State Board of Education Meeting
October 28, 2014
Below you will find the Executive Director’s report on the proceedings at the State Board of Education Meeting. Side comments from the E.D. have been bolded and are in parentheses. Feel free to respond to those comments or any other portions in the report with questions, comments, or critiques.
Present—Herschend, Still, Shields, Wallace, Lenz, Martin, Driskill
Absent—Jones (arrived later in the meeting)
President Herschend opens the meeting. He notes art work on the walls from Ft. Osage and praises all arts teachers. (Thank you very much!) Herschend reads a statement about the search for the new Commissioner. This is going to be an open search. Comments on the characteristics for a new commissioner will be accepted. He says the Board unanimously agreed to this statement.
Member reports—Martin: Nat’l Alliance of Black School educators meets in KC this fall; Lenz: Attended Riverview Gardens, MSBA, Normandy, various meetings in a long list; Herschend visited the Wolf School-- 48 5th graders apply throughout the Springfield district to get into this school, it is a cooperative program with Bass Pro, the emphasis is learning through a focus on the environment, Mercy Hospital is also beginning a similar program based on medicine. No other reports.
NASBE—Still notes committees that are meeting to craft NASBE policy
Closed Motions—Read and moved and passed. (Big Surprise! No actually, no surprise.)
Consent Agenda—Moved and passed
Resolution on Teacher of the Year—Chris Holmes of Hazelwood, a Journalism teacher, is this year’s TOY for Missouri; Herschend praises the speech that Holmes gave at the banquet last night. One concept that he especially liked was “illogical patience,” the ability to be patient and supportive of students, when it makes no sense at all to do so. (A very useful idea for all educators.)
Agenda Item E—Seven Essential Principles Alignment to Evaluation System. Note the link to the presentation to the Board below.
Basically this is about how the schools in the state are doing in adopting a teacher evaluationsystem that meets the principles that have been set forward by DESE. The report notes a number of strengths and several weaknesses in the progress of adoption. Student growth measures are becoming a part of the evaluation system, although not officially a factor until next year. Board members have lots of questions about the Teacher Ratings chart. The levels on the chart do not equate tothe principles but are rather the ratings of highly effective, effective, minimally effective, ineffective, etc. There arequestions about the difference between achievement and growth measures. Driskill asks why a Missouri model was developed when a U of Missouri model (NEE) already existed. (NOTE to all readers—Driskill seems to be the board member willing to represent university teacher training programs and challenge the DESE staff for justifications on their decisions.)Staff responds, explaining that the NEE model is essentially the same as the Missouri model. In fact, Nicastro points out, NEE was developed off the Missouri model and simply includes electronic tools and measurements. The school districts must pay to utilize it whereas the DESE model is provided free to schools. (OK, friends, those who have experience in these models, is that an accurate depiction?) Herschend asks if there is a huge number of no evaluations in the state? The staff reply is that the data is self-reported and so their feeling is that evaluation takes place in almost all schools, but that cannot be confirmed by state data. Herschend asks what difference does it make? How effective is the system at evaluation? He says the eval system ought to move the right people on to the bus and wrong ones off. Obviously, he is looking for the impact on teacher hiring, training, and firing
Mike Jones arrives now.
Katnick--what we’re trying to see is if there is a correlation between this evaluation system and student growth. Herschend does finally mention that the use of the system could be a coaching question rather than a smpleretain or fire choice. The evaluation system could be used to identify those who need help as well as those who just need to leave. Still—talks about the bias within high income vs low income schools/students. Those teachers who teach in affluent areas look very good, while those in the less fortunate areas struggle to look even adequate. Jones—measuring for student growth has some problems. Growth may not be enough, he says, teaching is a combination of science and art. (Although he tends to ramble on, I’m viewing Jones as more and more, one of our strongest allies.) He says community is important, the home is important. Herschend concurs with Jones, but brings the evaluation system back to teachers and administrators. The system has to focus on them and their performance, he notes. Jones worries that we will think that teacher and administrator evaluation will solve all our problems. Staff notes that teacher training on using student growth in educator evaluation is essential. Workshops on that subject are being offered now. The information is on their website now.
Agenda Item F—Future teachers preparation. See report presented to the board below.
Hairston talks about the Pearson connection and Educator Testing Service out of Princeton, NJ. He says the main reason they are reporting is that in December the board will be asked to set the cut lines on the tests. The motion will also include a provision to revisit, in July, 2015, the impact of those cut lines on the numbers of teachers receiving certification. Still—asks about the contract with Pearson and the cost. Staff responds that DESE pays nothing. Revenue is generated through the students taking the test. The cost is $77 per student, in general, higher amounts from some certification areas. Driskill—lots of feedback that the universitiesstill don’t like the process, Drisill continues with questions about when will the advisory process end and implementation begin. The staff answer it won’t, input from users will continue to be important. Driskill worries that the real aim is to force out some perceived marginal teacher prep programs. (Small colleges and universities beware!) The staff answer is that is not an aim but possibly an outcome. They note that it might be a single certification within an overall good educator training program. Driskill then asks about Pearson and fees for the various tests and exams. Still—how many will take these tests each year. Staff answers that elementary education is the biggest and it will be 1,900 to 2,000. Staff notes strength across the board in the scores that will be necessary to pass. Herschend--this is a big uptick in rigor. It used to be the PRAXIS, but this is a refinement and increase in expectation for the prospective teacher. There will be complaints about this, but it is critical to Missouri’s success. Wallace—asks if this is about content. He notes his experience (former teacher/principal/superintendent/state legislator) was that failing teachers never failed because of subject level knowledge, but rather because of people skills problems. Staff talks about the personality tests that are given early in a student’s training. Jones—extraordinary teacher and ordinary technology is preferable to the opposite. We have to get better at turning out great teachers. He continues that we need to use new standards to evaluate great universities. Martin—We have to be about results: do the universities turn out great teachers? Herschend—notes that we must concern ourselves with two tracks, both teachers and administrators. (NOTE TO ALL—It is pretty clear that the Board has doubts about the effectiveness of the systems being proposed by DESE staff)
Break
Agenda Item I Normandy schools Collaborative Report and Approval
The testimony is straight down the power point presentation above and is presented mostly by Dr. Ty McNichols. Head of the Collaborative Board, Charles Pearson and the DESE transition oversight officer, Peter Kachris, also present. Questions follow.
Wallace—what are you doing to encourage attendance? Results? McNichol’s answer-- rewards systems, parent contact to encourage them to get their kids to school, social workers to houses. Wallace—Repeats his request for results?McNichol’s answer is that it is leveling out now since the beginning of the year when it was in pretty bad shape. Wallace likes the incentive system, likes the outreach to parents, hopes that teachers are creating engagement in the classroom. He notes that is a key part of the solution. Driskill—praises the plan, wants to talk about reality. He references press reports about dissatisfaction among parents and teachers. What about the overwhelmed teachers perception of this plan? McNichol’s answer—issues are definitely there. However, this is a district in transition. Rehiring entire staff in July was an opportunity, but also a problem. At that time of the year not the best talent was available in the applicant pool. 48% staff is new, 12 have left of the over 200 hired. Frustration exists with lack of tools for teachers to be effective but they’re working on it. It will take time. President of the Board Pearson talks about professional development piece. It is there, but he has heard the dissatisfaction.He notes that things are starting to happen that will improve morale. Kachris notes the article in the paper on the meeting with parents and teachers and that the picture painted by it may have been darker than the reality. He notes specific problems with the middle school and talks about the two teachers he observed and their successes and challenges. He notes that administrators are also fairly new and learning on the job. The elementary experience shows progress but some other areas are necessary to improve. He reminds the board to remember it is a 3 year process. Don’t expect immediate results. Lenz—his observations have been very hopeful. The most discouraging thing he saw was the gym class, but the teacher was overwhelmed. Because of the lack of substitutes two extra classes of students had been sent to him to supervise. He appreciates the candid answers and asks what about substitute teachersa? The answer--Kelly Services will be providing subs. Normandy is working with them on how to work with urban children. Jones—He poses a challenge to the panel, saying he is in the bad news business. “ I want to know the problems because excrement runs downhill and it tends to impact the people in the trenches most.” So, he wants to know what 3 things did SBoE/DESE get wrong? What in the next ten weeks will tell us we are progressing? His question and commentary goes on for quite a while leaving us asking what does he really want to know? Answer on the 3 things wrong question—the whole new model was a problem, getting curriculum and instruction is important, but we missed in terms of classroom management and especially classroom management in the urban environment. The flipped classroom concept was a real challenge because it was THE plan rather than PART OF A plan. Board President Pearson thinks these problems are being addressed. Over the next 10 weeks he notes we now have data from the starting point to measure achievement. He feels discipline should improve. Martin—asks McNichols to also comment on this, McNichols—ditto (Laughter) He says he doesn’t want to blame anyone. Jones says stop the politeness and be frank about it.McNichols still manages to be non-accusatory saying there were not intentional problems but unintentionally DESE created a bureaucracy that was not clearly structured in terms of chain of command and decision making. So there were some delays, some uncertainty about responsibility built into the early days. He noted the article in the paper inferred the problems were 20 years in the making, but he was only there for 2 years. He was trying to make changes but that takes time, He also noted they lost a lot of good teachers who were passionate about Normandy, but who felt disrespected. He thought DESE needed to listen to them. Driskill—appreciates the frankness. He asks about the community. What over the years can you do to incease the chances of success for the Normandy students? Actually, expand the question-- what can state governement do? Quick and direct answer from Kachris—First, all state govts need to pay attention to those in poverty and especially their children. He says now we are trying to educate every single kid. Blaming the victim cannot work. He worked in segregated schools and knows their problems, but community made a difference then. He says the single greatest problem is language. A rich vocabulary and emphasis on storytelling is necessary for kids to achieve. Perhaps not even worry about math for a while and concentrate on language activities. McNichols answer—fix the tuition rate, because we are still paying varied levels to different districts. He asks what sense does it make for the most impoverished district in the state to pay the richest district (Clayton)at their rate of tuition? Expand the community compact, he says, we have the companies, but need to work on the classroom management and that takes everyone. Longevity is necessary, too. Leaders and staff need to stay in place. Board President Pearson—influence legislature to provide resources for professional development. He warns that all decisions need to be made within the context of the social problems now existing in North St. Louis. The indictment, or lack of it, of Officer Wilson may have a huge impact soon, Still—agreed that more resources will be needed. (NOTE—This issue of poverty’s impact on schools always resonates with Still)Hershend—asks about Peter Kachrisname pronunciation. He gives up and calls him Dr. Peter.(Laughter) He asks how to make the vocabulary enrichment happen. Kachris responds that this kind of emphasis is not a brand new program. But there are lots of new teachers who need training in it. He notes that there areimpoverished vocabulary problems in the home too. McNichols--mentionsFrayer system on vocabulary could be instituted. (We are suddenly in a brainstorming session) Jones says STEM may not like this, but the math may not be as important,as the language is. He argues that reading fiction is vital. Reading is the key to the imagination and imagination is the key to success. Herschend asks McNichols--where will you be by the end of the year? He replies that he expects the district score to rise from 10 points to above 12. That is a very modest improvement. Herschend notes the plan is excellent, but it is only a plan now. Implementation is now key. (FINAL NOTE—Jones is a natural ally for us and also for those who worry about the over emphasis on nonfiction in Common Core.) Motion is made to approve the plan. Martin mentions the use of graphic novels. He says teachers have to like the kids and the kids have to like the teachers. Illogical patience, a line from the teacher of the year remarks from last night, is referenced once again. Jones argues that consequences for the 21 year old is appropriate, but young kids need to be allowed to make mistakes, Wallace chimes in about a middle school and the environment there. Jones waxes philosophic about the Apostle Paul and his discussion of love. The motion carries.
The Board adjourns to closed session.
I had to leave to get back to Kansas City for the World Series and so was not there to hear the comments and questions from the afternoon. I have cut and pasted the presentations for each of the items this afternoon.`
Agenda Item G Financially Stressed Districts
Agenda Item H Governmental Update
Agenda I item J Top 10 by 20
Agenda Item L LaSalle Charter Report
Agenda Item M Order of Rulemaking on Scholarships
I’ve also included for you a summary of the testimony at the Public Hearing on the Missouri Learning Standards. I am not sure of the spelling of all the names of those who gave testimony or, in some cases, their various connections or representations of groups.
Public Testimony on SB 1490October 27, 2014 11:00 am
Board members in attendance: Herschend, Still, Martin, Lenz, Driskill, Shields, Wallace Absent: Jones
Herschend reads the legalese about the way things go in the hearing. Each person gets 3 minutes, no question and answer will probably be possible.
Work group reports are 3 minutes each, that should leave an hour for public comments.
Science K-5 Alexandra Solzman—membership problems continue—made a point to work with 6-12 science committee, decided to review the GLE’s currently in place, beefing up the 2008 standards, adding an element of engineering, still under review, not much tension, not much on common core, it is about Missouri Children