BOARD CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008

 

 

Members of the Board Curriculum Committee met on Monday, February 11, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Education Center’s Dining Room. Present were Curriculum Committee Members Mary M. Katona, assistant to the superintendent for curriculum and instruction, and Richard Agretto, director of special education; and Board Members: Michele Cann, Joseph Craig, Judith Dexter, Irene Follweiler, Dr. Craig Haytmanek, Charlene Koch, Loretta Leeson, and Eugene McKeon. Also in attendance were: Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, superintendent of schools; Stanley J. Majewski, Jr., assistant to the superintendent for finance and administration; Robert Gross, associate superintendent; Thomas Washington, director of student services; Frank Arbushites, coordinator of academic computing; Kathleen Bast, coordinator of Literacy 6-12; Dr. Dean M. Donaher, director of special programs and athletics; Dr. Joanne LoFaso, coordinator of Literacy/ELA, K-8; Eric Smith, supervisor of science; Julie Victory, supervisor of mathematics; and representatives of the press.

 

Mrs. Dexter called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.

 

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

 

Mrs. Dexter asked if anyone would like to speak at the beginning of the meeting on any of the agenda items being reviewed at the meeting. No one asked to speak.

 

NITSCHMANN MIDDLE SCHOOL MENTORING

 

Mrs. Santanasto, principal at Nitschmann Middle School, explained a new mentoring program which is in place for the second year at Nitschmann Middle School. It is named “WE Mentoring” which stands for “We Exceed Mentoring”. She explained that volunteers from the First Presbyterian Church began the program last year with the assistance of the school staff and 17 students. This year the program has grown to 38 mentors working with 38 students every Tuesday in the library. Mrs. Santanasto explained that the group is called “Time Travelers”, and in March, they will visit a performance of Bach at Noon in downtown Bethlehem. She invited the board and the administration to visit the group any Tuesday from 12:45 – 2:00 p.m., to see what great work the group is accomplishing.

 

 

 

 

GROUPING FOR ACHIEVEMENT

 

Mrs. Katona reviewed articles she distributed to the board regarding tracking. She noted that the district should be cautious about looking at tracking in the usual way. She explained that tracking is the process within our educational system by which students are sorted and placed into classes according to academic ability, and it has been controversial for a number of years. The term tracking is recognized as a deliberate division of students that determines a permanent placement and future. “Ability Grouping” has become a common euphemism for tracking, as it also divides students into groups, and often keeps students working within the same ability groups throughout their high school career.

 

Mrs. Dexter noted that several students came to last month’s meeting asking what the administration can do to close the gap between honors/AP classes and academic classes. Mrs. Dexter also asked if Mrs. Katona is hearing the same question from teachers. Mrs. Katona responded that she is also hearing this from some teachers.

 

Mrs. Leeson stated that objectives are basically the same, and she would like to see all students at their best achievement. She stated that practices need to be changed within classrooms to bring students up to standards. She also stated that we need to offer top-end students more challenges.

 

Mrs. Katona replied that, as the district writes curriculum, they will be working with teachers, principals, and department chairpersons. The administration has also been putting more checks and balances in place for teacher observations through the newly implemented Teacher Performance Appraisal Plan. She agreed that we need to ensure that teachers are instructing for the full 85 minutes in each block.

 

Dr. Lewis read from a recent letter he had received from Dr. Zahorchak, secretary of education, regarding tracking. Dr. Zahorchak indicated that tracking is a segregated way of dealing with differences in student abilities, and that the default curriculum should be a college preparatory curriculum. Dr. Zahorchak stated that the commonwealth will not look favorably upon those school districts who create tracks or levels of instruction below the default curriculum.

 

Mr. McKeon stated that the special needs area also needs looking at. He stated that his son was not challenged enough. He had often requested that his son be given more homework each night, and he never saw any changes. He also stated that his daughter had a good GPA in high school but was not ready for college after graduation.

 

Mrs. Cann agreed that strict tracking is not always a good idea. Students may be good in math and not as good in English. She feels that if a student is not in honors classes, they are not challenged unless there is differentiated instruction. She feels this is an issue with parents of students at the “high-end” of academics, and asked if the answer is that students are in a hetero-group.

 

Dr. Lewis answered that it is not heterogeneous or homogeneous, it is a hybrid. We always want to challenge students to take the most rigorous courses they can.

 

Mrs. Cann asked how this solution benefits the “high-end” students.

 

Mrs. Katona agreed that students can benefit by being in classes with students of different ranges. She also referenced work that high school ELA teachers have done with building in more rigor across all classes and grade levels.

 

Mrs. Cann also noted that she could see the difference of Mrs. Katona’s work; her son is in Academic English and is reading high level material. She stated that she is highly pleased with this change. Mrs. Katona credited the work of the high school English teachers.

 

Mrs. Follweiler stated that she would like to see different terminology used regarding tracking and grouping. She also asked if we can have a loose timeline for other subjects in grouping and rigor.

 

Mrs. Katona replied that grouping will allow students the opportunity for flexible tracking.

 

Mrs. Leeson asked if Dr. Zahorchak’s letter meant that all students will get the same program.

 

Dr. Lewis replied that it does not mean that; it means all students will have a choice.

 

Mrs. Leeson stated that she is 100 percent in favor of supporting struggling learners. She noted that math is different from other areas; she does not see differentiation in other areas.

 

Dr. Lewis asked if it would help the board if they got a timeline of work going on in other subjects such as English, social studies, etc.

 

Mrs. Leeson asked what scheduling is going to be like for ranging.

 

Liberty High School students DeJour Scott and David Groman spoke regarding changes to tracking. They agreed that it is hard for a teacher to teach a class when one-half of the students do not want to learn. They also requested that any new programs be phased in, beginning with the freshman class.

 

Mr. LaPorta and Mrs. Durante then discussed how courses are selected at their high schools. Mrs. Durante also noted that there are many new young teachers in the district, and she would like to see extra designated inservice time allotted for staff development, particularly in understanding how to teach effectively within the block.

 

Mr. Gross spoke regarding Grouping for Achievement. He stated that there is one theme in common, the teacher is the most influential item for student achievement. A good teacher will reach and motivate a student. When concepts are the same, a teacher makes the difference. He agreed that we need to teach the teachers and inservices are the solution.

 

Mr. Sis-Obed Torres of Prospect Avenue, Bethlehem, spoke regarding Group for Achievement. He stated that he was a victim of tracking and asked the district to move forward, not backward.

 

Mr. Washington spoke and urged the district to move forward, but he cautioned that the word “tracking” for some people is a form of segregation.

 

 

 

 

ACTION PLAN UPDATE

 

Information item only.

 

DRA UPDATE

 

Information item only.

 

SENIOR LUNCH PRIVILEGE UPDATE

 

Dr. Donaher explained that, at the board’s request, he conducted a review of the current Senior Lunch Privilege programs at both Freedom and Liberty High Schools. After thoughtful consideration and discussion with members of the committee, they recommend the Senior Lunch Privilege system remain in effect with changes. He noted that many of the suggestions were made by students, faculty, staff, and administration at both high schools as to opportunities to improve the program. Their recommendations included:

 

1.            Enact tighter security, allowing only those with the Senior Lunch Privilege to leave the campus by:

a.     Designating specific entrances and exits to be used by seniors for the purpose of Senior Lunch Privilege.

b.     Improving staff monitoring for the purpose of verifying Senior Lunch Privilege, as well as use Identification Cards at all designated entrances and exits.

c.     Adding Student Code of Conduct language with specific consequences for Senior Lunch Privilege violations.

2.            Increase the qualifications for the Senior Lunch Privilege by:

a.     Increasing the minimum grade point average from a 2.0 to a 3.0.

b.     Increasing the minimum Citizenship grade.

c.     Requiring that the senior has no unexcused/unlawful absence or late to school or class during the marking period.

d.     Requiring that the senior be actively involved in a school activity, such as a club, organization, or athletic team.

e.     Continuing the requirement of a completed parental permission form to participate in the program.

f.      Developing a consistent Senior Lunch Privilege monitoring system with penalties for not maintaining privilege requirements.

g.     Requiring that the senior be on track with the required community service hours by having a minimum of 45 hours of community service prior to the start of the student’s senior year.

3.            Provide an alternative site on campus for seniors to gather during lunch to eliminate and/or reduce the number of students leaving the campus.

 

Dr. Donaher noted that teachers do not feel it is the seniors who are abusing this privilege, but underclassmen who are sneaking out with the seniors. He also noted that students at Liberty High School have many local eateries they can walk to, but students at Freedom High School only have eateries that they must drive to and their lunch time is very limited.

 

Mr. Craig asked that the administration look into not allowing students to drive to the Bethlehem Vocational-Technical School from Liberty High School, thus eliminating those who are not seniors driving to fast-food restaurants for lunch.

 

The board then requested that revisions be made and this topic be brought back to the next Board Curriculum Committee Meeting for further review.

 

AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE FEBRUARY 25, 2008

 

The following agenda items were presented for review for the February 25, 2008, Regular School Board Meeting:

 

1. Senior Lunch Privilege – the board tabled this agenda item until further discussion.
2. Community Service Agency (approval of new agency)
3. Freedom High School CareerLinking Academy
4. Marvine Family Center Grant
5. Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts Grant
6. Federal/State Program Budgets
7. Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) Grant
8. HeartRescue Grant

 

COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

 

DeJour Scott and David Groman again spoke Courtesy of the Floor regarding the possibility of having their student identification badges updated with bar codes so they can be scanned for eligibility for the Senior Lunch Privilege.

 

OPEN FORUM

 

Nothing to report

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

 

Minutes Prepared By:

 

 

 

Charlotte L. Zimmerman

Administrative Assistant to the Assistant to the Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction