The regular meeting of the school based council was called to order by Tom Purcell, principal. Members present: Tom Purcell, Tim Taylor, James Morgan, Melissa Morris, Buzz Backstrom, Scott Kuegel, Sue Krampe and student representative Jimmy Gilles. Also present to speak before the council, Melissa Ashby, Gary Edmonson, Tony Miller, Barbara Hart, Amy Kellen, Laura Lewis, and Beverly Phelan. Observing, Kelly Cecil.

A motion was made by Tim Taylor to approve the agenda for today’s meeting. The following items were added to the agenda:

Allow faculty to speak regarding On Line Grades in S.T.I. during the first 15 minutes of the meeting.

James Morgan seconded the motion to accept the agenda with the additional items and there was consensus.

On Line Grades - Mr. Purcell invited the faculty members to address the council with their concerns.

Mrs. Kellen spoke first and stated that they were here to discuss this issue before any policy on entering grades into S.T.I. might be made by the council. Mrs. Kellen expressed that there are many concerns about entering grades into S.T.I. Entering daily grades into S.T.I. just so there would be grades there would not be a true measure of a student’s performance. Instead of essays and written assignments, students would be given multiple choice tests and assignments that would be quicker to grade. Student grades could be inflated if a lot of participation grades were entered as daily grades. There is a concern by faculty that the council is looking simply at the number of grades entered in a six weeks time. Since a class may only meet fifteen times per six weeks, a student may only have three or four grades in a class. Some assignments take several class meetings of instruction before a student is prepared to do, thus it might take him/her a week or more to complete. Parents should look at six weeks grades not as a final grade, but as a progress report for the student’s semester grade. Some classes assign projects that take the entire six weeks to complete. That is instruction time, project prep time and grading time.

Mr. Edmonson agreed with Mrs. Kellen and asked what the specific concern of the council was. He wanted to know if the council had a concern that there was no grade entered into the computer or if the council was concerned about the turn around time in getting a grade into the computer.

Mr. Miller expressed that the student should have the primary responsibility to show his/her parents what their grades are. It is unfair to assume that it is only the responsibility of the teacher. Mr. Miller stated that he gives all essay tests. These require time to grade and to review. He views a test as a teaching instrument. He stated that requiring frequent deadlines for grades to be entered into STI interrupts planning and teaching time. Why would that timeline and decision making be taken from the hands of the teacher?

Mrs. Phelan shared that her priority is to grade and score work as quickly as she can and get it back into the hands of the students. Students have their grades in a folder and can average their grades themselves. Since we have had on-line grades, parents are contacting the teacher immediately after they see grades. STI has become another deadline. Mrs. Phelan as for consideration in grade posting turn around.

Mrs. Ashby stated that STI is a good program. Parents misunderstand what the STI grade is. It is a peek into the teacher’s grade book and is ongoing. Also, big tests with heavier weighted grades may not be given or the grade entered into STI until the end of the grading period. Parents do not understand assignments with no grades entered for them. They do not understand that the assignment is post dated. It would be a good idea for perhaps the English department to prepare a draft to explain the STI grade book to the parents.

Barbara Hart commented that parents have complained about a zero being entered for an assignment a student did not complete when they were absent. The zero is a flag in the grade book that an assignment needs to be made up, and when it is averaged into the grade and causes the grade to be lowered, it’s a big flag. It is better to have that zero serve as a reminder to make work missed up, than to have a grade be inflated and then lowered. Parents also need an explanation of how a daily grade affects a grade compared to how a heavier weighted test grade might affect a grade.

Mr. Backstrom commented that he has a better appreciation of what it takes to put grades into STI and that STI gives you a snap shot into the student’s grade.
Mr. Kuegel expressed his concern that grades be entered in a timely manner. He also expressed concern that there is not enough time to enter the grades of graded tests into STI and that even in a polite way, it sounded like teachers didn’t want to hear from parents or didn’t have time to hear from parents. If we are going to replace possible failure notices with STI progress reports, a lack of grades showing could be a problem.

Melissa Morris concurred that the school needs to communicate to the parents how grades are entered. She also agreed with the council’s stance that grades need to be entered in a timely manner. Parents are concerned when no grades are entered in. Mrs. Morris also stated that STI would generate more communication between teachers and parents, and that it would also hopefully, stimulate more communication between parents and students.

Mr. Morgan agrees with the teachers that giving a zero for a missed assignment is a strong indicator to the parents that their child has make up work. Mr. Morgan stated that he puts in his syllabus what assignments are projects and that the student should explain to their parent how long it will take to get a grade on the project. He also stated that he felt that teachers owe parents a good look at the students’ “picture” or grade. He added that no grade in the computer at the end of six weeks is a great concern. Technology has sort of overwhelmed teachers at times and that they are learning as they go. He also confirmed that he believes projects should be graded in a timely manner and that grades should be entered into STI in a timely manner.
Mr. Taylor stated that the council was not here to make policy or issue time restraints, just to discuss the importance of having grades entered in a timely fashion and that they are kept current. The guidance department probably hears concerns from parents about grade issues first, before the teachers, even before the principal. There are many, many calls or visits to the guidance office concerning grades. Mr. Taylor also stated that especially this year, it is important for teachers to contact parents of our students who may be failing. This year’s seniors who don’t have every required credit will not be allowed to graduate consequently must then make a credit up in summer school. Parents need to be made aware early on, through all means, if their child is headed in that direction.

Mr. Kuegel asked at this point if there was a spot in STI where the teacher could indicate that an assignment was a project and that it would be complete in “x” amount of time.

Mr. Purcell thanked the teachers for coming in and commented on how valuable it was to hear from teachers, parents and other council members all in one meeting. He remarked that he wanted parents to receive information explaining STI grade look up. He asked Mrs. Ashby if she would meet with him and work on drafting something for the parents. Mrs. Purcell stated that he felt STI was a valuable tool, grades should be entered into it in a timely manner and that if a teacher has assigned a project, this should be either indicated in STI or he should know about the project.

Mrs. Hart added that surely that it is a minority of the staff who do not have grades entered into STI at the end of a six weeks and not the majority. Mr. Miller again said that his first priority is to deal with the students.

Approval of September Minutes - Mr. Buzz Backstrom made a motion that we accept the minutes of the September meeting, Mr. Morgan seconded the motion and there was consensus.

Personnel Update - The following staff positions remain open:
Monitor for Beacon Central students during bus transfer at Apollo, a.m. & p.m., Assistant Softball Coach

Budget – Apollo has spent 51.9 % of our S.E.E.K. budget. We are still expecting reimbursement from the 2002 – 2003 travel and an adjustment for our second month attendance. We have spent 27.3% of our PD money. We are still ahead of last year’s travel expenditures. Mr. Purcell will be meeting with Mr. Shelton to take a closer look at these expenditures and to seek any assistance.

Grant for Smaller Learning Communities – Julie Clark shared information with the council about the Grant for Smaller Learning Communities. This grant was given to positively impact student achievement through the establishment of smaller learning communities within a school of 1,000 students or more. Through this grant, Apollo will receive $130,000 per year for the next three years. Focus will be given to areas such as the following: phase in smaller communities such as career academies, add 9th grade programs like the freshman bridge program which focuses on transitioning from middle school to high school and will help reduce retention and failure rates, allow for alternate scheduling if necessary, continue and expand CAP group relationships and other programs that are in place, develop quality technical training for career academies, have an intense emphasis on professional development as well as initiate or expand many Small Learning Communities/High Schools that Work strategies adding ideas to implement these strategies. The grant does not provide for any additional staffing or equipment.

CATS Results – Catherine Shelton - Mrs. Shelton reported the following CATS scores.

2003 Results Accountability for 2004
Accountability Index 76.8 Goal 83.4 (must score a 90 this year)
Novice % 16.82 Novice % 13.37
Dropout rate - .6 reduce drop out rate

All faculty members were asked to read over the results in their subject area and come up with one or two comments or suggestions. These were submitted to the department coordinators and then the coordinators began meeting with the administration to share the suggestions. They will also meet to discuss core content teaching strategies. The principals, with the assistance of central office personnel, will be visiting classrooms observe core content strategies, making suggestions and assisting where necessary. Apollo will also continue portfolio coaches and pals as well as its focus on reading.

Jim Gilles commented that as some sophomores realized that they maybe didn’t take their freshman portfolio assignments seriously and that they goofed around a little. Now looking back they realize that they will have to rewrite some pieces in order to include them in their portfolio. Students begin to try harder their sophomore year.

Mr. Purcell stated that the assessment committee would begin meeting soon to discuss how we will test this year. We will start from scratch with the testing window and look at the entire way we test. Emphasis will also be focused on getting a “Good Faith Effort” out of every student.

Mr. Kuegel stated that we “can’t expect more out of kids, unless we expect more out of ourselves.” Motivating students is difficult, we should set expectations for everyone and not accept anything less, and however, motivating students is a must.

Other – SACS (Southern Association for Colleges and Schools) committees have been updated. These committees will be meeting again and will go over last years information and formulate it into a plan that will be a part of our comprehensive improvement plan which is an instructional working tool for the operation of our school. Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Kuegel and Mr. Backstrom to serve on some of these committees.

Ad Hoc Possible Failure Committee – This committee will meet after school on Wednesday, October 29th at 3:30 p.m.

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, November 18, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. in the conference room.

There being no further business a motion was made by Melissa Morris to adjourn at 5:35 p.m. Scott Kuegel seconded the motion and there was consensus.

Respectfully submitted,

Becki Burton

Future Meeting Dates:

February 17, 2004
March 16, 2004
December 16, 2003 April 20, 2004
January 20, 2004 May 11, 2004