BOARD CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2006

 

                                       

Members of the Board Curriculum Committee met on Monday, September 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Education Center’s Dining Room. Present were Curriculum Committee Members Anthony R. Villani, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, and Richard Agretto, director of special education; and Board Members Rosario Amato, Joseph Craig, Judith Dexter, Dr. Craig Haytmanek, William Heske, Charlene Koch, Loretta Leeson, Diane Rowe, and Margaret Williams. Also in attendance were: Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, superintendent of schools; Robert Gross, assistant superintendent for human resources; Stanley J. Majewski, Jr., assistant to the superintendent for finance and administration; Kathleen Bast, coordinator of literacy K-5; Mary Katona, coordinator of English language arts; Dr. Joanne LoFaso, coordinator of literacy 6-12; Eric Smith, supervisor of science; Julie Victory, supervisor of mathematics; Frank Arbushites, coordinator of academic computing; Anna Smith, student representative; and representatives of the press.

 

FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENT

 

Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Dr. Lewis asked if he could make a statement regarding a situation with an exchange student currently enrolled at Liberty High School through a Rotary Club sponsorship. He noted that the current board policy requires exchange students to be proficient in English. The referenced exchange student came into the system with little English proficiency. Dr. Lewis asked the board to make an exception for this student due to the fact that the student is already enrolled in our district and the Rotary Club is willing to provide tutoring for this student at no cost to the district. After discussion, the board agreed to make an exception for this student. They also agreed that the administration should review the current exchange student policy.

 

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS (15 minutes allowed)

 

1.     Mr. Stephen Antalics discussed the academic wellness of the district. The administration informed Mr. Antalics that his questions would be discussed during the topics of tonight’s meeting.

 

DISTRICT TESTING OVERVIEW

 

1.   Mr. Villani reviewed the Bethlehem Area School District’s 2006-2007 On-Demand Assessment Calendar and the 2006-2007 Over Time Assessment Calendar. He noted that these two calendars change from year to year as the district reviews its data and the possibility of the state requiring additional testing.

 

2.     Mr. Villani presented a review of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) Comparison Report to Similar Districts for 2006. This report reflects the results of Pennsylvania districts that are similar in various ways to the Bethlehem Area School District. The comparisons were provided to show the district’s progress in the PSSA’s with like districts in the areas of total enrollment, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, percentage of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, and percentage of minority students enrolled in the district. He presented a chart which showed a comparison of the Bethlehem Area School District to other districts in the Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools (PLUS). The district presently participates in PLUS with twenty other school districts. It was noted that the district performs in the top five in most of the grade levels, with the exception of grade 5 in mathematics, which is ranked seventh and in grade 11, where we are ranked sixth in mathematics and eighth in reading out of the 20 districts represented. He also presented charts which showed a comparison of the Bethlehem Area School District to districts with similar economically disadvantaged levels, the ten largest school districts in the Commonwealth, and with districts with LEP percentages.

 

3.     Mr. Villani presented a district testing overview for PSSA, SAT, and Terra Nova. The report began with a brief overview of the No Child Left Behind legislation along with information on the implementation of this act in Pennsylvania. It was followed by a summary of the Bethlehem Area School District’s results on the PSSA test for the 2005-2006 school year. For a longitudinal view, data from the past nine years of the assessment was included for grades 5, 8, and 11 and for the past two years for grade 3. It was noted that this is the first year that the grade 3 data has been used in the calculation of the elementary schools’ Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) determination. In addition, students in grades 4, 6, and 7 were tested for the first time; however, the results were not used in calculating a school’s AYP determination.

 

The No Child Left Behind Act is based on the following three concepts: 1) All children can learn and can learn at high standards; 2) students, schools, and districts can show continuous improvement; and 3) quality teaching makes a difference. This legislation requires that all students test proficient in reading, mathematics, and science by the year 2014.

 

Mr. Villani explained that the purpose of the PSSA test is to gain an understanding of a school’s achievement of state academic standards; to assess the appropriateness of a school’s programs in helping students meet standards; to provide information for school districts to utilize in their strategic plans; to provide information to general public and policymakers regarding school achievement; and to disaggregate data for certain student categories. Students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11 take the mathematics and reading PSSA tests and grades 5, 8, and 11 take the writing PSSA test as well. This includes all students fully participating in school programs with the exception of special education students who have severe disabilities and LEP students who have been in the school system for less than one full year. He noted that a vast majority of the schools at all levels exceeded the mathematics target of 45 percent proficient overall with the exception of Donegan Elementary School and Liberty High School. In reading, eleven elementary schools, all four middle schools, and both high schools exceeded the target of 54 percent proficient. He then presented PSSA comparative data. He noted that most of the 16 elementary schools showed significant growth when comparing 2005 grade 3 scores with 2006 grade 4 scores, representing the same students. Grades 5 and 6 scores showed a slight drop in scaled scores but there was movement of students out of below basic to basic and proficient to advanced categories. This type of comparison is indicative of a “value added” approach to student assessment and shows student growth. In a comparison of the district to state averages, it was noted that overall, in mathematics most grade levels fell shy of the state average of proficiency by five percent or less, with the exception of grade 4, which exceeded the state average and at grade 11, which fell below the state average by nine percent. Overall, in reading most grade levels also fell shy of the state average by five percent or less, with the exception of grade 4 which exceeded the state average and at grade 11, which fell below the state average by 10 percent. Eight elementary and two middle schools scored higher than the state averages in math and reading. Most district schools which fall below the state averages are identified as Title 1 schools.

 

      The board agreed that the administration needs to identify the problem areas, provide solutions to the problems, and make teachers, students, and parents aware of assistance.

 

4.   Mr. Villani reviewed a report on College Board SAT Results for the Class of 2006. The report contained the results for the district’s two high schools for those students who took the SAT test prior to graduation this past school year. It should be noted that this class is the first class that has taken the revised SAT test which now includes a writing score. Nearly 1.5 million students in the class of 2006, representing 48 percent of the graduation class, took the SAT. The mathematics scores of the national class of 2006 remain strong; however, they dropped by two points over last year’s score to 518. The national critical reading score, formerly referred to as the verbal score, dropped by five points to 503 over last year’s score of 508. This year marks the first cohort to include a writing score, with an overall national mean of 497. Females scored an average of 502, 11 points higher than the males who scored 491. No historical data is provided for the writing section as it is first reported for the class of 2006. It should be noted that the district continues to perform at a higher rate than the state of Pennsylvania average by eight points on the critical reading test, by seven points on the mathematics test, and by four points on the new writing test. Comparing the district to the national means scores the district’s critical reading score is only two points less than the nation, eleven points less in mathematics, and ten points less in the new writing test.

 

5.   Mr. Villani then explained that Terra Nova testing provides information to the district for national comparison in language arts, reading, and mathematics. He noted that overall, the Bethlehem Area School District falls in the top third nationally of all school districts tested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPEN FORUM

 

1.   Dr. Haytmanek and the other board members discussed the fact that Mrs. Dexter distributed a notice to parents at East Hills and Nitschmann Middle Schools regarding upcoming board meetings and topics of discussion.

 

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS –

(Because the Board Human Resource Meeting was an executive session, a second Courtesy of the Floor was allowed)

 

Nothing to report.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

Minutes Prepared By:

 

 

 

 

Charlotte L. Zimmerman

Administrative Assistant to the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction

 

 

 

 

Additions to the Curriculum Committee Meeting Minutes Of Monday, September 18, 2006, made at the Regular Board Meeting of September 25, 2006

 

Director Rowe reported that the Curriculum Committee met Monday, September 18. 

 

 

Director Dexter stated that she is a member of the curriculum committee and she reviewed the minutes. She thinks some important additions need to be made because the minutes for this particular meeting were solely focused on the presentation of Mr. Villani and his staff. Some significant points were made by board members that need to be included in those minutes, as follows: 

 

· The board's student representative from Liberty High School, Anna Smith, spoke about her experience in test taking at Broughal Middle School. She is now a high school student. She explained her perception of some of the differences in student attitude about tests. Specifically, she gave examples of what she felt could be tried at Liberty that was successful at Broughal in improving student attitude towards test scores. Director Dexter thinks that was a significant addition to what was known about test results. 

 

· Director Craig emphasized his concern that the high school communities be made fully aware of the tutoring services that will be offered and, in some cases, mandated. He also mentioned that he understands the special education population because that was his area of specialty as a teacher. He recommended making sure to provide tutoring directly after instruction lessons when the students are mainstreamed, to make sure they understand the material, and, if not, that focused instruction could be provided to them in the areas that were unclear. 

 

· Director Leeson noted her concerns about the corrective action status. She pointed the board to the direction that ours is only one of five districts in the commonwealth on the corrective action status list. There are three additional districts on the corrective action two list which is a more serious category. She explained some of the data she had reviewed on the Pennsylvania Department of Education site and indicated she believes that more districts have been able to move off that status list and expressed her concern that Bethlehem was moving on to that list. 

 

· Director Dexter said that she expressed concern that the information presented at the meeting was nothing new. In other words, the direction of our AYP and scores was not surprising. She asked why just now we are having a serious plan to bring ourselves up. It seemed that the information presented, as well as the plans, were not very effective. She mentioned the Standard and Poor's website called "School Matters" that provided what she felt was some analysis of school performance that indicated even in some areas where schools have low socio-economic status or language proficiency problems some are able to outperform the expected indicators. She asked Dr. Lewis to do some in-depth analysis for Bethlehem and to look, not only at the overall scores, but focus on the target groups, the areas that he has already identified as problem areas and try to specify what else can be done. She mentioned that she had looked at data from other districts that are also on corrective action status and, from her analysis, it seemed that Bethlehem's performance was lower than many of them when looking at the SES data. 

 

· Director Leeson requested monthly updates at every curriculum meeting regarding the progress of our district in addressing our academic performance. After some discussion, it was agreed that there would be updates at every curriculum meeting on that issue. 

 

· Director Amato asked for clarification whether Bethlehem Area School District has 16 schools or 16 elementary schools. He pointed out that some schools do very well while others are not doing so well. He didn't think it was all a teacher problem or a district problem that the district is having difficulty meeting our goals. He was provided with information regarding the number of schools in the district. 

 

Director Rowe stated that Director Heske made a comment about the number 40 for the subgroups. It was a very salient point. 

 

Director Heske said he was speaking about the magic number of 40 and how that works. He said to Director Dexter that, perhaps, she would like to explain that. 

 

Director Dexter stated she did not understand what the question was. 

 

Director Heske said it is how the magic number of 40 works when you compute scores. 

 

Director Dexter said that Director Heske mentioned that the magic number of 40 has been chosen as one number that districts must include data if the subgroup has 40. He didn't know why 40 was chosen; a number of other numbers could have been chosen, and he asked why does that contribute to the AYP analysis. 

 

Director Heske said that not only if you can't get 40 in one grade, now you add another grade to it so that you can possibly get it up to 40 so that you can then have another subgroup. But, in the inference of this whole thing, Director Heske said this is supposed to be minutes. He thinks we are getting close to hours, so he would like to move on. 

 

Director Dexter said that she agrees. It was just unusual to have minutes that had all of the district's presentations and none of the board member or student input.