Minutes for Grady High School Local School Council Meetingmay 6, 2014
Minutes for Grady High School Local School Council MeetingMay 6, 2014
Members in attendance: Ms. Sharon Bray, chairwoman and parent representative; Dr. Vincent Murray, vice chairman and principal;Mr. James Campbell, secretary and teacher representative;Mr. Brian Kish, parent representative; Ms. Angela Robinson, business representative; Ms. Renee’ Steckl, parent representative; Mr. John Webster, parent representative
Members absent:Ms. Gayla Blair, teacher representative;Mr. Ruben Brown, parent representative
Guests in attendance: Mr. Byron Barnes, instructional coach;Dr. David Propst, assistant principal;
With all members present, Ms. Bray called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. on May 6, 2014.
Mr. Campbell moved to adopt the agenda. Mr. Kishseconded the motion. The Council unanimously adopted the agenda.Mr. Campbell moved to adopt the minutes from the previous meeting. Mr. Kish seconded the motion. The Council unanimously adopted the minutes.
Mr. Brandhorst reported on the signage for the auditorium after its dedication. He stated the exterior will have letters in sans-serif font of the same size as existing signage in order to blend with the existing signage. The letters will be dark, gray, not black. East Point Foundry will produce a plaque with biographical information, details of Dr. Murray’s service, and the slogan, “Individually we are different; together we are Grady.” Mr. Brandhorst added that other signage, such as emergency “you are here” maps, will also be added at this time. Ms. Steckl asked if he was adding emergency signs to the Black Box Theater. Mr. Brandhorst said he would.
Dr. Murray relayed the results of a new report from colleges and universities about how Grady students fair in institutions of higher education. The report stated that, last year, two Grady alumni graduated from Georgia Tech, one made dean’s list at Wake Forest, one made dean’s list at Mercer University, one made the president’s list at Mercer, and one made dean’s list at Washington and Lee University. Dr. Murray then yielded to Mr. Barnes for a report on CCRPI.
Mr. Barnes reported an increase in Grady’s overall CCRPI score and discussed the different sections of the report. Ms. Bray noted that many of Grady’s high-performing students take science classes that do not have EOCTs. She asked if Grady could have its score adjusted to account for that. Mr. Barnes responded that such an adjustment would be at the discretion of the state. Ms. Bray asked to whom Grady could appeal. Mr. Barnes stated he could speak to the district personnel about appealing to the state, but that the likely response would be that many of these factors are school decisions. For example, the school places high-performing students in physics (which does not have an EOCT) as opposed to Physical Science (which does have an EOCT). This is a decision made at the school level, not the district or state level. Ms. Bray stated that such a formula seemed flawed, as it left open the possibility that schools could game the CCRPI scoring system by placing high-performing students in classes with EOCTs and lower-performing students in classes that do not. Mr. Campbell agreed, saying the staff and administration believed that placing students in classes on the basis of increasing CCRPI scores instead of the best interests of the individual students was unethical.
Ms. Bray asked if school attendance was higher or lower this year as compared to last year. Mr. Barnes said that, so far, the rates had increased. Ms. Steckl asked if any reports broke down EOCT scores by teacher. Mr. Barnes said that such reports existed, but that CCRPI looks at student growth, not out-of-context raw scores. Ms. Bray stated that the CCRPI report indicated lower growth than she expected. Mr. Campbell responded that, while he was not familiar with the process of setting EOCT growth targets, he was a part of the team of teachers who set the growth targets for Student Learning Objective (SLO) assessments. He stated that those targets had been set arbitrarily and, when teachers told the state official at the meeting that they had no context to set such growth targets, the official responded that the growth targets would be revisited the following year when actual growth data was available. Mr. Campbell added that, to his knowledge, the state never reconvened that team of teachers. He posited that growth targets for EOCTs may have been set in a similarly arbitrary manner.
Ms. Bray noted that “achievement” had decreased, but “growth” was positive. Mr. Campbell clarified that “growth” compared the current class to themselves at an earlier time, while “achievement” differences compare one group of students to another. Mr. Barnes explained that the “achievement” score compares the lowest-performing 25% of students to the class as a whole. He added that, according to the state standards, Grady is doing a good job at closing that gap. Ms. Bray asked if the state considers the diversity of the school in its calculation. Mr. Barnes said that would be a question for the state as the formulas are complex and often not shared with the schools. He also added that the state had lowered the minimum number of students necessary for a qualifying subgroup. Previously, fewer than 30 students did not qualify as a subgroup. Now, that number is 10.
Ms. Bray asked why Grady did not receive points for several “Exceeding the Bar” indicators when the formulas indicated it should. Ms. Steckl asked if Mr. Barnes had asked the state about this issue. Mr. Barnes said that he would, but had not yet done so. Mr. Kish added that several schools would likely have questions and that the state would need to have a debriefing. Ms. Steckl state that we had similar problems a year ago in which Grady seemed to receive fewer points than expected for CCRPI. She added that the school should know how to appeal such scores and have a process in place to do so.
Ms. Bray asked what a “Capstone project” was. Mr. Barnes explained that it was a work internship program that students could do in lieu of duel enrollment. Increasing the number of one could decrease the number of the other.
Ms. Steckl expressed concern that the pass rate for the Math I EOCT was only 36%. Mr. Campbell noted that the statewide pass average was 29%, so Grady was outperforming the state as a whole. Ms. Steckl responded that he low rate was still a cause for concern and an area for growth. Ms. Bray asked if Grady could receive an adjustment on some of its indicators based on the fact that many of Grady’s high-performing students, particularly in Math I and Coordinate Algebra, take EOCT classes in middle school and, as such, are excluded from Grady’s EOCT aggregate scores. Mr. Barnes again responded that the state would have to make such an adjustment. Ms. Bray expressed frustration that the CCRPI often did not allow for fair comparisons among schools. She added that parents of students in Grady’s feeder schools were unaware of these nuances. Mr. Barnes added that parents at feeder schools should remember that Grady has several feeder schools with diverse demographics. Ms. Bray agreed, adding that she was frustrated that Grady was very proud of its diversity, while the CCRPI score seemed to punish the school for that diversity. Mr. Campbell agreed that Grady was being punished for its diversity. He added that he had engaged in primarily academic discussions about this topic with one of Grady’s law teachers. They agreed that the subgroup comparisons punished diversity, which should raise questions about how the CCRPI system agreed with civil rights legislation and 14th amendment rights. Mr. Campbell added he was frequently frustrated that Grady was a focus school due to the performance of economically-disadvantaged students and students with disabilities, when Grady’s students in those subgroups outperformed those of the state.
Ms. Bray asked if Grady would be a focus school the following school year. Mr. Barnes responded that Grady was on track to get off the focus school list.
Ms. Bray asked Dr. Murray if he had received information about the requirement that special education teachers have multiple subject-area credentials. Dr. Murray responded that current special education teachers would be allowed to continue, but new special education teachers would need two content-area endorsements. He added that he had interviewed three special education teachers the previous weekend and invited two for follow-up interviews. One teacher has credentials in science and health & physical education. Dr. Murray expressed concern that the health & physical education endorsement may not count as a second area as it is not in a core subject. Ms. Steckl asked about other the status of other open positions. Dr. Murray stated that he would have call-back interviews the following day for a chemistry position, a physics position, and a math position. All of the candidates would be external hires. Ms. Steckl stated that Ms. Kate Carter, a part-time journalism teacher, was leaving. She asked how that position would be filled. Dr. Murray responded that filling the position was more complicated as it was part-time and had no benefits.
Ms. Bray stated that the bus lane project looked to be progressing. Dr. Propst responded that Mr. Jere Smith had informed him that the project was in the planning stage, but that it was progressing. Ms. Bray asked if the bus lane would be ready by August. Dr. Propst responded that the lane might be, but that it was not a certainty.
On the status of the engineering labs, Dr. Murray stated that Dr. Maze would be visiting. Dr. Murray believed the best course of action would be to create a portable unit next to the current set of trailers. He added that demolishing two sets of walls to make three classrooms an engineering lab was not a viable option. Ms. Steckl stated that some parents preferred that the area next to the trailers be used as a soccer or baseball practice field. She added that, since athletic director Mr. Jeff Beggs was retiring, the school could attempt to appropriate his office in the Henderson Stadium. Ms. Bray agreed. Dr. Murray said he would pursue that option, but that students coming from the far-side of the stadium could cause difficulties in inclement weather. Ms. Steckl asked about moving the football team’s facilities to the far side of the stadium and repurposing their space in the near-side. Ms. Bray said that some of the football area was used for physical education classes, such as weight lifting.
Ms. Steckl asked about the status of floating teachers. Dr. Murray said that Grady would have fewer floating teachers if the enrollment projection of 1,250 held. If autumn enrollment is in excess of that by a significant number, Grady will have floating teachers.
Dr. Propst said that he had submitted a request for gravel in the parking lot, but had not yet received a response. Ms. Steckl stated that AT&T had put up two new utility boxes on the corner of Charles Allen and 10th Street. She said that former school board member Ms. Cecily Harsch-Kinnane had told her that the APS Board had previously rejected requests for AT&T to place boxes at that location. Ms. Steckl wanted to inquire as to who approved the placement of the boxes, what arrangements had been made to facilitate that placement, and, if AT&T had paid for the use of the corner, where the funds had been deposited.
Ms. Bray reminded members that the Council would hold elections for two parent representative positions on the following Monday. Mr. Kish, being unopposed for his seat, would not have to stand for election. Dr. Murray added that he would also not be returning the following year. He added that the Council’s business representative, Ms. Angela Robinson, would also not be returning. Dr. Murray nominated Ms. Cecily Harsch-Kinnane, a former school board member and Grady parent, to replace Ms. Robinson. Mr. Campbell seconded the nomination. The council unanimously elected Ms. Harsch-Kinnane.
Mr. Campbell informed the council that he would return for another term as a teacher representative, but that his colleague, Ms. Blair, was resigning as a teacher representative. Dr. Murray stated that, at the next faculty meeting,the faculty would elect a teacher to complete her term.
Dr. Murray clarified a recent misunderstanding about academies and pathways. The change from academies to pathways was solely a nomenclature change. The structure of the academy system would not change. In addition to the four primary pathways, a variety of secondary pathways were available. These include, among others, foreign language, A.P., JROTC, and a new arts pathway. These pathways would not be in lieu of the primary pathways. Each student will still enroll in one of the four primary pathways. Ms. Bray asked if that had been communicated to parents. Dr. Murray said it had, but that the school would communicate that again due to recent confusion. Ms. Steckl added that a teacher had written the email that caused the confusion. Mr. Campbell stated that he was confused by that. He stated that, at a faculty meeting, Dr. Murray had discussed at length how the new system was identical to the old in all but name. He added that, other than the new art pathway, all of these pathways were previously available and encouraged, but that the school would not promote them more vigorously. Ms. Bray stated that more vigorous promotion would help the secondary pathways benefit all students, not just those who have prior knowledge of the pathways. Dr. Murray stated that via the school web site, the Grady Gram, and other forms of communication. He stressed that students would stay in academies which are overseen by an academy leader to ensure adequate student progress.
Ms. Bray raised an email request from a parent that the Council arrange for a listening session for the new principal selection process. She stated that the selection committee had two parent members, herself and PTSA president Ms. Christa Martin. Parents could email suggestions to them. She said the remaining teacher member would be chosen by the weekend. She suggested that parents could contact the parent-members of the selection committee for such input.
Ms. Bray raised a parent email suggesting Dr. Murray hold a session with community leaders to discuss the management of the school for the benefit of the future principal. Mr. Campbell stated that Dr. Murray, being aware of the request, could devise an effective way to communicate his institutional knowledge. He added that, since Dr. Murray was transferring to another post in the district, he would likely be available to the new principal.
Ms. Bray raised a request by a parent to adjust meeting times to later in the evening. Ms. Steckl stated that she felt that an earlier meeting time was more convenient for teacher members of the Council and central office personnel who are often guests. Mr. Campbell agreed, but suggested the Council table the issue of meeting times until a meeting with the new members convened in autumn. Ms. Bray tabled consideration of meeting times. Ms. Bray moved to set a meeting for 4 p.m. on Tuesday, August 12. Mr. Campbell seconded. The Council unanimously voted to set the meeting.
Ms. Bray moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. Ms. Bray adjourned the meeting at 5:41 p.m.
1