LSAT Minutes: 2014-2015

• Review  of  the  Staffing  Model:   The  staff survey  has  not  been  circulated  yet  because  Sabrina  wants  to  review questions  with  LSAT  and  Mr.  C  before  finalizing.    The committee agreed  to  ask  her  to  post  the  questions  to Basecamp  so  members  can  review  and  provide  feedback.   During  meeting  discussion,  the  following  additional  topics were  suggested  for  possible  inclusion  in  the  survey:
  • What  curriculum  areas  are  underdeveloped  or  absent?  One  example  might  be readers/writers  workshop which  has  received  less  support  in  recent  years.  Another  possible  topic  is grammar.
  • By  grade  level,  how  does  the  writing  development  of your  students  compare?

Mr.  C  noted  that  he  would  like  to  have  teachers  at  the end of  the  year  write  down  a  list  of  competencies  they  believe students  should  have  before  leaving  their  current  grade level.    

• Review  of  school  data:   Mr.  C  provided  to  the  group  several  points  of  data.    Overall  review  of  the  CAS  schools  shows  that  the  school  is  moving  in  the  right  direction,  in  particular  within  the  black  subgroup.    However,  for  the most  part  the  school's  scores  are  staying  within  a  very small  band-­‐ they  are  "static  with  slight  growth."    The group  noted  that  overall  scores  of  "advanced  proficient" went  down  last  year  with  the  "proficient"  group  increasing.   School's  focus  in  past  few  years  has  been  on those  students  who  are  in  the  below  basic and  basic groups.

  This  year  the  school  takes  the  PARCC  and  Mr.  C  reported that  it  likely  will  be  at  least  2  years  until  we  will  be  able to  make  any  real  analysis  of  those  scores. The  committee also  noticed  that  the  composition  score  from  the  last  year's CAS  test  went  down.    It  was  noted  that  this  year  the  CAS changed  its  grading  system  to  consider  grammar.   Grammar  has  generally  been  deemphasized  in  primary education  over  the  past  decade.    We  discussed  the possibility  that  in  light  of  this  change  in  scoring  criteria, the  school  should  have  a  renewed  emphasis  on  teaching grammar  and  writing  skills.    Because  the  expectations  haveshifted,  the  school  many  need  to  incorporate  an integrated  approach  to  teaching  writing  and  grammar school-­‐wide.

• Wilson/Deal -­‐ Mr.  C  reported  having  an  informal conversation  with  Principal  Albright  during  which  he commented  that  the  majority  of  Murch  students  are  at least  as  well  prepared  for  Deal  as  students  from  other  feeder schools.    Beth  Colleye  has  opened  a  conversation  with  a member of  the  Deal  LSAT  about  how  best  to  exchange information.    Murch  teachers  commented  that  in  past  years they  have  unsuccessfully  reached  out  to  their  Deal colleagues  about  sharing  information  and  would  be  happy if  the  LSATs  are  able  to  facilitate such  exchange.    Mr.  C.  commented  that  one  of  his  goals  would  be  for  advanced Murch  5th  graders  to  be  able  to  take  math  at  Deal.    Mr.  C.  noted  that  the  Wilson  feeder-­‐pattern  principals  informal  group  has  disbanded.
• Enrollment  projections.   Current  enrollment  is  627.  District  projection  for  next  year  was  644 and  Mr.  C  did  not  contest  it
• Renovation-­‐ Murch  is  the  first  elementary  school  to  be  relocated  during  renovation.
• DCPS  Budget  Engagement  Meeting:   The  Chancellor  is again  holding  budget  engagement  meetings.    This  is  a  working  session where  the  schools  and  the  Chancellor exchange  information  and  share  their  priorities.    Murch's meeting  is  Jan.  20  at  Coolidge  High  school,  from  7:00-­‐9:00.    LSAT  member  attendance  is  not  mandatory  but has been  helpful  in  prior years.   
• February  meeting  topics  for  discussion:
  • Results  of  Jan.  budget  engagement  meeting. 
  • Planning  for  2015-­‐16  budget
  • Results  of  teacher  survey

1. Enrollment  Projections:   Mr.  C  and  Ms.  Fuller were not  able  to  attend  tonight  so  the  committee  was  not  able  to  discuss  this  topic.   Beth  and  Sabrina  will  follow‐up  with  the  administration to  determining  the  timing  of establishing  projections  for  2015‐16  school  year.
2. Behavioral  Support: Last  year  discussed  having  a  behavioral  specialist  but  was  too  late  in  the  budget  cycle.    Staff  reported  that  there  has  been  some  progress  this  year  on  behavioral  challenges  even  without  a  programmatic  change.    Having  a  dedicated  Special  Ed  Coordinator  and  full  time  social  worker  is  helpful.    It  was  noted  that  it  seems  as  though  the  school  does  not  have  as  many  kids  with  severe  behavioral  challenges  this  year as  previous  years,  but  there  do  remain  some  challenges.    The  Responsive  Classroom  (RC)  program  is  very  helpful  for  classroom  management.

   Several  staff  members  attended  the  Responsive  Classroom  leadership  conference  in  Chicago  the  previous  weekend  during  which  they  attended  a  very  helpful  session addressing  behavior.    Tomorrow,  the  RC  committee  is presenting  four  different  sessions  to  the  staff during  the professional  development  day.    Is  it  possible  to  get  an  RC consultant  or  an  instructional  coach  for  RC  on  staff  part time?    Currently,  it  is  believed  that  RC  is  not  fully  implemented  at  the  school.    As  a  rough  estimate, approximately  75%  of  classrooms  are  doing  morning meeting  well.   Only  a  handful  of  teachers  are  capable  of adhering  to  RC's  guidelines  on  teacher  language/responses. The  RC  committee  has  discussed  with  Mr.  C  doing  a parent  information  night  dedicated  to  RC, tentatively  in Spring 2015.   

   The  committee  discussed  possible  options  for  investing further  in  RC.    Due  to  turnover  there  is  a  continual  need for  additional  RC  training.    We  discussed  the  possibility  of focusing  on  RC  as  part  of  the  Paddles  Up  portion  of  the  live  auction.    Lisa  and  Lauren  agreed  to  work  together  to  identify  the  specific  training  needs  of  the  school  and  the  cost.    How  does  Fairfax  County  support  its  extensive investment  in  RC?    How  do  Janney,  Mann,  Maurey,  and  Key  keep  their  teachers  trained?   

3. Topics  for  Future  meetings: Due  to  time  limitations,  our  discussion  of  topics  for  future  meetings  was  limited.  We  agreed  to  have  a  Basecamp  discussion  about  what  is  needed  for  the  January  meeting.    Some  high  priority  topics  include:
   1. School  data  -­‐Consistent  with  Mr.  C's  previous  suggestion,  we  will  look  at  school  data  in  January  after  next  set  of  unit  testing.  Committee  would  like  to review  last  year's  CAS  scores,  including  subgroups,  as compared  to  prior  years.    [Beth/Sabrina  to  ask  Mr.  C to  provide  at  January  meeting.]   iReady  data  also  would  be  helpful  to  review.    Sabrina  will  request Fountas  and  Pinnell  data.   
   2. Assessments  -­‐ Are  we  doing  too  many  assessments? Which  ones  are  the  most  helpful  for  educators?   There  was  some  discussion  of  whether  teacher  created assessments  produce  more  reliable  data,  but  they  are more  difficult  to  gather  and  compare.    There  is  a  parent  information night  on  Assessments  scheduled  for  Dec.  9,  and  there  will  be  a  separate  night  on  the  Parc  later  in  the  year.   
   3. Feedback  on  Current  staffing  Model/Enrichment  -­‐There  were  alot  of  staffing  changes  this  year  and  it will be  helpful  to  gather  feedback  on  how  it  is  going.   With  the  large  number  of  support  positions,  students are  being  pulled  out  of  class  alot.    Staff  committee  members  agreed  to  poll  the  staff  before  the  January  meeting  to  ask  what  positions  are  they  finding  the  most  valuable  this  year.    At  that  point  we  will  discuss  how/whether  to  poll  parents.   One  option  is  to  modify  the  school  satisfaction  survey  from  last year.
      1. Aides  -­‐ There  were  discussions  last  year  of deploying  aides  in  a  more  instructional  capacity this  year.    There  has  been  no  top-­‐down  direction  this  year  on  implementing  this  change.   Some  aides  are  doing  enrichment  as part  of  their  own  initiative,  but  not  as  part  of Ms.  Presnik's  program.    Each  grade  level  decides  how  to  use  its  aides.

1. Follow-­up
   1. Community  Representative – Beth  Colleye  updated  the  group  on  the  three  candidates  she  is  pursuing  for  the  community  rep  (one  declined).
   2. Basecamp  – Everyone  new  to  be  invited  so  that  it  can  be  used  for  discussions.
2. Parent  Info  Night  on  PARCC – The  group  discussed  what  would  be  most  useful  for  parents  as  well  as  the  best timing.    Given  the  HSA presentation  to  parents  on  assessments  generally  (not  just  the  PARCC)  which  is  scheduled for  December  9,  it  was  agreed  to  look  for  a  date  closer  to  the  PARCC  testing  but  still  sufficiently  in  advance  to  help  families  prepare and  support  faculty.    It  was  agreed  to  look  for  a  January  date  which  would  also  benefit  from  work  that  the  faculty  will  be  doing  in  advance  of  the  test  administration.    In  advance  of  the  PARCC  meeting,  it  was  agreed  to  focus  a  large  part  of  the  January  LSAT  meeting  on  reviewing  school  level  data.    Mr.  C  commented  that  the  data  shows  in  many  cases  that  the  Murch  learner  community  does  not  evince  typical  patterns  of  struggle  and  failure.

   Terri  Fuller  shared  with  the  group  the  most  current information  she  had  from  DCPS  regarding  testing  windows:  PARCC,  12  March  to  10  April  and  31  April  to  29  May  and NAEP  for  the  4th graders,  January  to  March.   This  was  followed  by  a  broader  conversation  about  the  volume  of  testing  at  Murch  and  whether  students  were  being  over-­‐assessed.    Many  expressed  the  desire  to  identify  which assessments  were  essential  from  an  instructional standpoint.  There  was  general  support  for  the  idea  of developing  priorities  and  a  calendar  that  maximizes instructional  time  – and  to  develop  strategies  to  advocate for  just  the  most  effective  assessments.    Others  raised questions  about  how  best  to  balance  the  need  to  help students  be  familiar  with  the  technology  used  for  tests  without  taking  away  from  instructional  time.    The  faculty noted  that  some  aspects  of  the  interim  assessments  were still  being  worked  out  and  emphasized  that  it  was summative  in  approach  and  not  formative.

3. Community  Engagement  Program  -­‐-­‐ Sabrina  Finburg  updated  the  group  on  further  ideas  for  a  program designed  to  engage  students  in  social  and  learning activities  outside  of  school with other Murch community  members,  the  idea  being to create  out  of  school enrichment  experiences  and  social  opportunities  for  students  who  don’t  regularly benefit.    It  would  depend  on  adult  volunteers  and  there  is  the  opportunity  to  partner with  other  schools.    Further  planning  will  be  rolled  into  a  building  diversity  group  that both  Sabina  Finburg  and  Terri  Fuller  participate  in.    There  is  the  possibility  of  using  some of  the  OSSE  student  satisfaction  grant  funding  for  transportation.
4. Enrollment – The  enrollment  audit  was  taking  place  that day  at  school  and  inspectors  (and  Mr.  C)  remained  at  the school  working  well  past  the  LSAT  meeting.    Preliminary  results  may  be  ready  by  the  December  meeting.
5. Building  Renovation  Update  and  LSAT  input– Mr.  C  reported  that  there  was  no  additional  update  regarding  the  renovation  and  that  DGS  has  put  out  the  RFP  for  the  building  architect  to  be  selected.
6. Printers  and  Copiers – Bethany  Little  asked  about  the  burden  on  faculty  and administrators  resulting  from  a  lack of  working  copiers  and  whether  parents  could  help  relieve the  problem.    Mr.  C  reported  that  three  new  (not refurbished  but  new)  copiers were  ordered  and  expected during  the  school  year.    Vicki  Otten  described  the  small stand‐alone  printer/copier  machines  used  in  the  5th grade and  the  group  discussed  whether  more  might  be  helpful  at other  grade  levels  while  the  large  copiers  were  on  order.  Parents  also  asked  whether  there  were  any  other  supplies or  tools  needed.
7. Planning  Time – Bethany  Little  inquired  of  the  faculty and  administrators  about  the  effectiveness  of  the  pooled  planning  time  now  built  into  the  calendar.    She  asked  about  the  possibility  of  having  a  half  day  once  a  month  for  faculty  to  plan  when  an  outside group such  as  an  arts  organization  could  be  working  with  the  students  on  special  programming.
8. Topics  for  Future  Meetings -­‐The  committee  plans  to  use  a  survey  tool  to  gather  a  complete  list  of  topics  and  Bethany  Little  has  agreed  to  design  a  survey  to  facilitate  prioritization.   The  results  will  be  discussed  at  the  next meeting.