BOARD ACADEMIC COMMITTEE MEETING Merit School of Music 38 S. Peoria, Chicago, IL MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2015 MINUTES OPEN SESSION 6:25 P.M.

Transcription

1 BOARD ACADEMIC COMMITTEE MEETING Merit School of Music 38 S. Peoria, Chicago, IL Elluminate Link: Conference Line: , passcode then # MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2015 MINUTES Call to Order: OPEN SESSION 6:25 P.M. Time: 6:25 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL RENEE NASH COMMITTEE CHAIR ABSENT/PRESENT Board Members: Renee Nash, Chair Seth Harkins, Vice Chair La Shone Kelly Present Present Present Staff: Amy Biasbas Present Head of School Farland Jenkins Board Administrator Present 1. ROLL CALL 2. Introduce Guests: 3. Public Comments on Agenda Items None.

2 & Action Motion: 2 nd : Vote: 4. Accept Agenda Seth Harkins Accept the agenda. La Shone Kelly Voice Vote - Unanimous Aye, Motion Carries. : None. & Action Motion: 2 nd : Vote: 5. Technology Plan - Draft Seth Harkins Present the draft document to the full Board for the Board to authorize the plan and to authorize the administration to continue to improve the plan. La Shone Kelly Voice Vote - Unanimous Aye, Motion Carries. : The plan is a draft seeking feedback from the Board. The plan covers a 3 year period and summarizes the costs. The cost of keeping the technology up to date is important. The goals are based on a technology plan that was in place previous to this one. The plan is open to comments, feedback and different goals that the Board would like to add to the plan. Updates have been added to the chart based on computers that were received with Title I funding. There is one vendor for all of the hardware Virtual Technologies Group. The vendor is used by K12 so there is a discounted price. Costs for June, 2015 computers is $740. Costs for the next year would be approximately $970 per computer. Third year costs are projected to be $1,020. No other quotes were obtained from any other vendor. The Board has a concern with maintaining the inventory we currently have and determining if it is feasible to upgrade and then determine the life expectancy. The school still uses some computers from The upgrade is projected on possible costs. Technology becomes out of date within a 3 to 5 year time frame. It may be less costly to upgrade instead of purchasing new computers. The chart is not clear if the computers have outlived their usefulness. The chart is not a request to replace the computers. It shows the age of the computers. There need to be a total cost of operation of each machine. The plan should include a total cost of operation criteria. Consideration should be given on determination of when to replace

3 computers. Such consideration should be included in the plan under the rubric of total cost of operations. Personnel costs need to be considered. The maintenance of the computers costs should be made more observable. The school has a computer technician from K12. It is difficult to integrate professional development into the plan. A certain degree of training must be incorporated into the plan as technology changes. K12 provides adequate support for the technology used by teachers. It would be worthwhile to think about digital trends and include them in the plan. Management is encouraged to consider future mediums: hand-held, laptop, desktop, webinar based, etc. The plan should include dialogue about future trends so that it is recorded and can be considered in the future. Next school year there will be a technology committee of teachers at the school. The teachers are very good at sharing technology information. It is a challenge to predict the future roles of technology. The creativity of the organization should include how to research in terms of instructional effectiveness using technology. There are research tools that can identify and quantify research techniques. Management is encouraged to be creative in terms of how the research methodologies are executed. We won t be cutting edge as a school unless we integrate our own research in instructional practices. Some of the computers are used in the learning lab. Office computers listed on the computer upgrade chart are used in classrooms. The plan should include a rotation schedule of when old computers will be replaced. The plan should also show what happens to the old technology as new computers are purchased. Management is asked to consider this as they edit the plan. The pages of the plan document should be numbered. The staff development section needs to be shored up to include future trends. That document is a draft that is a discussion document. The plan is worthy of the Board as a whole to review. This is the first formal technology plan that the school has had. & Action Motion: 2 nd : 6. SPED Teacher Staffing La Shone Kelly Present the special education teacher hiring policy dated March 26, 2014 to the full Board for review and possibly rescinding the policy. Seth Harkins

4 Vote: Voice Vote - Unanimous Aye, Motion Carries. : Five topics: o Illinois State related teacher-student ratios. o Analysis of caseloads and costs o Allocation of CVCS special education teachers and paraprofessionals o Case manager duties o Projected SY 2016 teacher and case manager staff Special education students are grouped according to their least restrictive environment (LRE). o LRE 1 20% or less 15 students per teacher o LRE 2 21% - 60% - 10 students per teacher o LRE 3 60% or more 8 students per teacher There is not any particular teacher for each LRE because students are in various grade levels. Students cannot be grouped with more than 4 grade level differences. LRE 3 students can be in the same classes with LRE 1 students. Teachers are strategically grouped. There are 9 teachers. Paraprofessionals are assigned to students based on their individualized education program (IEP). There is currently not a caseload that has more than 15 students. There is not a teacher dedicated to the developmentally delayed group of students. Teachers are not assigned based on disabilities. When special education teachers are not in the building, they are supporting the students virtually. Students are educated in the general curriculum as defined by CVCS. General education teachers do co-teaching both at the learning center and virtually. Special education teachers who teach across multiple grade levels collaborate with multiple general education teachers. It is challenging for them to successfully modify the curriculum to allow their students to be successful in the co-teach model. The collaboration is most successful when the range of grade levels is reduced. Each collaborating special education teacher must work with both the learning center teacher and the virtual teacher at each grade level. There still does not appear to be a need for 10 teachers. There are 93 special education students and there are 10 teachers. The case manager position is not taken into account when counting the teachers. There are actually 9 teachers teaching. The case manager does not actually teach. The case manager handles the 504 plans and other functions. It needs to be made clear that one of the 10 positions is the case manager position and that there are 9 teachers who provide instruction. CPS does not require that the case manager carry a caseload but some case managers are also teachers.

5 Case managers receive stipends. Management should let the Board know that included in the 10 teachers, one of the teachers is the case manager. The case management position is essential. There is not always complete co-teaching in every single classroom. Co-teaching is dependent on what the special education students need. It may be more useful to consider teacher to instruction minutes rather than teacher to student ratios. CPS will only fund based on their established ratios. CVCS picks up the extra amount if the ratios are exceeded. The Board would not like to exceed the CPS allocation without clear, unique circumstances. As a school, CVCS may have to become a little more creative in the way students are assigned to teachers. All teachers should be certified in all disabilities. Individual teachers could be focused on individual disabilities. The school is not so unique in respect to teachers covering minutes virtually and in the classroom. When a request for a teacher is made to a Board, some schools require a justification. CVCS needs to be very explicit about why the position is necessary. The time taken for paperwork should also be taken into account. A great effort is made to have students included in a classroom setting rather than in a virtual setting. The paperwork issue is a universal issue. CPS does not take paperwork time into consideration when allocating staffing nor does the State. A time and motion study should be presented to the Board when a request for an additional teacher is made on the time of special education teachers over a period of time to demonstrate exactly what the time is being used for. Furthermore, we have to start to think differently about all resources. CPS is close to bankruptcy. These allocation numbers may not hold for very much longer. CVCS needs to be prepared for that possible reality. As a Board, as much information as possible should be provided. A minute by minute basis of what special teachers do should be recorded. Management currently has the ability to hire special education teachers without prior Board consent. The Committee needs to make a recommendation to the full Board that the policy should be rescinded given the new environment that the school is working within. The policy was to prevent being out of compliance. Management is hiring to stay in compliance. Evaluation of adding personnel is a very important decision. There should be good information in order to do that. The Board needs a good heads-up (advance notice) if there is consideration of a new position is made. The Board appreciates receiving the staffing reports on a regular basis. The Board can demonstrate fiscal responsibility if they can have detailed information that justifies adding new special education teachers. We must be able to demonstrate to CPS why the CVCS model is different.

6 The PARFF program with CPS is a pilot. The pilot did not end this past school year. CPS will be returning to the traditional student to teacher ratios. The Committee would like for management to consider all the teachers and how they are serving our students. The time and motion study would definitely help in scheduling. At certain times, management cannot predict how many students will be enrolling in the school. This is a universal problem and is not unique to CVCS. The Committee is aware of the special education teacher hiring policy and is considering rescinding it. If there is a need beyond what CPS has allocated, it needs to be reviewed by the full Board before it moves forward to CPS. The Committee may want to make the recommendation to send the special education teacher hiring policy to the full Board. The Committee is not interested in tying management s hands by rescinding the policy. Special education must be adaptable. We can sometimes be guilty of falling into bureaucracies when considering special education. We may sometimes lump students into disability categories. It may be helpful to think about the discourse on special education. K12 does not have a dedicated academic curriculum for specual education students. The special education population is growing year over year. K12 should create a set of materials that fit the special education students. There are alternatives but they are not dedicated to special education. All the curriculum that students access in special education is in the general education curriculum. The extent to which the special education students are unable to use the general education curriculum may be modified. The more the curriculum is modified, the more it should be removed from the general education population. That is the last resort to create an alternative curriculum. There are currently 4 students on an alternative curriculum. There are a number of modified lessons that are available for students with special needs on the same common core goals. An alternate virtual special education was found for special education students at the high school level. It was not effective for very self-contained students who need a lot of repetition. The definition of a legal general education is not defined. It is what students who do not have a disability are learning. The general education curriculum is a state standard, the standards that are set by the local school district, the written curriculum and the evaluation system that goes with that. Students are different and unique, making it difficult to have an identifiable term of curriculum. There is no such thing as a rational special education curriculum. Content must be important. The teachers differentiate the curriculum.

7 Lexia Learning is an example of common core differentiation at meeting standards at different levels. The special education team is encouraged to think about systematizing a curriculum framework around the metacognitive strategies that you teach students. Teachers share information on line. Unless what the teachers do is put on paper as a manifestation framework, this becomes a circular conversation. It might be useful for the special education team to create the framework so that it can be used as a reference starting point. That would allow the special education teachers to work in the individualized framework that they do and also have a way to represent it to a public and sub-publics that give the rationality in terms of curriculum. The biggest problem in the special education general education dialogue is that the special educators cannot talk with the same kind of curricular sophistication as the general education teachers can in terms of their framework. This is because special educators have not spent time creating an alternative instructional framework. This framework is more critical in light of the fact that CVCS has virtual special education. This would help justify what it is that special education teachers do and how they do it in a virtual situation The framework should start with management and move through the Board process. The special education manual would be a good place to include it. The University of Kansas has such a framework as an example. Management will perform the time and motion study. They will start the year off with the study and carry it through the year and visit it weekly to make sure that the tracking so that when a situation does arise such as an influx or something that cannot be predicted, then management will have that ready to go. The Committee recommends including the progress in the Head of School report each month. University of Kansas learning strategies would be a good place to start. This is the work of Schumacher. Their framework works well, especially for mild to moderate disabilities. The status of the last PARFF sent to CPS has no response. It has been viewed in IMPACT but a response hasn t been received. Since there are only 2 weeks left in the school year, they may not grant it. Management will update the status by the next Committee meeting. & Action Motion: 2 nd : Vote: 7. Professional Development Seth Harkins Request the Academic Committee engage in a Board discussion about the need for a professional development policy for CVCS for the school year. La Shone Kelly No Vote, motion to be amended.

8 Amended Motion: 2 nd : Vote: Seth Harkins Request the CVCS Board create a professional development policy that reflects a philosophy of professional development and incentives for faculty and staff. La Shone Kelly Voice Vote - Unanimous Aye, Motion Carries. : The professional development ties into the Board strategic plan and teacher professional development goals. The process includes sharing the Board strategic plan with the teachers. The administration develops scorecard objectives based on the plan. Teachers create 3 individual goals to be worked on through the year. Teachers are required to attend 2 professional developments (PD) that address their goals. The ideal is for specific PD to enhance the teachers meeting their goals. Some of the goals are met with the PD but the PD should support their goals which would then support the Board strategic plan. Teachers submit a form to their direct report before they obtain approval for PD that outlines the goal that it is supporting, how it is supporting it, expected outcome, cost and how will it be shared with the staff. The administration can disapprove a PD. Teachers receive $750 per year as a PD stipend. They are allowed to attend pretty much any PD they would like to attend as long as the PD is related to scorecard goals, school goals and the Board goals. Teachers can also attend PD on their own at their own expense. There are only 2 teachers this year that have not used the full $750. There will be a better tracking process next year. The Board is concerned that teachers do not feel that anything is prohibiting them from using their PD funds and that management is supportive of helping them find ways to use them. PD costs in excess of the $750 must be picked up by the teachers. The purpose of the Committee s request for the information was to make sure that accountability is in place. It is clear that there is accountability and management is to be commended for that. Teachers have requested in the past to use the $750 for college courses, endorsements or certifications. Insperity gives teachers $1,500 for a program that goes toward a degree and $500 for taking a course. In the past management has designated the $750 for working towards teachers goals. There is not a Board policy for how PD is determined. The Committee would like to continue to see the dedicated $750 for PD to ensure that teachers get professional development that they would not normally receive if they were just taking coursework toward a degree or endorsement. Management prefers that the PD funds be used for a specific goal for a

9 particular year rather than endorsements that may not apply to those goals. Receiving course credits at CVCS does not move teachers up in pay scale lanes. I there is not a PD policy that articulates the philosophy and addresses some of the issues of what the funds get allocated to, there will be a circular situation. The discussion of a PD policy would also include tuition reimbursement. PD incentives could include tuition reimbursement. There is no control on the Insperity tuition reimbursement arrangement. Tuition reimbursement is part of the benefits package offered by Insperity and the Committee should revisit to determine if the benefit could be changed. As of today, tuition reimbursements come from Insperity and CVCS does the PD. There are teachers who are currently requesting tuition reimbursement. The Committee would like administration to bring recommendations. Tuition reimbursement has never been granted. The Committee suggests that administration continue to operate as they have been operating until the policy has been established. 8. Foreign Language Pilot Program The Committee requested management present data to support the program continuing just with the kindergarten cohort. The performance is presented based on that request: o Twenty two kindergarten students have participated. o The majority enrolled in Spanish. o One student completed 31% of the course. o All other students completed between zero and ten percent for a total of 18 lessons out of 180. o Six students completed zero lessons. These students will be the first graders that this course will be mandatory for a starting benchmark was needed. Hiring a teacher and getting materials for on-boarding was previously discussed as part of the plan initiative. There has been one year to put a plan in place to have the kindergarteners take the courses as part of their curriculum. The Committee will leave it to management to decide what that curriculum will look like because the Board has already voted on it. The Board requests that if management has issues to provide the Board with feedback. The program calls for the students to have exposure from grades K through 8. In the 2 nd year, this year s kindergarteners will have mandatory Spanish for the 1 st year. We will not benchmark or decide whether it has been a success until it has been made mandatory. It will not count against the overall grade average because it is a pilot program. The Board refers management to the strategic plan for further clarification. Staff requests if the Board requests all 1 st graders have mandatory foreign language or just the students that were exposed to it in the 1 st year. Staff requests if this can be discussed until it is made it mandatory. The plan has already been made mandatory and is in the strategic plan. Sixteen out of approximately 40 kindergarteners participated.

10 The data was to show which language was favorable so that one language would be taught. The program is a 3 year pilot. It may be dropped next year. The program will not be an elective for the kindergarteners next year. Spanish will be a part of their core learning but will not impact their passing of the 1 st grade. The pilot is to determine if the program is cost-effective. The students will get a grade on their report cards but it will not impact their grade average. The Board will review the strategic plan to determine if a position control form should be submitted and get back to management before the full Board meeting. The way the plan was set up, all of the steps should have been stated. The idea may have been to use the high school teacher who teaches Spanish to monitor the program. Management was charged with developing the curriculum. The learning coach handbook requires students to have 5 hours of instruction time. The pilot will be monitored to determine if it is feasible. According to the pilot, management should have identified the cost of the teacher or how to utilize the existing teacher. The Committee would like for management to present the next steps for implementation of the foreign language plan at the full Board meeting on June 29th. This item does not require a formal motion, it is a request. 9. Proposed/Projected Staffing for next school year The current year staffing is 39.8 FTE s. For FY 2016, academic support teachers are increased by 2 FTE s. A 0.5 FTE ELL teacher is proposed. Everything else is projected to remain the same. Each position is outlined with years of experience and years at CVCS. The 5 th grade teacher position is going to be back-filled because it is going to be an internal move to a different current position. The 2 Title I positions are being proposed in the program design that the Board has not seen yet. The 5 th grade position is moving that person to a different position that s already approved. Management does not want to make that announcement because it hasn t really been formally announced and this is an open meeting. In general a 5 th grade position is being to a different position. There is nothing that prevents the meeting from saying it. The names of the personnel are not being mentioned. That would need to be done in closed session. The problem is that there is only one 5 th grade teacher. Everyone knows who the 5 th grade teacher is. The teachers are employees of the Board. When management asks the Board to make these types of (staffing) decisions the Board wants to be as informed as possible.

11 By law a person cannot be identified by name in an open meeting and that has not occurred. A Committee member requests that the Head of School forward the information to that Committee member in some other format. The member would like to know which positions are going to be moving or which positions might become open. It could be worded to say a K-5 teacher is moving to the special education department. The Committee is not attempting to have management divulge sensitive information. There is 1 person moving from 5 th grade into a different position in special education. The high school Spanish position is back-filled and has already been approved by the Board. It will be back-filled with a new person because there was no one certified for that. The other back-fill position will be open because the person has turned in their resignation as of last week in special education. Management is proposing; as a part of the program plans two Title I positions if funding is received and the Board approves the program design. Two academic support teachers will be hired to work on-site. The only new position that would add money to the bottom line is a compliance position which is the ELL part-time teacher. Management is requesting 1 new part time position for the ELL position. If Title I funding is received, 2 staff members will be added. The problem with using Title I money for staff is that it is not guaranteed that the position will be a permanent position. At one point in time, Title I money could not be used for positions. Management received a document when they met with CPS that clearly defines Title I spending rules. The new program design will include the staffing. The document should be included when the program design is presented to the Board. A Committee member is concerned that one teacher who is under the advanced learner is virtual. There is only one advanced learner teacher. The position is academic support teacher. This works the exact same way that a virtual teacher would work. The position is their math teacher for that position. The discussion will be tabled for a closed session. The position is different from the K12 virtual high school teachers. The high school K12 (IST) teachers hold class connect sessions, but because they are virtual teachers that work for K12 those sessions can be any time of the day. CVCS teachers are required to hold class connect sessions Monday through Friday from 8:00 to 4:00 when the school is operating. As long as any virtual teacher holds an Illinois teaching certification is allowable. K12 teachers are not required to hold class connects. They are required to communicate back to students within 72 hours. CVCS teachers must return feedback within 24 hours.

12 The CVCS teacher does all homeroom responsibilities; report cards, grades, follow-up, progress, etc. The IST teachers are auxiliary teachers for the subject whereas the CVCS teacher is for the students. An IST teacher is like a paid tutor that just does teaching within a content course. CVCS teachers do everything that has to do with teaching. A closed session is already scheduled for the general Board meeting The projected staffing for next year is raised by 3.5 FTE s. The projected staffing for next year is all relative. 10. Special Education Therapy Contract The occupational therapy contract is with Presence Learning. The OT was lost on April 22nd. There were no services, CPS did not get respond to if they would provide a backfill. In order to meet the caseload of 8 students that require OT services for their IEP a short term contract was contracted with Presence Learning. They are well known in the virtual realm of providing virtual services to students in other K12 schools. They come highly recommended and are working with CPS to provide services. This was a hire to stay in compliance. The total contract amount is $2,958. The contract is less than $5,000 and requires no Board action. June 16 th is the last day of school. Most schools end the practice of related services a week before. CVCS goes to the very last day. There are meetings through the 19 th because technically CPS is still in session because of snow days. CVCS does not observe snow days because it is virtual. : 11. Public Comments None. & Action: Motion: 2nd: Vote: Time 12. Adjournment Seth Harkins Adjourn the meeting. La Shone Kelly Voice Vote - Unanimous Aye, Motion Carries. 8:46 P.M.

13 Respectfully Submitted: Secretary These minutes have been posted on Chicago Virtual Charter School's Web Page -