Board of Education Curriculum Committee Meeting

January 21, 2009

ATTENDANCE: Shirley Mosby, Chair; Bruce Kimmel

OTHERS: Anthony Daddona, Jean Evans, Rosa Murray, Board of Education Chair

CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Mosby called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

September 25, 2008

The following changes were noted:

Page 1, under ATTENDANCE: please move “Rosa Murray” to the OTHER category

Page 1, under OTHERS: please add “Jamie Friedlander”

Page 3, and all occurrences thereafter: please change all references to “Janey” and/or “Jamie” to “Mrs. Friedlander”.

Page 3, paragraph 2, line 3: please change “called the Special Educations Resource Center, which” to “called the State Educations Resource Center, which”

Page 4, and all occurrences thereafter: please change all references to “CRIC” to “CREC” ** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. ** MS. MOSBY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

October 16, 2008

The following changes were noted:

Page 1, under OTHERS and throughout the document: please correct “Thomas Suich” to “Thomas Suech” and “Mr. Suich” to “Mr. Suech”

** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 16, 2008 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. ** MS. MOSBY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

DISCUSSION

Curriculum Revision Schedule

Mr. Daddona came forward and reviewed the list of materials that were included in the Curriculum Board packet. He explained that when the curriculum is revised, there is a year for evaluation, a year for development and three years for implementation. The schedule included in the packet goes up to 2014. He reviewed the details concerning ELL, which has been in the implementation stages since 2008-2009 and is continuing at this time. Science and Business are being evaluated currently, while World Languages, Physical Education, and Art are respectively in Year 2 and Year 3 of implementation.

Mr. Kimmel asked about the State participation and Mr. Daddona explained that the State has announced that there would be a two year freeze on the cost involved. He added that it would not have an impact on the curriculum because one of the requirements is that all students take algebra and geometry. The impact may be in districts that have to hire more teachers.

Language Arts

Mr. Daddona stated that the literacy goals for language arts were currently under evaluation. He then distributed copies of an update to the members of the Commission.

Ms. Jean Evans came forward, greeted the Committee, and presented the update. She reviewed the four goal levels, which include insuring comprehension, instruction in research practices and coaching the staff. Arrangements have been made for thirty of the high school level teachers to receive “Creating Independence Through Student Owned Strategies” training. This will equip teachers in instructing the students on how to question texts for better understanding when reading and other tools to increase comprehension.

Mr. Kimmel asked about the previous training. Ms. Evans said that she had been reading the District Growth Plan created by her predecessor. She then gave a quick overview of the previous program as she understood it. She pointed out that the department had undergone a redefinition of their role before she arrived and that previously, there had been no programs that would coach their colleagues prior to the start of the more recent training. Mr. Kimmel asked about the previous data collection that had taken place. Ms. Evans said that the logs were there and EIPs had been completed as needed.

Ms. Evans pointed out that some literacy specialist preferred to work directly with the students, while others wanted to teach their colleagues how to increase student reading comprehension, so that the classroom teachers would be providing all the students in their classes with the same type of skills. She then reminded everyone that the State grant which provided the funding for these programs has been eliminating. This will remove the State determination of how the literacy specialist allocate their time.

The logs that the District has for the students are all very complete, however the Growth Plan indicates this goal should be having the specialists using the training modules to allow the specialists to coach others. The logs will be expanded to include data on the training that the teacher has received and the data on the specialist’s providing coaching to other faculty members. Research and data will also be recorded on the various training components received by the specialists. Mr. Kimmel had several detailed questions about the logs and how the information is prioritized.

Ms. Evans then reviewed how the CALI model would influence the reading literacy program and informed the Committee that identified potential subcommittee members in all thirteen grade levels, K-12. There are veterans and new hires, reading specialist and non-reading specialists along with someone from ELL. Selected members will form a subcommittee and received training immediately. Professional development training is already being delivered to the teachers in the elementary grades.

Ms. Evans then reviewed Literacy Goal Three with the Committee. She explained that the standard that was being used was from the DRA-2 assessments because the State of Connecticut uses them. This also means that the assessments meet national standards. A K-5 assessment plan is being developed and tested. The results will be analyzed to determine what additional items should be added to the curriculum to address any issues that Norwalk students may have. Discussion then followed about the collection of data and how it would be analyzed.

The fourth Literacy Goal is to insure that that programs and other goals are utilized so that all students receive instruction in these areas. Ms. Evans then reviewed how this would be done and assured the Committee that she would be asking the literacy goal subcommittee to review Goal One and Goal Four. She added that she would also ask them to consider combining Goal One and Four into a single objective to reduce the number of fragmented actions in order to create more cohesion in the plan.

In conclusion, Ms. Evans thanked the Board for having created this position in the District.

Study Halls

Mr. Daddona distributed copies of a report on study halls from each high school and the number of study halls by period to the Committee. He indicated that Mr. Kimmel had some concerns about the number of study halls and that by evaluating the requirements set by the Board, the number of study halls could be examined. A chart was included in the packet that indicated the number of students and the number of credits that they carried. Mr. Daddona added that he had requested the counselors at the high schools to indicate the reasons why individual students might not have sufficient credits. Mr. Daddona then reviewed these various reasons with the Committee.

Mr. Kimmel objected to the percentage of students that had numerous study halls. Mr. Daddona reviewed the rotating eight period schedule for Norwalk High School and how this affected the number of students in study hall. Mr. Kimmel said that he felt that an average of one study hall per day was the target. More than that was excessive. Mr. Daddona pointed out that Brien McMahon had reduced the number of study halls by creating math and English resource centers where the students go for tutorials. While NHS has the same resource centers, the students are not required to go to them. Discussion followed about how this situation arose.

Mr. Daddona pointed out that there were two scheduling periods in operation at the two high schools. Scheduling conflicts need to be looked at individually and that with the two distinct scheduling processes, the evaluation is more difficult. Mr. Kimmel said that the District needs to figure out how to solve this problem. Ms. Mosby said that she would like to have the housemasters work on this problems because she is concerned about the students who have two or three study halls per day. This means that during those times, the students are not receiving instruction. She then said that the District needs to reduce the number of study halls because the students are in school to learn. Mr. Daddona said that the number of credits that Seniors have to take automatically gives them one and a half study halls. Ms. Mosby said that she was not as concerned about the Senior, but the lower classmen.

CREC Report Update

Mr. Daddona indicated that pages 49-50 of the CREC report were included in the Committee’s packet along with a letter from Brian Cannain, who was assigned to evaluate Norwalk Public School for Special Education and the Spectrum course. A meeting with Mr. Cannain took place on January 9th regarding the issues relating to the CREC report and what actions would be needed in order to correct the concerns in the CREC report.

Mr. Daddona stated that it had been recommended that the District work with a consultant regarding the forms. Ms. Evans came forward and displayed the three ring binder containing manual that the State provided for modification by the District. This modified manual will be printed and contains the Policies and Procedures for the entire District for Special Education.

Ms. Evans said that a process is underway to schedule training, which will start after the printed manuals are completed. The principals will be the first group to receive training. The composition of the following training groups is still being discussed. Mr. Daddona said that once a procedure manual is in place, there will be more consistency in the approach to Special Education.

Each building now has an identified contact person who is responsible for insuring that the procedures are followed by the staff. It is vitally important that the Special Education Department and the regular education program join together and work together to provide the best possible educational environment for all the students. Now all the meetings at Central Office are joint meetings with both the Special Ed staff and the regular staff for problem solving.

Ms. Evans said that one of the recommendations was to utilize the consultant to work with the faculty on this goal. Mr. Cannain mentioned this in his evaluation. Ms. McDonald was also clear on this when she issued her evaluation results. Mr. Daddona said that this was a major structure change in dealing with all students. Many of the decision making processes have become decentralized. In order to recentralize the decision making process will require major changes. He then gave several examples of how this would affect the current practices.

Mr. Kimmel asked for clarification on consistency and how this would be implemented. Discussion then followed.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Mosby adjourned the meeting at _________________

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon Soltes Telesco Secretarial Services

Category: Committee Minutes