Transition Team Minutes
Sept 21, 2011

4:30pm – 6:00pm

900 Grant Street—NW HR Conference Room

Invitees: Henry Roman, Margaret Bobb, Rob Gould, Cal Hosman, Barb Bennett, Don Gilmore, Bart Muller, Tracy Dorland, Dori Claunch, Greta Martinez, Jason Martinez, David Hart

Attended: Margaret Bobb, Barb Bennett, Henry Roman, Margaret Bobb, Rob Gould, Bart Muller, Dori Claunch, Greta Martinez, Tracy Dorland, David Hart

Scribe: Deb Cunningham

Guests: Diane Proctor, Bonnie Walters, Robert Reichardt, Brad Grippin. Dan Goldhaber and Joe Walch via phone

Absent: Cal Hosman, Jason Martinez

Topic
I.  Review agenda – the agenda was approved.
II.  Action Items
·  Approve 8/17/11 meeting minutes – the minutes were approved.
·  ProComp Payment timing - Action: DCTA will draft a message outlining payments and MoU impact. Henry will send Jason a copy to include in ConnectEd.
· 
III.  Information Items
·  PDU vote outcome – Deb Cunningham confirmed that the proposal from Debbie Hearty and Shirley Scott passed. The Trust will fund the PDU support team. Henry will ask Shirley to send a draft about ProComp Communication and Support Services. Henry also suggested that we include this communication in the Slate.
·  UCD research Conclusions: ProComp appears to have made a difference:
·  System changes around data, professional development, human resources capacity
·  Improved recruitment and retention
·  Improved student achievement
·  Some ProComp elements are targeted towards effective teachers (Exceeds Expectations, SGO, CPE). Dan comment: Statistically significant – ExEx and SGOs predict student achievement.
·  Some ProComp elements are not impacting student achievement (PDU, Advanced Degrees/Licenses). Henry pointed out that this is correlation, not causal.
·  There is room for improvement in ProComp Implementation:
·  Communication and training on how ProComp works
·  Communication to potential recruits about advantages
·  SGO would benefit from increased standardization and rigor
·  CPE could be strengthened, LEAP may help
·  PDU has been changed, effects should be evaluated
Next steps – UCD targeting to have this finished in early October. Briefing for Board at their research session.
Q&A:
·  How should group think about the comparison of ProComp 1 to ProComp 2? Differential shrunk for DPS vs two other districts. Denver is closing the gap slightly faster than other districts.
·  Reading = the effects are much larger in ProComp 2.0 vs 1.0. Rob – could this be because of CSAP test changes? No – because there is not the same effect on all districts that start in the same place. DPS started near Aurora, but improved faster.
·  Henry – would it be fair to say that we only have two years of data & need 3 yrs for definitive results. Dan: nothing is definitive, but these are statistically significant results.
·  Barb – were there other things happening in Denver that impacted this? Dan, yes, any changes that happened at the same time would be included in these results
·  Robert – Education is notorious for policy churn. Given that, it’s remarkable that ProComp is still there after 5 years. Although we have ProComp 1 and 2, it’s in a relatively consistent format.
·  Dan - in most of his analyses, it’s rare to find a statistically significant result. This is good news for Denver because it shows results.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20pm.