Transition Team Meeting s2

Transition Team Minutes October 20, 2010 4:30pm – 6:00pm 900 Grant Street—NW HR Conference Room

Attendees: Henry Roman, Margaret Bobb, Cal Hosman, Michael Lund, Don Gilmore, Bart Muller, David Hart, Greta Martinez, Dori Claunch Absent: Rob Gould, Jason Martinez, Tracy Dorland Scribe: Deb Cunningham Guests: Chris Wright, Ann Christy, Shirley Scott, Ed Wiley

Topic I. Request from Henry for Deb to send agenda and attachments to the Transition Team the Friday before the meeting so that TT members have time for review. II. Review agenda III. Action Items  Approved agenda and minutes from last meeting.  ProComp Trust funding for Teacher/student data mapping work Background from Chris Wright: Project under the Gates grant to map teachers to students. Necessary because system doesn’t match teachers for non-CSAP subjects. Doesn’t handle alternate schedules, doesn’t deal with intervention teachers. Current process is for DoTS to deal with one off situations as they arise. Project includes root cause analysis before developing solution. Solution includes a desire to track students to teachers for all subject areas.  Do this within existing systems.  Doesn’t put extra burden school secretaries or take time away from instructional time.  RevGen hired because of previous work w/ ProComp. Work costs $127,500. It is important to ProComp. Asking for funding from the Trust. Discussion: Don Gilmore – This benefits teachers on master salary schedule. Don noted that work funded from the Trust must be in accordance with the ProComp Trust Agreement – Section 4.1.1. Don reported that the projected revenue (Trust) for the FY 2010-2011 is $27,584,217. Based on the projected revenue, the 5% cap for the TT is at $1,379,211. The Transition Team is currently budgeted to spend $1,066,000 (including the Lawson Position Management System) which leaves a remaining available balance of $313,211. Don implored the TT to be fiscally responsible in approving expenditures from the ProComp Trust. Chris – other sources of funding can’t be used:  Gates doesn’t have a technology component  Bond funding was a no – not a capital expense  TIF is no - funds principal incentives. The only teacher TIF connection is for PDU and SGO. David – can this expense be segregated into District & non-District benefit. Chris has said no. This is an action item on the agenda that we can approve, disapprove or ask for more info. Margaret – SGO and CPE are separate so there is no double jeopardy. Would like to look at Gates grant for a potential conflict: Gates grant is moving toward evaluating teachers based on student growth, and Pro Comp which was written to allow teachers to receive positive evaluations independent of student growth results. Henry & Margaret: This group can look at the relevant sections of the Gates grant and look at the ProComp agreement. Henry – would like more information about how they’re spending the $127,500. The teacher part of the TT is not saying no, they need more information to evaluate the request. Cal – Can the Trust’s counsel look at the language in the ProComp agreement. David - If counsel says this is not an expense the Trust can consider, we can’t consider this as an expense. Need the answer in writing. Next steps – Don check w/ Mary Brauer about the Trust’s ability to consider this expense. Chris send the group relevant sections of the Gates grant. Margaret identify the two conflicting sections of the ProComp Agreement and the Gates Grant. IV. Information Items  Ann Christy: SGO Update - handbook, SGO strategy o Ann has dropped the proposal she presented last time. She’s giving us an update. o Issue: More than 1 year’s growth for more than 75% of students. o Ann is following District’s and Transition Team approved policy. She will provide a copy of this document. o Next steps: Ann send 2 years of statistics on how many met two objectives, Individual schools met / not met results, District wide met/not met results. Also correlation to YOS if relatively easy to get.  Shirley Scott: PDU strategy o Sharing strategy for 2010-2011 PDU process given that this is an interim year focused on building capacity at each school site for the coming changes related to the teacher effectiveness initiatives and anticipated purchase and implementation of new PD /PDU registration and tracking system for Sept. 2011 o Options are available for personal, small group, yearlong central department sponsored PDUs (for singletons), school based PDUs aligned with the UIP, and PCK Intensive PDUs. o Last year this time we had 30 people registered for personal or small group PDUs. o There were 200 people who registered for personal or small group PDUs the past two school years Last year 185 of those who registered completed the process. o This year we have 75 people registered across 41 schools from mostly classroom teachers. Within the group of 75 people registered for personal or small group PDUs, 25 participants hope to be approved by October 31, 2010, in time to complete for pay in January payroll. o PCK Intensive PDUs are slower starting than previous years, because of the additional time required to train administrators and school leadership teams to complete the new UIP and for Instructional Sups to approve the school UIPs o Shirley is meeting w/ principals and designated PDU building leaders to move ahead on listing the PCK Intensive PDUs in the online registration catalog. o Voluntary workshops are available three afternoons each week throughout the school year to support PDU Building Leaders, PDU Instructors, PDU Peer Reviewers and PDU participants o Handbooks, tutorials are in place and SharePoint site with rooms are in progress to support the work.PDU Instructors, PDU Peer Reviewers, and Personal/Small Group PDU participants and to create an archive of electronic PDU plans and final work samples.  Ed Wiley: Follow-up report on Teacher student achievement analysis --- by ProComp incentive. o Research question – what happens to student outcomes after a teacher received an incentive. SGO, PDU, CPE. Does receiving one of these produce differential growth? o Conclusions: Growth overall was good. No strong correlation between SGO, PDU and CPE. Also, no correlation between subsequent results for those who received none, some or all of the incentives. o This analysis is for all teachers, ProComp and non. Don’t see a differential in future growth for those who met SGO; or who earned a PD or a PDU; or had a satisfactory CPE. o Better teachers are getting the incentives; It is not that the incentives are making teachers better. o Teachers who barely missed ExEx work harder the next year because they want to qualify the next year. o It’s hard to find a latent effect from incentives. This is because the majority of teachers get incentives every year. It is difficult to find a teacher who consistently does not receive incentives. o Don’t have the data to know if teachers changed their objective to get the incentive or changed because they know more about their class. o Don’t see a stable group of non-winners, and stable group of winners because most teachers receive incentives. o David – requested that Ed update the report to include additional bullet points about groups. Non-ProComp. o 1 month to produce final report – November.  Estelle Klein - self study w/ Rosetta Stone under Tuition Reimbursement. Bart Muller – to quantify it and make it fair , if Ms. Klein can pass the lower level of the SLP, eligible for tuition reimbursement. Cal – uncomfortable with self study for reimbursement dollars because of lack of demonstrated proficiency. Answer, the test does demonstrate proficiency. David Hart, need a practical administrative policy. Rules require preapproval using the forms. In practice, don’t require pre-approval because of administrative burden to keep the forms. Idea – if your Rosetta Stone receipt is within a year of the time you pass the SLP, we’ll reimburse. But, need to generalize to all coursework: If your coursework is associated with your job for a district recognized language group. Action: Bart/Deb draft proposed policy to accomplish goal and streamline administration.  Dan Curtiss – 6th grade math generalist/H2Staff. Henry Roman - Question is that teacher asked to be grandfathered to continue to receive H2Staff. Decision – No. The 1 year time period was the chance to qualify.  UCD Status. Deb Cunningham - Running a bit behind. Looking at March instead of January for report.  Adjourned 6:31 pm