School Board Meeting Summary

Pamela R. H. Bailey

September 29, 2007

George Mason University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Board Meeting Summary

            The regularly scheduled meeting of the Spotsylvania County School Board was held on September 24, 2007. All of the board members were in attendance with only a dozen spectators in the audience. The main topics for the evening were recognizing the winners of a science/history contest, report on the advanced placement courses, proposed school board budget calendar, and the Conversations About Reaching Excellence Plan (C.A.R.E). The vast majority of items on the attached agenda were either postponed or canceled.  

Topics of Discussion

 Non-Controversial Topics Overview

Three participants were recognized for their placement in the Tri-City Soil and Water Contest, “Love a Stream”. Their teachers and subject area supervisors were also recognized for their work and efforts in the facilitation of the projects. All those involved appreciate the recognition for efforts on activities that are over and above the normal job requirements.

            Two general items were presented to the board. Dr. Donald Alvey presented the first item, a report on the increase in number of students taking advanced placement courses. The boost is an indicator of an overall increase in student achievement and accomplishment. Concern with AYP pass rates has been foremost in the thoughts of the board members so the advanced placement issue was good news. The second item was the school budget calendar, a yearly item. The budget calendar dates were set in an effort to facilitate communication between the County Supervisors and the School Board.

Controversial Topic Details

            Overview of the Topic. Mr. Anthony Jackson, Director of Curriculum and Instruction in Spotsylvania County Schools presented the big topic of the evening, C.A.R.E. The plan was developed to aid administrators in meeting or exceeding expectations for accreditations and AYP and as an action plan for the FOCUS program previously adopted in 2006-2007. FOCUS is a document that details four main goals for the county in relationship to student achievement. C.A.R.E. is a very specific list of 15 items that will be accomplished in order to achieve the FOCUS goals. Some of the items are targeted intervention plans, enrichment and extension activities and parent engagement.

Positive aspects of C.A.R.E. The C.A.R.E. Plan was created to encourage positive, constructive strong conversations to facilitate student centered lessons and activities and to provide differentiation to meet all students needs, specifically the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) subgroups. Money is an issue as local education associations receive funding and are held accountable for student achievement through Title 1 Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Riddle, 2007). Accountability is based on the evaluation of 29 different areas and is reported in AYP which is under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Riddle (2007) states that the AYP categories were established to focus on “…disadvantaged pupil groups” so that they might continually improve academically, maintain and/or establish a challenging curriculum for all, and encourage consistency between local education associations and between states.

            Negative aspect of C.A.R.E. One of the controversial items in C.A.R.E. states that school administrators will observe every teacher in their building twice a month. Directors, supervisors, and coordinators at the central office are also conducting observations dialey and having open conversations with the administrators about their activities. The C.A.R.E. Plan is creating tension between administrators and their teachers and teacher stress levels are increasing as the plan is implemented. At a recent meeting a mathematics specialist reported that many of the teachers cried when she went in to collaborate on lesson plans. Teachers are feeling that they are doing a horrible job due to this parade of individuals. They are staying after school for training and meetings on their own time as well as taking work home with them to complete without any acknowledgement for their efforts. Time is a major concern even during school hours as teachers attempt to maximize their efforts and feel that collaboration meetings are not necessary.

Teachers state that those in power are not looking at student growth each year only SOL test scores and whether or not the school made AYP. Gary Feuerberg from The Epoch Times reports in his article on June 18, 2007 that administrators felt that student achievement was accurately reflected on scores of the state tests; teachers strongly disagreed. The Rand Corporation conducted a study in 2002 (Feuerberg, 2007) and found that the critics of NCLB felt that “It’s all about the school passing and not about helping the kids that need it the most – the very opposite of what NCLB is supposed to fix.” Many teachers express the need to teach to the test and not to be focused on student thinking and understanding of the content, only passing the test.

Summary and Closing

The C.A.R.E. plan may help encourage teachers that are not performing to go on to another occupation but school systems may be losing some great teachers. Communication is a key element to begin the process of change as many teachers learn to differentiate lessons to meet student needs. Mr. Lore, a school board member, spoke up at the end of the C.A.R.E. presentation. He stated that he felt that C.A.R.E. was good and that he would vote for its implementation however he was also concerned about teachers, their feelings and stress levels, and with how the various aspects would be implemented in each school. Mr. Jackson did not respond.

References

Feuerberg, G. (2007, June 18). No Child Left Behind – Should it be renewed [Electronic version]? The Epoch Times, Article 56601. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-16-18/56601.html

Riddle, W. (2007). Adequate Yearly Progress: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Congressional Research Service for Congress, CRS-2007-DSP-0766, RL32495. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from the LexisNexis Academic and Library Solutions database.