Minutes of Meeting
September 27, 2006
Members Present: Karla Eanes, Sara Grey, Jack Haggerty, Phyllis Daniels, Susan
Lindholm, Mary Passannante, Kathleen Weeks, Allison Worthy, Kathryn Eriksen,
Susan Oliver, Ray Thomas, Alice Joyce, Armeen Mistry
Members Absent: Tana Lassiter
Board Liaison Absent: Lisa Stuckey
Others Present: Sherri Martin (Lincoln Center), Selena Jimenez
(teacher CHHS) Vickie Mendes (public presenter), Jane Nordwall (public presenter),
Mr. and Mrs. Rosenburg (public presenter)
A meeting of the School Governance Committee of Chapel Hill High School was
held on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at the Media Center of Chapel Hill High
School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Jack Haggarty acted as Chair, and called
the meeting to order at 6:00.
I. Public Presentations
1. Selena Jimenez, Apoyo Latino – Latino student support group was started
this year. A list of Hispanic students was provided to all teachers, each student
is matched with a “contact teacher” that speaks Spanish. Other
teachers can notify the contact teacher if they need to communicate with the
parent if the parent does not speak English. On 9/10/06, there was a parent
support group meeting for Apoyo Latino. It was well attended. Parents were
given information about the school, policies, people, etc. Contact teachers
will call the homes of their students to invite them to Parent Conference Night,
etc. Once per quarter there will be a Spanish speaking speaker that will come
to the school to talk to students in Apoyo Latino about college, gangs, drugs,
pregnancy, etc. This will happen during lunch and pizza will be provided. There
are also comments in Spanish that teachers can use on the report cards.
2. Vickie Mendes (Parent) EOC Grading Concern of Honors vs. Non-Honors Grading Policy – She disagrees with EOC scoring of honors students. The district scores honors students on one scale and regular students on another. She learned about this from another parent. Students may or may not have been told about this last year from their teachers. It seems that inconsistent information was delivered. Apparently, EOC lead teachers met last January to discuss this and decided to develop a different scale for honors students because if they were able to create their own exam for them, it would be more difficult than an exam for a regular class. They decided to do this due to grade inflation among honors students. Of the Level IV scores, the top 2/3 received “As”, the bottom 1/3 received “Bs” and the Level III students received “Cs”. She feels that this downgrades honors students.
(Ms. Mendes reported that Dr. Denise Bowling is evaluating the process for a possible change.)
She feels that we should not penalize honors students because they are doing well. It is not grade inflation but rather they are just doing well.
Jane Nordwall (parent) shared her concern that she heard children saying “why should I try and study, if I can’t get the A?” She is worried that this is the student perception. There needs to be more explanation and understanding if this policy is to remain intact.
Sherri Martin responded that last January the lead EOC teachers met and made a unanimous decision about the grading policy. Teachers felt that if they were to make a year end exam it would be more difficult than the EOC so they need to score better on the EOC. Lincoln Center is looking at what happened with the score distribution. Dr. Bowling met with the high school advisory group as well as the curriculum committee. Principals were asked to discuss this with the SGCs. The recommendation goes to CMCC (Curriculum Management Committee) for approval. The recommendation from the CMCC will go out and then go to the Board for discussion. The plan is to look at the grades honors students had going into the final and grade distributions. She definitely feels a need to address the perception that the kids receive. It would also be helpful to compare scores from past years (how many A's and Bs were made on the EOC). The beginning of second semester, there will be a process for students to learn about this. Teachers are to explain the policy and students should have a better understanding. This was a procedure, not a policy.
Vickie Mendes responded and stated that a letter dated 7/20/06 from Dr. Bowling to Dr. Pedersen stated that the policy changed scores for 49% of Geometry students. These students struggle to achieve A’s, and it is even tougher to know that you are being scored differently than non-honors students for a high stakes test.
Ray Thomas asked if other districts use this procedure.
Sherri Martin responded that any district can vary scoring and it is a district decision to choose where to set cut scores. Communication about the scoring has made an impact on the district. She has not heard from ECHHS parents.
Kathleen Weeks stated that we are asking honors students to be “more minimally competent” – this sounds contradictory and we are using the EOC for something that it was not designed to do.
Jack Haggerty asked if the SGC would like to make a formal comment about this policy.
Susan Oliver offered that she would like to present this to the faculty because lead teachers are not in agreement about the policy. Susan will contact the faculty about this.
Allison Worthy stated that there is not consistency across the board with all teachers. Some teachers were giving students chances to “build up” their grades before the EOC in case they did not make an “A” on the test.
3. The Rosenburg’s have one child that has graduated and now have a junior. They are both professors at Duke and very familiar with college admission standards. They would like to see grades going from a letter grade to a number grade. Other schools across the nation are on a 10 pt. scale and it is hard for CHHS students to compete with students from other schools when CHHS is on a 7 pt. scale. From shifting from percentages in teachers grade programs to letters it is losing information. If the percentages were given it would not be disadvantageous to students who are competing with students on a 10 pt. scale. Pluses and minuses are moving in the direction of more information, but not as good as percentages. The SGC will revisit this issue.
Many Universities look at the rigor of students’ class loads and strip GPA’s of bonus points that schools like CHHS add for honors and AP courses.
II. Progress reports (Karla Eanes)
Information about progress reports will have SLU for this grading period, but
in the future they will have letter grades like A, B, C.
There was also a discussion about whether East is doing plus or minuses. It is unclear whether colleges take into account plus or minuses. The SGC is going to look into the consistency of transcripts throughout the state. The SGC is also going to look and see what East is doing. Susan Oliver said that after a discussion a paper survey might get more responses or to bring it up at the department meetings.
III. PTSA Liaison Position discussion
The PTSA liaison, Allison Worthy, expressed that she would like to see the
PTSA Liaison become a voting member of the SGC board. Adding a member would
help to have a quorum. There was a motion to make the PTSA liaison a voting
member. The motion was seconded and consensus was achieved.
IV. SGC Minute Recorder
There were 4 people interested in the position. Barbara Smith was the first
to reply. She was very interested and is a qualified candidate. There was
a motion to instate Barbara Smith as the SGC recorder. The motion was seconded
and consensus was achieved.
V. SNAC (Special Needs Advisory Council) Applications
The SGC would like two parents to volunteer to serve on this council that serves
students with special needs. There are 3 applications for these 2 council
positions. Members of the SGC reviewed the parent applications. They will
appoint 2 parents positions and one alternate. Dr. Eanes stated that there
can be a benefit of having parents truly represent the range of disabilities
that are here at the school. Jack Moved that Sara Kennedy and Carol Conway
be parent representatives, and Meryl Alexander to serve as an alternate.
The motion was seconded and consensus was achieved.
VI. Renaming the Wrestling Room
The Wrestling team would like to rename the wrestling room after Tripp Price
in honor of his 25 years of coaching and teaching. The SGC granted their
approval.
VII. Dress Code concern –parent letter and discussion
Staff are reluctant in challenging students about dress code if it is not explicitly
stated in the handbook. The parent would like to see more information about
guidelines in the student handbook about length of skirts etc. It is very
difficult for male AP’s and teachers to deal with such issues. Alice
feels that with more serious problems it is harder to enforce issues like
skirt length. It is also very hard for teachers to enforce such issues on
a daily basis. Most teachers feel that if the dress is not a distraction
to learning then enforcement is a lesser priority. The SGC will draft a letter
to the parent and let her know what is done for students that come inappropriately
dressed.
VIII. Follow up from 2005-6
ISS is in a process of revision and over-haul. The revisions will be given
to the faculty.
IX. Updates
1. Student Update
School has recently started. Ms. Markwood will be running elections for the
student nominated SGC positions. Club day went very well, and East was defeated
in football. For the next football game shirts and shoes will need to be worn
for entry into the game.
The current schedule didn’t have 5 minutes built in for announcements. Announcements run over and over on TV’s and in the cafeteria, but there are a lot of difficulties in giving information. The perception with students is that it is a real problem. They have no idea when college reps are coming and other important information. Other faculty members felt that there is a lack of community when it doesn’t bring everyone together.
The faculty felt that if there was a 3 minute limit to announcements that it would lead nicely into the Pledge. The expectation is for students to stand, but that everyone does not need to say the pledge. The purpose for the pledge being stated over the intercom is because certain teachers don’t recite it.
2. Parent Update
The PTSA met on Aug. 30. The PTSA budget is quite tight this year. Teacher
discretionary money was cut from $150 to $100. The PTSA would like to come
up with a timeline for elections. They will try to mail out information about
elections.
Classroom seating has been an issue in study halls. Desks were ordered in April, have yet to arrive. They opened up a few more study hall sections to help alleviate the over-crowding problem.
The system for getting parking permits is often quite difficult for students. That process might be visited.
3. Faculty Update
A lot of high school reform focuses on helping students who are falling behind
at the beginning of the year. Some teachers do something, but it should be
part of a school wide process. The DeFour model requires students to take
a study hall after 3 weeks if they are struggling. This is limited by space
and money. It might be possible to set up a guidance study hall. Students
can be taken out of their regular study hall to go into a special study hall
where they can receive more guidance. The special study hall would take place
in the commons or cafeteria. Extra teacher positions will and have been used
for study halls, study for success class, an extra History teacher. To staff
all guided study halls it would require the hire of 13 positions. It is believed
that there will be 2 positions that will be staffed.
The faculty is still very nervous about any kind of block schedule including the A/B days. The high school reform advisory committee has not talked about any form of scheduling so far. Ms. Weeks is worried that the school is not on track to implement the hybrid block scheduling. The district is not back pedaling at all. The hybrid has not gone away. Susan is concerned that SAT scores are dropping in the state and nation and the only correlation between the drop is that these schools are on the block. If you take out instruction time there will be a downfall somewhere. If the block is not good for AP students it isn’t good for any students. Susan wanted to know if teachers have a say. Most people on the committee believed that it is a done deal. Lincoln center is responsible for scheduling and the SGC would like to have a representative come and let the faculty know what classes are going to be blocked and which ones are left alone. Ms. Week’s concern is that the school board adopted it a year and a half ago to give everyone more time. We are no further along in the planning of the block. There has been no training for teachers or running sample schedules. Ms. Eanes said that if there is a concern it is better to voice it in September rather than May. The next High School Advisory Committee meeting is Nov. 27th. The SGC is going to ask Sherri to come to an SGC meeting because of all the concern about unpreparedness for the block and if this is set in stone.
4. Principal Update (most of the Principal’s updates were
discussed earlier in the meeting)
The first delayed opening went well. Homecoming is Oct. 6th, and Walk for Education
is Oct. 7th.
X. Follow through
Next meeting they are going to ask Sherri to come and talk about block schedule.
Discussion about number grades, letter grades on progress reports, plusses
and minuses will be addressed at the next meeting.