LSC Minutes, December 15, 2014
Members present: Sharon Bray, Carolyn Wood, Brian Kish, Jennifer Kimball, Renee Steckl, Harry
Bowden, Paige Cucchi, Mario Herrera, Mr. Guiney
Guests: Carrie MacBrien (Communications and Journalism Academy Leader), Larry McCurdy (ELA lead
teacher).
Motion by Herrera: move to approve minutes with revisions agreed upon by email by Friday, December
19.
Principal’s Report (Mr. Guiney):
Cluster planning still underway. First committee meeting with community reps last Friday, and there was
a good turnout to the meeting. PTSA and LSC rep from every school in the cluster were in attendance.
Academic priorities and other such matters were discussed. All of these conversations are important as
the District transitions to the new charter cluster system. There will be another committee meeting in
January.
Testing (SLOs) are finishing up for semester classes. Benchmarks are being given in EOC courses. It was
decided at the school level that the benchmark assessments would not factor in to student’s semester
grade.
Journalism: Beginning January 5 Grady HS will have journalism teacher (Mr. Winter) full time for the
next semester. Early level approval has been accomplished.
Ms. Steckl asked whether or not the journalism teaching position will be a job share position in the
future.
Mr. Guiney replied that such a shared position is a complicated process, and includes a series of steps
that is difficult to put in place. He would prefer the position to be full time moving forward. He also
mentioned that there are no benefits for the half-time position, and must be certified on a block
schedule which further complicates a job-share position.
The school has seen an increase in student tardies. The school is putting plans in place to bring back the
lock-out policy. This means that once the policy is in place, teachers will close the doors and students
must get pass from discipline office and receive an afterschool detention. The result of continued tardies
will mean escalated consequences.
Preliminary CCRPI scores to be released by state tomorrow. Based upon preliminary, our scores have
gone up. In 2012-13, our score was 66.8; it appears that in the 2013-14 our score went up to 71.1. When
all scores are out, we will be able to compare Grady HS scores to district and state scores. The media
often reports scores so very likely will be available through various news sites.
Ms. Bray requested that Mr. Barnes discuss CCRPI at a future LSC meeting.
Mr. Guiney remarked that there has been no response from the District regarding our invitation for an
APS facilities representative to attend an LSC meeting. We will continue to request such a meeting.
ELA Department Report (Ms. MacBrien and Mr. McCurdy):
The English Department has been bombarded with new assessments and tests. The goal provided by the
district is to create data that is useful for teachers and students. One such example of a new assessment
is the diagnostic writing assessment. This assessment had a three day turn-around. The amount of time
needed included a grading day where nearly all English teachers took a day off and the school paid for
substitutes to meet this need. Grading of the assessment was mostly accomplished on this day, and
because of the format used, the department worked on consistency with grading to improve data and
future instruction. This, overall, is good for students and staff here at the school. English teacher ended
the day with a better way to evaluate essays. Two more diagnostics are coming up in January as well as
one in March.
Ms. MacBrien furthered the discussion by stating that Scores were entered into IC so that it follows the
student and we can assist the student. The writing assessment allows for specific aspects of writing to
be evaluated and is broken into domains.
Ms. Wood asked what the goal is from a District standpoint. How do these scores get to students, if at
all?
Mr. McCurdy replied that teacher can work on specific domains within the constraints of class size.
Ms. MacBrien furthered that there is a new initiative, “Reading Plus,” from the Office of HS, as well as a
writing diagnostic, put in place by the APS Literacy Coordinator. The “InSight Reading Program” is also
new to the district. The “Reading Plus” program is being utilized by Ms. Ramey who was trained to use
the program. Ms. Ramey is teaching classes that utilize the program, and the class is for those who
scored in the lowest 30% as determined by the 9th grade EOCT and 8th grade CRCT. Just because they are
in the program does not mean they are not reading at grade level- there are other factors that are
included in the program. Reading Plus meets them where they are and pushes them forward.
A mandate came from the district to assess all students using the “Insight” program. The assessment is
taken electronically and is about an hour long. The program is also adaptive in nature. Ms. MacBrien
stated she would email information about the program to the LSC. The purpose is to individual and
target instruction.
Judge Bowden asked what the long-range the plans for the program are. Is the program an isolated
program? Can we utilize the program as differentiation plan?
Ms. MacBrien replied that the district has not told us what the long-term, larger plan is.
Judge Bowden asked if the school is in a position to request what the plan should or could be?
Ms. MacBrien: replied that we could request that the program be used in reading across content areas
but that training would be necessary.
Ms. Bray asked whether or not the school has strategies for how we move students to become stronger
readers?
Ms. MacBrien commented that the teaching of reading is a specialized skill. In order to teaching reading,
specialized training is necessary. Mr. McCurdy agreed with this comment.
Ms. Bray inquired as to the best way to help students of average reading skills improve their reading
efficiency.
Mr. Herrera asked how effective this program is and how do we know it works at all.
Ms. MacBrien responded that Dr. Gadsen of the Office of High Schools utilized the program in Austin,
TX, and saw success.
Ms. Steckl asked if the evaluative for writing was mandated for graduating seniors.
Mr. McCurdy replied that the assessment is mandated for all and we are following those mandates.
Ms. MacBrien stated that moving forward, if more time is allocated for teachers on focus on writing
skills, then there is definitely an opportunity to get students to move to the next level.
Ms. Wood asked if the testing window for the writing diagnostic was prescribed by the District.
Ms. MacBrien stated that the testing window is already open and ends in mid-January.
Judge Bowden pointed out that such skills are vital in other disciplines and inquired as to whether or not
it is possible to scaffold the skills in the school.
Mr. McCurdy replied that writing across the curriculum is the goal. But the practicality makes it very
difficult.
Ms. MacBrien suggested that it may be possible to share the rubric with the entire staff.
Judge Bowden asked whether this is a new rubric or one we have used in the past.
Mr. McCurdy commented that there was a specific Grady HS and district rubric but that he believes this
is the first time that the district has used the same rubric for all schools.
Ms. Steckl informed the council that former principal Dr. Murray has been admitted to Crawford Long
hospital, and that he has been quite sick and has been in the hospital for the last month.
Ms. Wood asked about the quality of the assessments and the benchmark.
McCurdy stated that the staff is doing the best they can to make the benchmark as relevant to student
and instruction as possible.
Mr. Herrera remarked that it is impossible to tell how the benchmark impacts overall state assessments
as we don’t know what the Milestone looks like.
Ms. Bray suggested that perhaps in gifted classes and/or for gifted students we offer speed reading.
Ms. Cucchi stated she has heard positive comments about the new essay-writing class.
Mr. McCurdy stated that the teaching of how write a college essay might be a good use of time in senior
advisement.
Old Business:
Field space: Walden MS field space for use by some Grady HS athletics is moving forward. Proposal for
batting cage structure is currently being discussed, as well as creative ways to utilize the space. The
district athletics department went to assess the areas.
Bray: Spoke with Nancy Habif re: athletics. Ms. Habif spoke with superintendent.
Ms. Steckl pointed out that other school fields are utilized/given to city soccer leagues instead of being
used for school activities. She inquired as to who allows city soccer leagues to be on the school property.
Ms. Bray responded that perhaps we need to have the district renegotiate such contract.
Ms. Wood wondered whether or not such contracts were a result of BOE contracts.
Ms. Cucchi suggested that we find ways to work with others to share resources to best meet community
needs.
Judge Bowden asked if APS could make baseball an official middle school sport.
Mr. Guiney informed the LSC that Ms. Van Beck has inquired of APS whether or not the lower field of
Grady HS could possibly be used for baseball. It should be mentioned, however, that the price tag may
be hefty for such a conversion.
Ms. Bray stated that there has also been inquiry about a batting cage in the lower field. Such requests
furthers the need for an overall master plan of Grady HS.
Ms. Steckl was interested in the future situation regarding floating teachers. Since appears that we will
continue to have floating teachers, does this mean Grady HS should request more trailers, and if so, how
does this impact such needs and requests as a batting cage?
Mr. Guiney responded that this type of answer must come from the district. He will contact Jere Smith
to see if answers are forthcoming.
Ms. Steckl stated that such a conversation should be started now.
Ms. Bray stated that it would be better to have more trailers than to have teachers without classrooms.
Ms. Bray informed the LSC that the Master Plan subcommittee met earlier in the month. Mr. Guiney
asked for our records re the plan to address needed improvements to the school. She remarked that
while this may not be the best time to ask for district to include our input regarding such plans due to
how they responded to other such inquiries within the cluster, she believes, and the subcommittee
agrees, that we should move forward to create an internal master plan.
She also stated that any correspondence with district regarding such plan should perhaps be detached
from school population projections. We need the plan to focus on school needs and the future of the
school.
Judge Bowden asked if the 2010 plans to address needs is different from current needs of improvement
and expansion.
Ms. Bray stated that Mr. Nichols spearheaded the original idea of a science wing and engineering space.
The proposal was discussed last year. However, there is no budget at this point for expansion. Dr. Mays
(APS CTAE Director) was not in favor for pursuing engineering certification for Grady HS.
Judge Bowden noted that there is a lack of continuity in such planning, and it is “stifling.” Purpose and
direction seem lacking. What stops us from having a goal, pursuing the plan and making it happen.
Ms. Bray agreed that there is a desperate need for such a plan to move forward. We have not as a
school put any plan into place. The subcommittee is starting to plan in this manner.
Mr. Kish stated that there is $20 million allocated to meet the needs of Grady HS. This is such a tool to
help us. We have asked the district to send representatives to find out if other tools exist and how we
can assist in the planning. As a school we need to be prepared to discuss and the specific needs of the
school.
Judge Bowden asked whether or not such information is forthcoming.
Ms. Steckl replied that obtaining such information is difficult. This is in part because of so much change
in central office.
Ms. Bray commented that one goal of the LSC is to get to know the school inside and out so that we can
best known our needs. The master plan subcommittee is working to meet this goal.
Mr. Guiney stated that he sent an invitation to Mr. Smith and/or Mr. Hardy to attend an LSC meeting
specifically for this purpose. As a council, we should continue brainstorming on priorities we would like
to see from an improvement perspective. We may need charts for academics, athletics and extracurricular activities.
Ms. Steckl: Can’t the LSC request they have to be here?
Ms. Bray stated the answer from the district is “no.”
Ms. Cucchi inquired as to whether or not our requests seem so large that they simply are not being
considered by the district.
Ms. Steckl pointed out that such issues as the sewage back-up in the scene shop needs to be addressed
soon.
Mr. Guiney stated that the scene shop issue was not taken care of immediately, and our on-site crew did
what they could.
Mr. Bray pointed out that the Facilities assessment report may show that the district is working toward
fixing some of these problems.
Mr. Kish added that we know there is a checklist on the facilities assessment so we can know whether or
not things are being accomplished per their facilities. We need to make sure that our needs and the
needs identified by APS are the same.
Ms. Steckl: The Board, the Superintendent, the Office of High Schools do not really know the schools.
We should invite them to the school so they know our needs.
Ms. Cucchi: What about our news outlets here at Grady HS and at other schools? It would interesting to
have a comparison.
Ms. Bray suggested that it may be too early in the process for such a meeting. We need to make sure we
understand the process while at the same time making sure our needs are known. We also should try to
find multiple ways to inform the appropriate parties of our needs and how to successful work with those
in charge. We hope to lay the groundwork this year.
Cluster Planning:
Ms. Bray: The first meeting went amazingly well. Reps from every school, and principals were at the
meeting. A big part of the meeting is figuring out how to work together in effective ways. There was
much discussion about elementary schools and staff resources. Working collaboratively is important.
There are certain things we will want to advocate at the Cluster level, school level, and shared issues.
The idea of a signature theme being discussed is college preparatory with emphasis in the Arts. It needs
to be communicated that the emphasis is not a theme or pathway, but rather is an emphasis. STEM
ideas could be reflected through stronger science and math classes.
Mr. Guiney pointed out that elementary school needs and collaboration to bring those needs to light
could be quite important.
Ms. Bray agreed, stating that we should be taking what we have that is good and working on it as the
plans for a Charter Cluster move forward.
Mr. Kish and Ms. Bray attended the LSC Training meeting. There was discussion on how the LSC
functions, and how to work with and learn from outreach with such organizations as the PTSA. Also, how
the LSC functions with their close relationship with the PTSA. The LSC can elevate school functionality as
part of the principal’s leadership team. The training was presented by members of the district.
Ms. Bray remarked that the next Cluster Planning Committee meeting is Friday January 16th at Hope Hill
at 8:15 in the morning.
Testing
Mr. Herrera expressed concern about the increased amount of testing from the state and district. While
the tests and assessments create data, there has been no formalized training on using the data,
sometimes the data does not seem to be available at the classroom and/or school level, and the amount
of time being taken from students and teachers to take these tests has significantly increased.
Judge Bowden asked what assessments we really have to focus on and participate in at this time. Can
we create a committee to determine this or to find out what the plan is?
Mr. Guiney replied that no one really has the answer to such questions. Politics and money do impact
these situations. There has been a lot of pushback to value-added model of growth and achievement in
relation to teacher and administrator evaluation. Continued advocacy is the only solution. We cannot
predict the future of politics or money.
Ms. Wood stated that there is a national pushback against over-testing that is parent driven. There may
not be many parents who know the full impact. We need to be instrumental in informing the
community. The amount of testing is a disservice to students.
Ms. Bray asked if a typical testing day schedule be looked at to assure that such time for students not in
testing receive quality instruction during the time. Additionally, what way is best to communicate
concerns? Is the data being used successfully? What is the best way to improved student success
regarding these tests?
Mr. Guiney mentioned that the final exam at the end of the year will be created by the district is THE
final. Teachers may not give another final in EOC courses. The final will count for 20% of a student’s final
grade in that EOC course.
Ms. Bray remarked that the district has had issues with creating tests in the past. Students are being
held responsible for what they may or may not have been taught, as there is no way to know what is on
the test. She asked who is coordinating this particular test at the District level, and why is it a district
mandate?
Mr. Guiney replied that it was a decision of the Office of High Schools with a consensus of all high school
principals.
Ms. Bray asked for further information and data regarding the amount of time being spent on testing
and how it impacts student class time and teacher planning time. Mr. Herrera stated he would reach out
to faculty to start gathering this information.