Return to LIT

 

FMS Learning Improvement Team Minutes

October 7, 2009

            Operating Principle:  The committee will operate on a consensus basis, with

            each voice being heard.  Minutes from January 17, 1995:  ÒIt was discussed and

             agreed that a significant majority of votes of team  members present would be

            required when consensus was not reached.  Significant majority means a ratio

            of 2:1 (example 6 positive votes to 3 negative votes).  Without a significant

            majority, the proposal will be considered ÒtabledÓ until brought up at a later

            date.

 

Team Members Present: Aaron Hansen, Courtney McCoy, Penny Brown, Shelby Lockhart, Josie Bryan, Carrie Aurthur (8th Grade Rep.),Evelyn Kellogg, Noni Clark, John Waldren, Rhonda Noah, Noni Clark, Edwina Seton, Lolita Zehnder (6th Grade Rep.)

Recorder:  Chad Morgan

 

I-728

Budget allocation: $5,500.00   remaining: $457.40

Éfor professional development for educators, including additional paid time for curriculum and lesson redesign and alignment and training to ensure that instruction is aligned with state standards and student needs for extended learning opportunities for students, class size reductions, and facility improvements or additions to support class size reductions and extended learning opportunities.

 

CLASS MIX

Budget Allocation: $10,080.00            remaining: $6,275.04

...for instructional assistance time, instructional materials, staff development training, or other creative solutions to assist in providing services to remedy class student mix problems.

 

Medicaid Match

Budget allocation:  $10,634.00            remaining: $1,706.00 

É When determining the uses for ÒMedicaid MatchÓ dollars, the following should be considered:

Funds may be made available for any medical or academic related needs students have that parents or guardians are unable to provide.

Funds may be made available for meeting academic needs of students.  Those monies could provide para-pro services, bus/transportation needs, and after school tutoring for students.

Funds may be made available for meeting academic needs outside FMS programs.  That may include summer school tuition or academic packets made available to parents for the summer.

Funds may be used to help students with nonacademic needs that involve school related needs such as instruments and or clothing, payment of ASB card, etc.

 

Tech Levy (informational only)

Budget allocation:  $3,960.00

AGENDA ITEM

 

 

Review Code of Cooperation

Guiding Question:  Are there any parts of our code that need clarification?  Do changes need to be made?

 

Discussion – The team reviewed this document.

 

           

Fund Requests

Guiding Question:  Do the fund requests address the essential work that we need to accomplish at FMS this school year?  Do we have enough funds to meet all of these requests?

 

1.  Math Team - $552.00 (Already encumbered in Sept.) Disaggregate test data and revise chapter tests.

 

Discussion – Review of proposal by Ms. Clark - Approved

 

2.  Core 8 – $662.40 (I-728) Two planning days to identify standards embedded in the new SpringBoard curriculum.

 

Discussion – Mrs. McCoy shared the teamÕs proposal - Approved

 

3.  6th Grade - $525.00 Bring in WSU coop to work on community building with our 6th graders at camp.

 

Discussion – Approved

 

4.  Science - $883.20 (I-728) Develop common rubrics. (one day already encumbered in Sept.– $441.60)

 

Discussion – Mrs. Lockhart shared the science team proposal - Approved

 

5.   Core 7 – $ 772.80 (I-728) Two days to identify, unpack, create common assessments, and revise pacing calendar around Reading, Writing, and Soc. Studies 

 

Discussion – Review of proposal by Mr. Hansen - Approved

 

6.  Core 7 - $386.40 One day to meet with a new team member around the 6th grade curriculum and pacing calendars. (Already encumbered in Sept.- $386.40)

 

Discussion – Proposal shared by Mr. Hansen- Approved

 

7.  Whole Building - $15,750: (Medicaid Match) Creating of an after school homework center

            4 Tutors - $3,600  + Program coordinator - $12,750 = $15,750

 

Discussion – Mr. Waldren shared this proposal.  There is a possibility that the district may offset the cost of this program.  Mr. Waldren proposed that FMS dedicate $7,875.00 toward this program.  The After School Homework Center would run for the last three quarters of the year. 

Clarification - The after school homework center would be a place that students could get help with their homework, not just a study hall. 

Proposed to budget $7,875.00 toward the creation of an After School Homework Center.  This is dependent upon the district matching this amount. - Approved

 

 

8.  Math Team – $220.80 (I-728) One day meeting between Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Rupp-Wilson to collaborate about math curriculum and common assessments.

 

Discussion – Proposal shared by Ms. Clark - Approved

 

 

9 Characteristics Plan

Guiding Question:  What changes, if any, need to be made in the 9 Characteristics Plan?

 

Discussion – Draft of proposed plan was reviewed and team members were asked to take the plan and share with constituents.  Feedback about the plan is to be submitted to Mr. Waldren.

 

 

Parent/Teacher Conferences

Guiding Question: What schedule will we follow for Parent/Teacher Conference Week?

 

Discussion – The challenge is to get select parents of students we need to see to attend conferences.  One solution discussed is to utilize the Parent Link system better when contacting designated parents.

 

Proposal 1 - Have Monday be an appointment only conference night and Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday still is arena conferencing.  October 12 collaboration time would be spent on grade level teams identifying the students, scheduling times, and then designating the staff member that will call and invite each family. – Further discussion resulted in another proposal

 

Proposal 2 – Meet on Oct. 12 collaboration as grade level teams to identify students needing conferences and designate members to call these families to personally invite them to conferences. - Approved

 

LIT Survey Results

Guiding Question:  In what areas can we improve our effectiveness as a LIT?  What changes can we make?

 

Discussion – Review of LIT survey data.  Focus needs to be given to the LITÕs effectiveness in overseeing FMS staff plan implementation.  Feedback from team leaders is that the new staff plan format has helped focus our work with more specificity.

A topic for a future discussion needs to be re-examining our building goal statement.

 

 

Staff Plan and Building Plan Review

Guiding Question:  What progress is FMS making in following the building and staff plans?

 

Discussion – See above discussion

Mr. Waldren shared our MSP targets for the 2009/10 school year.  These goals reflect a 10% increase in the 2008/09 results. 

 

 

Tabled Topics

Best Practices Task Force

Professional Development

Spanish Enrichment Update

 

Adjourned at 5:00

 

Next meeting – Will be determined