School Board Study Session and Meeting September 23, 2014

The board discussed a book called, A Slice of Trust.  I have not read the book, but the gist of it seemed to be about trusting others and how it can contribute to a positive work environment.  It felt like the underlying current of the book was just trust everyone.  JoDee mentioned that each member brings something different to the board.  John mentioned that as an administrator, he had to trust teachers.  Brian stated that as an auditor, he had to have a level of professional skepticism.  Wendy brought up that when you purchase a home or car, you have a contract and that while trust is good, it is also best to write things down and clarify.  She stated that the board is meant to serve as a check and balance, a verification.  She also asked, “Do we trust people based on shared ideology?”

Then we got to the fun stuff!  Rob Smith shared the Capital Facility Update.  He showed that the target areas we are dealing with now are the 10 year capital plan as well as the seismic review plan.  For the 10 year plan, someone from the district will physically go to each school to see what the needs are.  Although this will be time-consuming, principals want the district to see the changes they are requesting so that the needs are better understood.

The target areas for the short-term were three-fold.  1.  Transportation integration planning-they will review drop-off flow patterns, design criteria, and improved integration.  How do parents use the facility?  While I am glad this is finally being reviewed, I feel it is something that has been overlooked for years.  Most of the schools were built to be walking schools, but most children do not walk to school and it has not taken into account programs that bring out-of-boundary students like ALL, language immersion, ED, and LD.  Almost all the schools that have been recently built have had major issues with pedestrian safety and traffic flow.  Riverview and Thunder Ridge were built next to open canals.  Thunder Ridge parents had to advocate for a sidewalk being built and Riverview parents had to advocate for a canal bridge so that students could cross.  Dry Creek has also had pedestrian crossing issues.  While I am happy that the issue is being addressed, I think this will become a time-consuming and costly issue because it was not dealt with previously.  2.  ADA plan review-adequate access for inside and outside facilities.  Because many of the schools are older, there are concerns that they are not ADA-compliant.  Rocky Mountain Elementary has 4 children in wheelchairs who can’t access the playground.  3.  Security review-internal committee to review security.  One school’s SCC (go Riverview!) installed locking doors and there is a school in PG piloting a program where there are inside and outside cameras that police can access.

Next up was David Smith to discuss SAGE and determining the cut scores.  The standards setting occurred on August 11-15, 2014.  175 educators set the pass rates.  21 of those educators came from ASD (about 12%).  10% of students in Utah are in ASD.  The cut scores were set for ELA grades 3-11, math 3-8 as well as Math I, II, and III and science.  David stated that we are using the 1-4 scale.  4 is highly proficient, 3 is proficient, 2 is approaching proficient, and 1 is below proficient.  He also stated that the previous CRT scores were not college and career ready and that for previous scoring, 3 actually meant minimally competent.  The Bookmark method was used to determine the cut scores.  The questions were put in an ordered booklet with the easiest question being the one that the most students answered correctly and the hardest question being the one that the most students missed.  Teachers were asked to place a “bookmark” on the question where they felt that a student would be “barely proficient.”  They used the 8^th grade math as an example and questions 19-23 were where most teachers marked barely proficient.  Based on the average of #21 being the barely proficient cut score, how many students would have passed?  The district is stating that these proficiency standards are nationally competitive because they are in line with the recent NAEP scores.

Here is the list of percent of students who were proficient in English Language Arts for the state of Utah- ASD usually ranks about 8 points above the state.

3^rd grade                              44%

4^th grade                              41%

5^th grade                              43%

6^th grade                              41%

7^th grade                              41%

8^th grade                              40%

9^th grade                              42%

10^th grade                            42%

11^th grade                            38%

ASD defines proficient (a grade of 3 or above on the test) as being able to get a C or better grade in a college class of the same subject.  So, 38% of 11^th graders should be able to score a C or better in a college English 1010 class.

OK, so I have a problem with this.  I feel that this is so misleading.  Basically, I have been told for years that my kids were doing great because they were getting 3s and 4s on their CRTs.  I think that most parents interpret the 1-4 scale as 4 being an A, 3 being a B, and so on.  Now, magically a 3 means “minimally competent.”  And now apparently less than half the kids in the state are “barely proficient.”  I cannot even begin to imagine how this is going to tank all the UCAS scores-yes a super flawed system-but now I imagine that every school in the state will be considered failing.  This feels like a shell game with the teachers and students being the ones to lose out.  And David also mentioned that we cannot compare previous CRT scores with the current SAGE scores because the SAGE has higher standards and increased rigor.  He stated it would be like asking kids to run a mile and recording their scores and then the next year having them swim a mile.  The 2 cannot be compared.  

What are your thoughts about the way the SAGE cut scores were determined?