PERA JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Keeneyville Elementary School District 20

The Joint Committee convened on February 9, 2016 at 8:30 AM

Present: Jana Stevens, Mike Glosson, Deb Guzan, Maggie Etherington, Kim Orellana, Joanne Champagne, Craig Barringer, Emmie Pawlak, John Gustafson, Michael Connolly, Marjorie Cave

Agenda Item / Action Taken
Welcome / The committee reviewed Core Values/Team Norms.
The committee reviewed, edited, and approved the January 12, 2016 meeting minutes.
Team members that attended the DROE Showcase shared highlights and new learning related to PERA.
DECISION: Include language in the plan that the Joint Committee will continue to meet and can, with consensus, make changes in components of the plan in the future.
Teacher Professional Development Update / The committee reviewed staff questions asked during the January Institute day and the professional development survey results. Discussion included how to share the results of staff surveys. It was suggested that a summary of the results are shared with staff during the next institute day. To date, JC members have been referencing survey results during various meetings. This format seems to get the word out, but the committee wants to make sure the teachers have all the information they need to know about student growth and the work of the JC. The committee reviewed the goals for the March Institute Day – increase understanding of writing student growth plans; using formative assessments to determine progress towards growth targets; matching summative scores with targets set; and addressing staff questions gathered in January.
DECISION: Consider staff survey data and questions in planning for March professional development. Develop a district FAQ document to address some of the staff questions.
Review on the status of the piloting process / The committee reviewed the documents used in the student growth pilot. Members of the JC participating in the pilot shared their experiences with the process. Several individuals piloting mentioned that since they were on the committee the process didn't seem that difficult. There was common agreement that the forms should be revisited for manageability and relevance. Other issues included:
§  The process is very time consuming. One MS pilot teacher spent 15 hours tracking all of his classes. The committee responded that one class is enough of a sample.
§  Setting goals has been challenging. One question being asked is how to address behavior concerns in setting targets. Should this be discussed during midpoint check-in so that targets may be altered? The committee considered the need to include an "other issues" column in the student roster.
§  Talk about attendance: Could teacher attendance influence student growth results and how much contact time a teacher may have with students.
§  Student identification and confidentiality: Should there be an ability to remove the student name column?
§  A discussion on the use of various types of formative assessments - formats of pre and post-tests; and the use of formative assessment throughout the process to gather data for the midpoint check-in.
§  The time frame for collecting data: Is six weeks potentially too short of a time to measure growth?
DECISION: The plan needs to define flexibility to adjust timelines and rosters as a collaborative discussion between the evaluator and teacher.
DECISION: Pilot feedback forms should be resent to teachers participating in the pilot as a reminder that they should submit the form.
DECISION: Reworking forms will be part of the next PERA JC Meeting on March 8, 2016.
Review Status of Teacher Evaluation Plan / The committee reviewed the work completed at the end of the last meeting that included a list of areas still needing to be addressed in the teacher evaluation plan. The group went through the plan section by section.
Draft incomplete section of the plan / Small groups worked throughout the afternoon to complete outstanding items in the plan. As the group reported out revisions to the plan, those areas were highlighted on the document. The committee will revisit these sections of the plan for consensus during the March meeting.
DECISION: The committee agreed to omit Appendix G (SLO Review Tool) from the final document. Appendix H (Student Growth Plan Checklist) and I (Qualified Evaluator Student Growth Plan Checklist) will be reviewed at the next meeting as some appendix documents could be eliminated.
Talking Points / The Committee:
·  Approved the January 2016 Joint Committee Meeting Minutes;
·  Discussed ways to improve two-way communication between the Joint Committee and the staff;
·  Reviewed the professional development staff surveys and questions from January 15, 2016 which will be used to guide planning for the March Institute Day;
·  Shared highlights and new learning from the DuPage Student Growth Showcase and noted the various areas that District 20 is ahead of other districts in planning;
·  Discussed the status of the piloting process and identified areas going well and areas of concern; and
·  Reviewed and continued to refine the student growth component of the evaluation plan.

PERA Joint Committee Meeting adjourned 2:25 PM