SAU Board Meeting
CSDA Media Room
June 23, 2008
Jim McCann, SAU Board Chair
Susan Benz, HSB
Tom Enright, H/B Coop
Marcia Farwell, BSB
Beth Lukovits, BSB
Wanda Meagher, BSB
Dave Partridge, BSB
Steve Simons, H/B Coop
Tom Solon, H/B Coop
Janice Tremblay, H/B Coop
Rich Pike, Superintendent of Schools
Dawna Duhamel, Business Administrator
Bob Kelly, Director of Special Education
Carol Mace, Director of Curriculum
Lorraine Wenger, Principal CSDA
Dot Ball, Math Chair/Teacher HBHS
Allison Annand, Preschool Teacher HPS
Mary Kay MacFarlane, Recording Secretary
Jim McCann called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm
Professional Growth Model
Carol Mace gave a presentation on the Professional Growth Model.
In 2006 a new 5 year plan for professional development was developed. The plan was approved in 2007. In October 2007 the State of NH approved this professional development 5 year plan. The Danielson model was selected after reviewing other teacher evaluation plans. The Teacher Evaluation committee, the Professional Development committee and legal counsel have worked together to prepare first draft of SAU Professional Growth Model.
The purpose of professional development
The process of professional development
Criteria for Goal Approval
The Purposes of Teacher Evaluation
Criteria for Effective Teacher Evaluation
Structure of Danielson Model
n Four Domains
n Domain 1 - Planning and Preparation
n Domain 2 - Classroom Environment
n Domain 3 - Instruction
n Domain 4 - Professional Development
n Domains are divided into 22 Components describing characteristics and behaviors to be evaluated
Evaluation timeline process
n Annual Contract Teachers (non-tenured) – 1 year cycle
n Continuing Contract Teachers (tenured) – 3 year cycle aligned with NH state recertification cycle
n Continuing Contract teachers in need of Assistance – time line is determined by the administrator based on future impact on student learning
Evaluation Process Multiple Measures
n Formal Observations (includes Pre-Observation Conference, Post-Observation Conference and Post-Observations Reflection, Formal Observation Summary)
n Educator Goal Statement
n Professional Development Activities
n Professional Development Reflection
n Educator Goal Progress/Review (includes yearly Goal Review Meeting)
n Teacher self-evaluation
n Administrative Summative Evaluation
Evaluation Process Instrument
n Each component has a rubric to assess the level of performance.
n Rubrics are descriptive rather than evaluative: A four tiered rubric is used instead of words such as “good”, “excellent”, “unsatisfactory”
Evaluation Process – Sample of a Rubric
3a: Communicating with students
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are unclear or confusing to students. Teacher’s use of language contains errors or is inappropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development.
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clarified after initial confusion; teacher’s use of language is correct but may not be completely appropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development.
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Communications are appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development.
Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Teacher’s oral and written communication is clear and expressive, appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development, and anticipates possible student misconceptions.
Evaluation Process – Performance Expectation
n Annual Contract professionals may be expected to progress on a continuum from Basic to Proficient to Distinguished
n Experienced teachers in new assignments may also be expected to begin their new positions at a Basic level
n No professional is expected to be “Distinguished” in all areas. We acknowledge that all professionals experience growth throughout their careers
Professionals in Need of Assistance
n Who – Continuing Contract teachers not meeting appropriate levels of performance
n Why – to provide support and assistance to professionals not meeting the standards of SAU #41
n Goal – To improve teaching and learning
n When – Anytime in the three year evaluation cycle when a concern is identified
n How – the administrator documents the concern, specific objectives for improvement, a timeline for improvement and the procedures/resources to meet that objective
n Note - In Need of Assistance Phase does not restrict the districts’ rights to take appropriate disciplinary action for professional misconduct without prior intervention
n The Professional Growth Model is the result of two years of sustained collaborative efforts including administrators, teachers and Danielson model consultants.
n The Professional Growth Model provides for sustained professional development designed to improve student achievement by continuously enhancing professional practice.
n The Professional Growth Model is designed to significantly improve the process for classroom observation and teacher evaluation.
· Approval of the Professional Growth Model from each of the three school boards.
· If approved, it would go into effect July 1, 2008.
· Create a handbook on the model for the teachers.
· Forms printed and distributed.
· Training sessions with the consultants from the Danielson Group. The first training session is on August 13th & 14th.
· Will review model annual to correct things that aren’t working well with the plan.
Carol Mace acknowledged and thanked the Teacher Evaluation Committee for all their work.
The Board asked questions of Carol Mace, administrators and teachers.
Tom Solon asked how the loop gets closed with the teacher evaluations.
Carol Mace stated that when teachers set their smart goals, it should include data on student achievement and setting targets for improvement in student performance. Do activities help meet the goals. There is also a review at year end to evaluate what goals were met and the activities that help achieve them. Teacher observations are both scheduled and non-scheduled.
Wanda Meagher asked how you tie in everything in a 3 year cycle in one set of rubrics at the end of three years.
Administrators/teachers encourage teachers to do an evaluation at the end of each year.
Dave Partridge has concerns over how differentiated instruction is done in the district and if the rubric checks this. He hopes with the NWEA that teachers are looking to see that every student improves, and not just group improvement. He would like to see a rubric that reflects specifically differentiated instruction in the classroom. Dave thinks that teachers need to share with each other the things that work well to differentiate instruction and is concerned that each teacher differentiates differently.
Susan Benz asked how you determine a teacher who is in need of assistance.
Administrators/teachers stated that they haven’t received their training in that yet.
Tom Enright doesn’t agree that tenured teachers review should jump to 3 years from every year. Tom Enright thinks that the principal should be setting the review dates based on the teacher instead of setting automatic reviews.
Administrators/teachers stated that there are annual self assessments and goal reviews.
Tom Enright will be the SAU volunteer on the Professional Development Committee.
Jim McCann asked how teachers have received this. Teachers are looking forward to the training.
Administrators/teachers replied that there are still a lot of questions, but teachers are looking forward to the training.
Tom Solon asked if this moves us in the direction of merit pay.
Administrators/teachers replied that some districts have done this with this model, but not necessarily.
Tom Solon asked that if this evaluation could be taken with you to another district. The answer is yes.
Rich Pike said that the teachers he has talked to are positive about this program.
The board thanked Carol Mace and the committee members for all their hard work on this document.
Tom Enright needs to talk to legal counsel before he feels comfortable signing off on the document to ensure the language has no impact on the teachers contracts.
Jim McCann requested that an attorney look at the document and address Tom’s concerns.
Tom Enright wants Ted Comstock regarding this.
Dave Partridge moves to adopt the Professional Growth Model as presented this evening. Beth Lukovits seconds the motion.
The board discussed their concerns regarding the Professional Growth Model.
Dave Partridge took his motion off the floor.
The SAU Board called a recess at 7:30 pm for individual boards to meet.
The SAU Board reconvened at 7:40 pm
The H/B Cooperative Board read their motion:
Steve Simons made a motion to adopt the Professional Growth Model as presented for the H/B Cooperative School District. Janice Tremblay seconded the motion. The motion carried 3 yes, 1 no.
The Brookline School Board read their motion:
Beth Lukovits made a motion to adopt the Professional Growth Model as presented for the Brookline School District. Marcia Farwell seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4 yes, 0 no.
The Hollis School Board will vote on the Professional Growth Model at their July 10, 2008 meeting.
There was no public input.
A motion was made by Steve Simons to accept the minutes of November 18, 2007. Tom Solon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6 yes, 0 no, 4 abstention.
A motion was made by Steve Simons to accept the minutes of December 11, 2007. Tom Solon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8 yes, 0 no, 2 abstention.
A motion was made by Dave Partridge to accept the minutes of April 3, 2008. Janice Tremblay seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7 yes, 0 no, 3 abstention.
A motion was made by Steve Simons to accept the public minutes of January 31, 2008 and February 1, 2008. Dave Partridge seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 10 yes, 0 no.
A motion was made by Steve Simons to accept the non-public minutes of February 1, 2008. Dave Partridge seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 9 yes, 1 abstention.
A motion was made by Dave Partridge to accept the non-public minutes of January 21, 2008. Steve Simons seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7 yes, 0 no, 3 abstention.
Dawna Duhamel gave the business administrator reports.
Next steps for the project:
4. Business office:
a. We are in the process of filling the PT accountant vacancy. Debbie Paradis will be our payroll specialist effective June 30, 2008.
b. Expenditure report through June 20, 2008 attached.
c. The district’s financial audit will take place July 23rd – August 1st.
5. FY09 oil budgets. The dramatic increase in oil prices will likely pose a significant financial challenge for FY09 budgets. I have been researching our options to determine the best method for the SAU to obtain the lowest possible pre-buy oil prices. The alternatives I am pursuing are:
a. Joining a regional utility purchasing group.
b. Work collaboratively with school districts and towns, and perhaps local businesses, to try and obtain a volume discount.
The other utility that may create financial stress on next year’s budget is electricity (aside from gasoline). Analysts are projecting significant price hikes due to a myriad of factors: the cost of coal and natural gas are increasing, demand for electricity is increasing faster than supply, etc. The energy buying groups noted above would help us in this area as they also purchase electricity.
Dave Partridge would like someone meet with the Ordes to help decided the optimal bus route and minimal driving of the bus.
Dawna Duhamel will check with someone in Hollis to see if they have bus routing software.
Janice Tremblay will send Dawna a list of companies that have bio diesel fuel.
The SAU budget will be over budget, due to the Superintendent search. There is a reserve of about $52,000 and the budget is estimated to be approximately $5,000 over.
SAU health insurance plans are historically mirrored to the Coop health insurance plans. The Coop has adopted the plan with the higher co-pays and feels the SAU should accept the Coop’s health insurance plan offerings.
Tom Enright makes a motion that the SAU health insurance plan offerings be the same as the current H/B Coop health insurance plan offerings. This applies to all SAU staff effective July 1, 2008. Janice Tremblay seconded the motion.
The Board had a lengthy discussion on health insurance plans.
The motion was called to a vote. The motion carried by a vote of 10 yes, 0 no.
SAU Lease agreement will be an adjustable payment based on maintenance needs into a maintenance fund. The Board Chairs will sign the lease.
Rich Raymond spoke regarding the internet log policy and he recommends we keep it for 28 days. The first reading of this policy was approved without a recommendation for how long a log should be kept.
A motion was made by Dave Partridge to adopt the SAU #41 Internet Log Policy as follows: SAU #41 does not require the maintaining of Internet Logs. Logs involved in a current investigation or disciplinary action may be retained at the administrations discretion. Beth Lukovits seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 10 yes, 0 no.
Rich Raymond noted that the State of NH has approved SAU #41’s technology plan.
Director of Special Education
Bob Kelly gave the report on special education.
I. Special Education Transportation Contract: Three Years
RFP: Three Companies Requested Specifications
One Company submitted a bid: Hollis Transportation
Per Mile Per Hour Minimum Charge
2007/2008 $1.25 $12.00 None
2008/2009 $1.35 $13.50 None
2009/2010 $1.40 $13.50 None
2010/2011 $1.45 $14.00 None
Recommendation for future Contract Bidding:
Merge both regular and special education specifications together as one complete contract.
Assures provision of both. Two years ago one company only submitted a bid for the regular transportation contract.
The Board discussed transportation issues and options.
Dave Partridge makes a motion to accept the three year Special Education transportation contract as presented. Steve Simons seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 10 yes, 0 no.
II. NESDEC Special Education Study Completed
Projected Report Late July
III. NH DOE Special Education Onsite Follow-up Completed with Approval
SERESC/DOE Report attached
IV. NH DOE Special Education Regulatory Changes Adopted in response to the Federal Regulatory Re-Authorization in 2006
New Hampshire State Board of Education adopted new Regulations:
June 11, 2008
New Regulations to take effect:
July 1, 2008
Some of the changes include:
Evaluation Timelines: 45 days with maximum extension of 15 days.
Written procedures for evaluating Learning Disabilities
Upon request: provision of records 5 days prior to meeting.
IEPs must include Short Term Objectives and benchmarks
Monitoring of ESY programs outside the district.
Weekly monitoring of Transition Services: i.e., School to Work Program
V. SAU 41 Special Education Documents Review:
Annual Notices for IDEA, FERPA and Section 504
Parent/Student Handbooks, District Websites, SAU 41 Website and annual publication in Hollis/Brookline Journal
Board adopted Policy assuring the provision of special education programs and services for students from ages 3 -21 or graduation.
District and SAU 41 Websites
Parental Rights in Special Education published by the New Hampshire Department of Education. Reviews Procedural Safeguards, Parental Consent, the Referral and Evaluation processes, IEP development, placement in the Least Restrictive Environment, Access & Confidentiality of Student Records, Administrative Due Process Hearing Procedures and Alternative Dispute Resolution options.
Distributed to parents at special education team meetings.
District and SAU 41 websites.
SAU 41 Special Education Assurances: SAU 41 Local Education Agency Plan
Written documentation of all district special education responsibilities including: Child Find, Confidentiality, Personnel & Services, Parent Involvement, Procedural Safeguards, Referral to Placement Procedures, Discipline and Dispute Resolution Procedures.
SAU Website and hardcopy maintain at SAU office.
SAU 41 Special Education Procedures Manual
SAU 41 staff guidelines manual for carrying out all special education team meetings, including required forms, and assuring compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements.
Hard copies in all district buildings and on SAU Website: http://www.sau41.k12.nh.us/sbfiles/
Director of Curriculum Report
Carol Mace took questions on her report.
Marcia Farwell made a motion that “The SAU #41 board authorizes the Superintendent and Business Administrator to represent the School District for the purposed of signing Bureau of Business Management forms for any state and federal funds due those entities.”. Steve Simons seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 10 yes, 0 no.
Tom Enright volunteered to be the SAU representative to the Professional Development Committee.
Jim McCann thanked Rich Pike for his years of service as Superintendent of SAU #41 and presented him with award commemorating his service.
A motion to go into non-public under RSA 91-A:3(a) compensation and (c)reputation was made by Marcia Farwell. Dave Partridge seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote 10 yes, 0 no.
SAU Board Chair _________________________________________ Date: ______
Brookline Board Chair _____________________________________ Date: ______
Hollis Board Chair ________________________________________ Date: ______
H/B Coop Board Chair _____________________________________ Date: ______