn. Seconded by Grell. Motion passed and meeting adjourned at 5:47.

Minutes submitted by Jeanne Bartholow

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes May 7, 2008

Lewis Central
Teacher Quality Committee
ERC--4:30 PM
Unofficial Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2008

LC TQC meeting was called to order at 4:35 by Dave Black. Members present included: Al Lorenz, Kim Muta, Tom McLaughlin, Pat Thomas, Marilyn Wandersee, Jeanne Barthalow, Barb Grell, Chuck Story, Kim Jones, Mark Schweer, Dave Black, Kent Stopak and Sean Dunphy.

Motion by Barthalow, second by Jones to approve minutes of the April meeting. Motion carried.

Non-Core area model evidence discussion:
Jeanne reported on accessing nurse evidence and providing it to Mark. Amy Cook has electronic version. Dave reported that Cedar Rapids is a possible resource to tap for more standards-oriented look at it.

Jeanne reported on the developed Special Education model evidence. "Very similar but reflective of certain Special education practice (i.e data collection for IEP's, etc.)".

Dave provided copies of subgroup work that has been formatted for user-friendliness. He will format the counselors, nurses and special education evidence the same way, then post all of them on the website for easy access. Approved by general consent.

February Professional Development Days reports:
Dave provided copies of building principal summaries concerning the two days of extended professional development in February. Principals reported verbally to the group. Consensus was that the two days were used well, both from the perspective of follow-up/continuation of individual building action plans and of looking/moving forward with new material or direction. High degree of engagement and attendance was also reported by the principals. Principals articulated the effects of the professional development efforts on teacher practice and thinking. Two days in a row may be challenging for people to maintain energy...

Review of Principal Artifacts and Evaluation Documentation:
The committee review artifacts provided by each building principal documenting the communication and engagement of all teachers in the district in the evaluation process and the three-year rotation. Mark reiterated the importance of consistently providing copies of the summative evals to the central office for placement in permanent employee records.

Dave reported that the tasks of the LC TQC committee have been accomplished for the 2008-09 school year. He thanked the group for their time and efforts on the hard work in this important endeavor.

Jones moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Lorenz. Motion carried, meeting was adjourned at 5:25.

Minutes submitted by Sean Dunphy.

Teacher Quality Meeting Minutes 4/17/2008

Lewis Central
Teacher Quality Committee
ERC--Official Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2008

A. The meeting was called to order by Dave Black at 4:37 p.m.

B. Present: Dave Black, Sean Dunphy, Barb Grell, Linda Hahn, Kim Jones, Al Lorenz, Barb Motes, Mark Schweer, Kent Stopak, Chuck Story

Absent: Jeanne Bartholow, Tom McLauglin, Kim Muta, Pat Thomas, Laurie Thies, Marilyn Wandersee

C. Sean Dunphy moved that the minutes from the March 12, 2008 and March 20, 2008 meetings be approved. Chuck Story seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved.

D. Model Evidence for non-core areas was presented by Barb Motes. Some of the non-core areas that work was completed or nearing completion on included school counselors, media specialists, nurses, and physical education instructors.

SPED model evidence is being worked on but information was not presented.

Other non-core areas were still being investigated.

Barb was planning on sending e-mails to some of the non-core areas for additional input and reactions to the materials developed.

E. Updates on Core Areas

Kent Stopak shared copies of the format used to assemble the evidence for the core area standards.

Kent supplied copy of the cover sheet to be attached to the evidence for the core area standards. The cover sheet was designed to emphasize how the document was to be used with inclusion of 'fair and consistent' criteria expressed. It was to be noted and clarified that the document is a guide not a check list or prescription of required items. Editing and discussion took place.

F. Other business

Discussion took place as to what other business is in front of this committee for the rest of the year.

The committee needs to reflect on the data of implementation of the process of evaluation--who is on cycle, off cycle, and so forth.

The committee needs to review the staff in-service days reflecting on number of staff who were involved, strengths and weaknesses of the plans for those days, and follow-up activities for the upcoming year.


G. Next Meeting

Wednesday, May 7, 4:30 P.M. at ERC

H. Adjournment

Motion made by Sean Dunphy and seconded by Chuck Story. Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Teacher Quality Minutes March 20, 2008

Lewis Central
Teacher Quality Committee
ERC--Official Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2008

• The meeting was called to order by Dave Black at 4:50 p.m.

• Present: Kim Muta, Jeanne Bartholow, Linda Hahn, Al Lorenz, Dave Black, Barb Grell, Kent Stopak, and Mark Schweer.

• Absent: Tom McLaughlin, Barb Motes, Marilyn Wandersee, Pat Thomas, Laurie Thies, Chuck Story, Kim Jones, and Sean Dunphy.

• Kim Muta moved that the minutes from the March 12, 2008 meeting be approved. Kent Stopak seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved.

• Discussion revolved around the “model evidence” that a teacher might use to demonstrate support of the standards and criteria. The “model evidence” was gleaned from ISEA documents, the evaluation documents from Cedar Rapids, and from what was already being used in buildings throughout the district. A suggestion was made that an accompanying cover sheet would be helpful. This will appear as an agenda item for the April 17 meeting.

• The next meeting is scheduled for April 17 at 4:30 p.m. In addition to the item mentioned previously, the 3rd group (special teachers, i.e., counselors, nurses, etc) will present.

• Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes March 12, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL
Teacher Quality Committee

Education Resource Center
Official Meeting Minutes
March 12, 2008

The meeting was called to order at 4:30 by Barb Motes.

Present: Barb Motes, Mark Schweer, Chuck Story, Kim Jones, Barb Grell, Laurie Thies, Kim Muta, Marilyn Wandersee, Pat Thomas, Jeanne Bartholow, Linda Hahn

Absent: Dave Black, Sean Dunphy, Kent Stopak, Tom McLaughlin, Al Lorenz

Chuck Story moved that the minutes from the March 4, 2008, meeting be approved. It was seconded by Barb Grell. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved.

It was suggested by Barb Motes to amend the agenda to move item #4 Future Meeting Dates ahead of item #3 Sub-Committee Report – Evaluation Procedures.

Since the ad hoc committees are at various stages in their work, and the time it is taking to complete this work is difficult for some members, it was suggested that we limit our meetings to one hour instead of two hours each. This recommendation was favored by the committee.

Barb Grell continued her Process Committee report with a review of some changes made per the last TQC meeting:

Page 7 – Language was added to indicate that coach could be a teacher/peer or an administrator. The reflective conference in May was clarified to mean that it could be a conversation with an administrator or a conversation with a group of peers.

Pages 13 and 25 – These changes deal with the Pre-Observation Form. Numbers 1 and 2 were switched around. The language in number 5 was changed. It now reads “What difficulties/misconceptions do students typically experience with this concept? How will you address this?”

Also, number 8 now reads “Is there anything you want the administrator to look for? How can the administrator be of help to you?”

Page 35 – The first sentence was changed and now reads “Intensive assistance means the provision of organizational support and technical assistance to career teachers who have successfully completed on year in the Lewis Central district, . . .” Some concern was expressed that the entire sentence may be too wordy, but it was decided to leave it as it is.

Additional discussion centered on the bulleted points on page 35. A question was raised as to whether or not a teacher’s performance must cause concern in all three of the bulleted criteria because of the word and which follows the second bulleted area. Since no one on the committee had a clear understanding of this issue, Dr. Schweer will look up Chapter 284 to see if this language appears there.

Page 37 – Dr. Schweer indicated that “awareness phase” is not a requisite part of Intensive Assistance. It was agreed to change “awareness phase” to “the evidence.”

Page 38 – It was agreed to add “Plan of Assistance and final summary forms should be sent to the district office.”

Page 41 – It was agreed to include a section entitled “Beginning Teachers Completing the First Two Years of Teaching” to this page. Also, portfolio has been defined as “. . . an adequate collection of evidence for each teaching standard that reflects a teacher’s practice over time.” This definition will be added to Page 41.

It was discussed at the previous TQC meeting that there needed to be a stated purpose for the Pre-Observation Form. However, committee members agreed that no such explanation is necessary now due to the revisions in the form.

Barb Motes thanked the Process Committee for their work.

Dr. Schweer passed out material from the Model Evidence committee to be reviewed before our next meeting.

The next meeting of the Teacher Quality Committee will be on March 20, 2008, at 4:30 with a target length of one hour.

Kim Muta made a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded by Laurie Thies. The meeting was adjourned at 5:12.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes March 4, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL
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.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes December 6, 2007

LEWIS CENTRAL Teacher Quality Committee – Unofficial Meeting Minutes Educational Resource Center Thursday, December 6, 2007

Meeting called to order by Dave Black at 4:35 pm

Present: Barb Motes, Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Sean Dunphy, Marilyn Wandersee, Kent Stopak, Mark Schweer, Barb Grell

Absent: Linda Hahn, Tom McLaughlin (hospitalized)

Motion made to approve November 7, 2007 minutes (moved: Motes, second: Schweer)
Voice vote was taken and minutes approved.

Market Factor Pay (MFP) – subcommittee reported out on an Application and Endorsement Course of Study created for the 80% of MFP used as incentives for teachers seeking endorsements in areas of need determined by the administration. Much discussion centered around the following topics: final approval of application, ability to use this with new hires if deadline for consideration is in April, the possibility of two deadlines, the communication with the teacher coming from the building administrator as to whether or not approval was given, adding a step in the process outlined on the application between step 6 and 7 about district prioritizing and approval opposed to this happening at the building level, including a signature line for ERC on the application, and bolding/highlighting the 3-year obligation upon completion of endorsement and receiving reimbursement on the Course of Study sheet.

Dave Black initiated a motion to recommend to the school board the procedure and instruments developed by the subcommittee for teacher reimbursement upon completion of an endorsement in an area of need, pending legal counsel and the two additions mentioned above to the application and course of study sheets. (moved: Muta, second: Dunphy) Voice vote was taken with Jones and Black opting out based on equal votes of teachers and administrators. All votes were affirmative to proceed with recommendation.

Based on weather conditions, Dave Black suggested adjourning early after setting the next meeting date. Date was set for Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at ERC, with a 4:30 PM start time. Before motion was made to adjourn Barb Motes thanked all the committee members for the work the committee has done and the manner in which it is operating. She, along with the other teachers, gave the administrators a token of their appreciation.

Primary plan for next agenda: Monitoring Teacher Performance Evaluation Requirements and Model Evidence. It was requested that everyone bring any information they have to share with the group.

Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM (moved: Dunphy, second: Grell)

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes November 7, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL
Teacher Quality Committee – Official Meeting Minutes
Educational Resource Center
Wednesday, November 7, 2007

• Meeting was called to order by Barb Motes at 4:32 p.m.
Present: Barb Motes, Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Sean Dunphy, Marilyn Wandersee, Tom McLaughlin, Kent Stopak, Linda Hahn, Mark Schweer
Absent: Barb Grell

• Sean Dunphy moved that the minutes from the October 10, 15, 17, & 25, 2007 meetings be approved. Chuck Story seconded. Voice vote was taken and approved.

• Market Factor Pay
* The committee reviewed a newspaper article explaining how the Council Bluffs School District intends to use Market Factor Pay.
* The amount of Market Factor Pay including last year’s amount that was not used is approximately $34,000.
* After considerable discussion, the consensus of the committee was that 20% of the Market Factor Pay would be used in the form of hiring bonuses and the remaining 80% would be used to provide incentives for teachers within the system to acquire endorsements in areas determined by the administration. Additionally, related to the “endorsement” pathway, it was suggested that there would be an application process and that an amount of $150 per credit hour would be provided to those teachers who would be selected to seek additional endorsements, and also a retention provision. Kent Stopak, Sean Dunphy, Tom McLaughlin, and Jeannie Bartholow volunteered to serve on an ad-hoc committee that would come back to the committee with an application form and other pertinent details for the committee to review at our December 6th meeting.

• A question was raised regarding the two (2) additional professional development days that will occur on February 14 & 15. The understanding of this committee was that these two days are outside the contract. In other words, one could not use any leave provision and be excused from these days and be paid. Bottom line, if one is not in attendance, one will not be paid. As a further clarification, attendance is not optional.

• Our next meeting date is December 6, 2007 at 4:30. Agenda items will include (1) finalizing a recommendation on the use of Market Factor Pay and (2) reviewing the teacher performance instrument along with the model evidence that would be required. A suggestion was made that committee members bring a laptop to the meeting.
• Meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes October 17, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL

Teacher Quality Committee—Official Meeting Minutes
Educational Resource Center
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

1. Call to order and roll call at 4:30 p.m.
Present: Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Tom McLaughlin, Barb Motes, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Linda Hahn, Barb Grell (left at 6:00), Marilyn Wandersee, Mark Schweer
Absent: Sean Dunphy, Kent Stopak, Chuck Story

2. Approval of the October 17, 2007, agenda
Kim Muta asked to add to the agenda a discussion of the minutes and how they will be taken. Voice vote passed the agenda as amended.

3. Review Board Presentation
Barb Motes said that she thought the individual building administrators would present plans. Tom McLaughlin said that he had a good picture of the district-level plan, but not about the building plans. Dave Black said that the district-level look was intentional, as the Board was the primary audience for that report. Mark Schweer added to that point, explaining why the presentation was done this way. Marilyn Wandersee asked if Dave Black could pull out the individual items in the presentation and break them down by building. He pulled up the presentation for discussion, and the Committee reviewed the individual pieces of professional development—specifically, where they are occurring and what they are.

4. Professional Development Allocation
The Committee discussed what kind of information is necessary in order for the decision to be made about allocation of the PD funds. The Committee decided to meet (or attempt to meet) on Wednesday, October 25, 2007, at 4:30.

5. Review Remaining Tasks—Tabled until a future meeting.
* Ensure that the negotiated agreement determines the compensation of the teachers on
the committee
* Monitor PD (Professional Development) plans
* Determine the use and distribution of 277 PD funds—For our information, Dave Black
shared that one day of District PD costs more than $53,000.
* Monitor implementation of SF277 with regard to Chapter 20 (negotiated agreement)
* Recommend market factor incentives to the Board and LCEA—With last year’s
money, the total for this pot of funds is approximately $34,000.

6. Schedule Remaining Meetings—Tabled until a future meeting.

7. Taking Minutes
The Committee discussed possibilities for sharing or delegating the responsibility, and decided to share it, alternating between teachers and administrators.

8. Adjournment
Jeanne Bartholow moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:40.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes October 15, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL
Teacher Quality Committee—Official Meeting Minutes
Educational Resource Center
Monday, October 15, 2007

1. Call to order and roll call at 6:27 p.m.
Present: Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Barb Motes, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Linda Hahn, Barb Grell, Sean Dunphy, Kent Stopak, Marilyn Wandersee, Mark Schweer, Tom McLaughlin

2. Board presentation
The Committee listened to the presentation of the District staff development plan by Dave Black to the Board.

3. Adjournment
Kim Muta moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:27 p.m., and Kim Jones seconded the motion.

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes October 10, 2007

LEWIS CENTRAL
Teacher Quality Committee—
Official Meeting Minutes
Educational Resource Center
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

1. Call to order and roll call at 4:30 p.m.
Present: Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Barb Motes, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Linda Hahn, Barb Grell, Sean Dunphy, Kent Stopak, Marilyn Wandersee, Mark Schweer
Guest: Terri Bush, technical assistant and resource person for the Dept. of Ed. with AEA 13
Absent: Tom McLaughlin

2. Approval of the October 10, 2007, agenda
Barb Motes moved that the agenda be approved, Chuck Story seconded the motion, and it passed.

3. Review the minutes of the September 5, 2007, meeting
Chuck Story moved that the September 5, 2007, meeting minutes be approved, Sean Dunphy seconded the motion, and it passed.

4. Review the Iowa Professional Development Model (IPDM)
The Committee asked Terri Bush several questions regarding the IPDM. Following are key points of the discussion:
* IPDM requires one-focus emphasis, though in large districts it can vary from building to building. The focus cannot vary within buildings. However, some topics/foci, like “reading,” can connect what individuals and buildings are doing.
* Districts should keep in mind the 80/20 split. Eighty percent of professional development should be spent on that single focus, but the remaining twenty percent can be a looser focus.
* The Dept. of Ed. website has a content network, a list of approved professional development, which is heavy in reading but includes math and science. The approved list includes scientific-based models. However, working with Marzano’s research can be considered acceptable even though it doesn’t strictly follow one model.
* Some districts use professional development time for curriculum mapping, and as long as it is focusing on student achievement, that’s acceptable. When curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment meet, student achievement will be affected.
* Lewis Central’s work with Professional Leaning Communities fits the IPDM requirement that the time be spent collaboratively.
* In terms of delivery of professional development, the five important pieces must be in place (theory, demonstration, practice, feedback, and coaching).
* There is concern about the applicability of the single-focus model for the diversity of any teaching staff, especially for those teachers of non-core areas. The twenty percent of professional development time, which can be more loosely focused, can be used for things specific to those people. Bringing in someone from another district, for example, to help with curriculum development for a non-core area would fit IPDM as long as the curriculum work includes instruction and assessment.
* The 80/20 split should apply to the year’s worth of professional development, to the plan (a three-year plan, for example), and to the individual session. In terms of moving on from one focus to the next, the district should look at the implementation of the focus area. Ask how many of the staff are implementing the professional development related to that focus with fidelity. If 80% are implementing with fidelity, staff can move to another area of focus.

5. Determine the next meeting times
The Committee decided to meet right before the Board meeting on Monday, October 15, 2007. The Committee will hear the presentations by the building principals to the Board regarding plans for professional development. On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, the Committee will meet to discuss whether the professional development plans meet the IPDM and to discuss the distribution of professional development funds.

6. Adjournment
Laurie Thies moved that the meeting be adjourned at 5:50 p.m

Teacher Quality Committee Minutes September 5, 2008

LEWIS CENTRAL Teacher Quality Committee—Official Meeting Minutes Educational Resource Center Wednesday, September 5, 2007

1. Call to order and roll call
Present: Dave Black, Jeanne Bartholow, Chuck Story, Laurie Thies, Kim Jones, Kim Muta, Tom McLaughlin, Barb Motes, Pat Thomas, Al Lorenz, Linda Hahn, Barb Grell
Absent: Sean Dunphy, Kent Stopak, Marilyn Wandersee, Mark Schweer

2. Approval of the September 5, 2007, agenda
Tom McLaughlin moved that the agenda be approved, Chuck Story seconded the motion, and it passed.

3. Review the requirements of SF 277 with regard to this Committee
* Establish the committee—This appears to be done.
* Ensure that the negotiated agreement determines the compensation of the teachers on
the committee
* Function within the Open Meetings Law
* Monitor PD (Professional Development) plans
* Determine the use and distribution of 277 PD funds—For our information, Dave Black
shared that one day of District PD costs more than $53,000.
* Monitor implementation of SF277 with regard to Chapter 20 (negotiated agreement)
* Recommend market factor incentives to the Board and LCEA—With last year’s
money, the total for this pot of funds is approximately $34,000.

4. Formalize the committee structure/facilitation
The taking of the minutes is a question mark at this point. By consensus, the Committee agreed that the administrative members will investigate the use of classified staff (specifically, District office personnel) for this purpose. Compensation for the classified staff will have to be determined.

5. Establish ground rules for committee operation
Open Meetings Law allows for the possibility of an audience. By consensus, the Committee agreed to handle audiences as the Board does. The agenda will include an opportunity for audience members to speak, and audience members will be limited in how long they may address the Committee.

6. Determine calendar for the year and procedures for adding or deleting meetings
By consensus, the Committee decided to delete the September 26 meeting. In order to study the IPDM (Iowa Professional Development Model) and hear from building administrators about their plans for PD, the Committee agreed to meet on October 10 at 4:30 for the purpose of studying the IPDM, to attend the Board meeting on October 15 at 6:30 for the purpose of hearing the building principals’ presentations on PD, and to meet on October 17 at 4:30 to discuss the building PD plans in relationship to IPDM. The Committee also decided to finalize the meeting schedule as the year progresses rather than trying to set a year’s worth of meetings right now. The nature of the work will affect how often, when, and for how long the Committee will need to meet.

7. Establish agenda communication and posting procedures
By consensus, the Committee agreed that Anna Boehm in the District office will distribute agendas for upcoming meetings to the same media outlets the Board uses. Copies of agendas will be distributed for in-building posting within the District, and the agenda will be posted on the LCEA website.

8. Determine procedures for documenting committee meetings (minutes) and the distribution of minutes
By consensus, the Committee agreed that the same posting procedures for agendas would be followed for minutes, with the exception of distributing minutes to the media.

9. Determine decision making process(es)
For procedural matters, the Committee will make decisions by consensus, with the understanding that a Committee member may request a vote. For matters involving resources, the Committee will vote. In the event of absences that create an imbalance, member/s will agree to sit out during the vote in order to create a balance. In that case, a roll call vote will be taken.

10. Establish and forward a recommendation for compensation rate and compensation procedures for the teachers on the committee
Tom McLaughlin moved that the Committee recommend a letter of agreement between the Board and LCEA that would compensate the teachers on the Committee by paying them $22.50 per hour for work beyond contract hours and paying them a per diem rate for work during non-contract days. Kim Muta seconded the motion. A roll call vote was unanimous: Dave Black, yes; Jeanne Bartholow, yes; Laurie Thies, yes; Kim Jones, yes; Kim Muta, yes; Tom McLaughlin, yes; Linda Hahn, yes; Barb Grell, yes.

11. Identify procedures for studying the IPDM and LC Professional Development plans
By consensus, the Committee agreed that Dave Black will contact AEA 13 about having an expert on IPDM to be available on Oct. 10 for the committee’s study and discussion of IPDM.

12. Adjournment
Al Lorenz moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:20.