Committee of Practitioners
Charleston Marriott
March 30, 2012
Members Present: Jan Stanley, Kay Devono, Mami Itamochi, Robert Crawford, Andu
Meharie, Nate Hixson, A.J. Rogers, Frank Devono, Cinda Francis, Amanda Fragile, Joe Stewart,
Jackie Day, Tish Lovejoy, Roy Wager, John Stallings, John Merritt, Linda Bragg, Robert
Mellace, John Ford & Karen Davies
Welcome and Introductions (Karen Davies)
 Introductions/Review of Packet Contents
 Addressed FAQ of Committee of Practitioners
ESEA Flexibility Waiver (Jan Stanley)
 First waiver was submitted
 Due September 6, 2012 & applicable for 2013-14 school year
 Overview of “Our Collective Journey” contents which includes emphasis on accelerating
innovation & transforming schools to meet Global21 demands
 Discussion regarding Common Core/Next Generation standards (w/ input from John
Ford who has worked extensively with standard development)
 Goal for 2014 for US to be leader in the number of college graduates and to reduce the
number of students entering college
 To receive waiver: 1) adopt and implement college and career-ready standards and
aligned assessments of knowledge and skills (Common Core); 2) design and implement a
rigorous statewide accountability system; and 3) design, pilot, & implement, over a
period of years, a system of teacher and leader evaluation based on student achievement.
(Discussion regarding current pilot evaluation in SIG schools & addition of 2 schools
from each county next year due to legislative HB 4236)
 Teacher and leader evaluation will be fully implemented in 2014-2015
 Systems of Recognition: Proposal must include a state-based system of support to
include AMOs that will identify, reward schools (highest performing), priority school
(lowest performing & will include all Title I schools in the state rather than those
identified for improvement) and focus schools (achievement gaps/lowest performing
subgroups – bottom 10% of Title I schools). Incentive and supports must also be
provided for other Title I schools.
 Reference to “Flexibility in Implementation to Improve Student Academic Achievement
& increase the Quality of Instruction” handout
 Comments & questions regarding the waiver were requested from the Committee of
Practitioners
Review of SIG Research Evaluation (Andu Meharie & Nate Hixson)
 Research for 2010-11 SIG program for 1st year
 Overview of federal award requirements & eligibility criteria
 Research pertains to cohort 1 (there is now a 2nd SIG cohort)
 Internal research study by WVDE Office of Research
 4 broad evaluation questions
 Question #1: To what extent has the SEA provided adequate support to LEAs &
participating schools to successfully lead school improvement efforts? Reviewed SIG
program documentation (e.g., SEA professional development offered to SIG schools,
posted website reports regarding school improvement efforts) & solicited end-of-year
survey responses which were completed by 8 representatives from 7 counties
1



















Evaluation Question #1: End of Year Survey: 100%-75% response regarding provided
support
7 of 8 respondents responded that technical assistance was quality (87.5% overall)
Evaluation Question #2: To what extent has the SIG program resulted in improved
quality and quantity of instruction and nonacademic supports in participating schools?
Analysis of 1st IPI data from all 14 SIG schools during 2010-11 SY & analysis of data from
the Effective School Practice Survey completed by WVDE Title I coordinators, LEA Title
I directors & school improvement specialists in May 2011
Discussion regarding the purpose of the IPI process and the limits of the analysis of data
from only 1 IPI data collection per each participating school for 1st year research
Additional IPI data will be added to future research
Shows positive correlation between increased proficiency rates & student engagement
Shows positive correlation between increased proficiency and Effective School Practice
Survey data in 4 core areas (i.e., reading, mathematics, science and social studies)
Consideration variation among SIG schools
Essential Question #3: To what extent has the SIG program resulted in improved
academic achievement among students in participating schools?
Analysis of available testing records for all SIG enrolled students across 2 years in time
(i.e., Grades 3-4, 4-5, etc.) and analysis of school level effects (3 year trend in overall
schoolwide data)
Students in cohort 1 SIG schools outperformed their counterparts by a statistically
significant margin in Grades 3-4 in both reading/language arts & mathematics (also in
grades 5-6)
Students in the non-comparison schools outperformed their counterparts in grades 6-7
in reading & mathematics
School level results indicated that both SIG & non-SIG comparison schools have made
extraordinary gains during the past 3 years (2009-2011 SY)
Evidence that low performing schools implementing SIG initiatives are outperforming
those that are not participating in SIG
Evaluation question #4: To what extent have SIG schools successfully implemented &
institutionalized practices and structures that are supportive of continuous school
improvement?
Analysis of survey data and data collected onsite by the Office of Title I staff using the
School Culture Survey
Identified 2 critical areas of need: expectations for student performance & peer review
process
Study largely establishes baseline data for future research
Relies heavily on perceptual survey data
Title III Consortium Progress and Trans Act (Robert Crawford & Mami Itamochi)
 3 Title III topic areas: TransAct Usage Data & Renewal, Title III Consortium Model &
Title III Program Checklist
 TransAct: 2 questions: 1) Is TransAct meeting your needs? 2) If not, how can it be
strengthened?
 Background of TransAct: Subscription with WVDE began in 2010 & translates parent
notifications into a language that parents can understand/100% of districts, the WVDE &
RESA 8 are registered for access as of 1/20/2012/Since February 2011 there are a total of
160 users registered for access
 Benefit of utilizing TransAct is documents are legally reviewed
 Approximately 14% of documents downloaded in WV are translated documents
2















Data was presented pertaining to the number of users per each registered access and the
top 100 documents downloaded
An overview of the live TransAct site was presented
Posed 3 questions: 1) How are you currently using TransAct to support the work of
federal programs? Printed signs, security knowing federal language is included in
various languages, Monongalia has students using 60 different languages at North
Elementary School, some counties do not have ESL language issues, signs are made in
schools for identification purposes for ESL students (e.g., restroom signs)
2) How might your county utilize TransAct in the future? More information regarding
other uses in which the district is not aware
3) What might be some effective ways to increase statewide usage? Training, webinars
Consortia – SEA cannot issue a subgrant award to an LEA of less than $10k, therefore
RESAs 4 & 6 receive funding as a consortium
Proposal for restructure – Subgrant allocated to RESA that services multiple LEAs
(RESAs) & RESAs would retain a portion of federal allocation from each LEA
3 questions regarding proposal: 1) What do you see as the positives of the restructured
model? It is not a lot of funding, but professional development could be offered at
regional level, collaboration with other counties would be beneficial, TransAct awareness
could be offered at regional level, more of a consortia effort rather than simply
appointing a fiscal agency, consider a different approach with the 2 RESAs currently
receiving funding
2) What challenges might exist? Needs to include counties that are close in proximity to
the RESA assigned since travel may be an issue in terms of participation
3) What suggestions do you have regarding the proposal? Consider proximity when
assigning RESAs to professional development sessions, provide fiscal & professional
development responsibilities to the county within the RESA with the largest number of
ESL students, COP RESA representative will share with all RESA directors at upcoming
meeting for their input
Risk Factors: Consider a self-monitoring tool for counties to utilize in-between
monitoring which occurs once every 3 years
3 Questions: 1) What do you see as the benefit of this self-assessment checklist and how
might it be used? Helps directors stay on track with standards, not overwhelming – one
sheet, consider adding an additional column for districts to add notes regarding areas
where additional technical assistance needs to be made
2) What challenges might this document create? Title I tried the self-monitoring process
and the documents were overwhelming marked compliant when in reality many
standards were not in compliance
3) What additional questions or factors should be considered or addressed in this
document or the process? Ensure directors complete self-monitoring instrument by
adding a compliance check box to the Title III section of the five year strategic plan,
include self-monitoring training during new directors training
Cell phone polling service can be found at this link:
https://www.polleverywhere.com
Title II Coaching Initiative & High Quality Teacher Plan (Linda Bragg & Robert Mellace)
 2 Title II topics: Highly qualified teacher plans and coaching and learning
 HQ Teacher Plan: Components of highly qualified teachers plans (including those seen
in co plans across WV - addresses unique needs of county, analysis of data, identify
mission/beliefs/vision, identify needed resources, communicate the plan, implement the
plan and reflect/revise the plan)
 Ensure coding inputs are correct since it can affect the % of highly qualified teachers
3


Coaching: can support continuous improvement & professional development plan and
retention and retaining teachers within HQ plan
Presented an overview of FY11 Title II expenditures (to focus on coaching/professional
development) & the number of coaches by funding source
Universal Pre-K Updates (Clayton Burch)
 Next fall pre-k must be universal (2013-14)
 New website – Office of School Readiness
 Information will be officially announced on April 10, 2012 by the State Superintendent of
Schools regarding the positive progress of WV Pre-K
 Beginning new initiative evolving around school readiness
 Statewide Pre-K formative assessment/training pre-k teachers to interpret assessment
data
 Statewide formative assessment system will be moved into K the following year
 Ready, Set, Go Campaign is the WV readiness campaign
 September 11-12 fall institute for county collaborative teams/celebrate developers and
pre-K teachers who have been instrumental in universal pre-k initiative
 PreK resource map available on website which provides data pertaining to each WV
county
 Policy 2525 has been transformed and will be presented to the WVBOE on May 2012 &
will be up for comment shortly thereafter
 Each county must complete a school readiness plan
 County collaborative team will be responsible for developing a monitoring system
 Beginning this year there is a Pre-K component within the five year strategic plan
 An overview of the WV Universal Pre-K program is also included on the website &
includes universality statistics
 Two years ago policy requiring an additional adult if a classroom has more than 5
students
Other Concerns:
 None
Adjournment at 3:20 p.m.
4