001I'll call this work session into order. If I could get an adoption of the agenda, please. >> I move to adopt the agenda as presented. >> Second. >> All those in favor, please raise your right hand and say, "I." >> I. >> Okay. Item 2.01, 01 personalized competency based learning PCBL. Dr. Bart, >> thank you. We are looking forward uh to the opportunity to share a little bit about um one of our most significant instructional initiatives that we've got going on in the district. Um I'm going to be co-presenting uh this afternoon um with Dr. Lisa Janeway who is our executive director of curriculum and Dr. Matt Jones who is our director of assessment. And I am going to start by turning it over to Dr. Janeway. And here in a minute, I think she's
002going to have us pair up uh for a little bit of an activity. So, I will turn it to to her and then I will um put something face down in front of every other of you and ask you to leave it face down as she's presenting. Okay. Good evening. We are so uh pleased to be here tonight to share some information about this initiative. Uh, I warn you, this is something I could talk about for a really long time, but I've been given a time limit, so don't worry. Uh, so tonight we're going to talk a little bit about this idea of PCBL. And as you well know, uh, in education, we are certainly guilty of our acronyms. And so, this is yet another that we add to a really long list. Um, yesterday
003I dropped my oldest son off at college for the first time. Uh, this is a game that he and I used to play. when we pulled up to the stoplight, we would look at the license plate in front of us and we would try and come up with the funniest uh language to meet the acronym that was on the license plate. So, uh we had some fun coming up with what PCBL could stand for. Maybe prickly cacti blooming late, some chocolatecovered bacon, pizza, clowns being lazy. No, obviously it is none of these things. PCBL actually stands for personalized competency based learning. It's language that we really have fallen in line with the state of Missouri. It's the the nomenclature that they are using. And so in R seven, we're using the same. Um and you
004know, as with most acronyms, it requires a little bit of explanation. But before we get into technical definitions, uh we're actually going to experiment a bit. And I think showing you um one of the most important facets of PCBL is far more effective. So Dr. Ber has put those yellow pieces of paper, I believe, in front of you. And so, we're going to partner up and it works out beautifully. We have a nice even number this evening. One of you is going to provide directions, verbal directions, and you're going to have the yellow piece of paper in hand, and you get to see what's on the paper. The other of you gets to practice your artist skills, and you are going to draw uh what you think is on that paper based on the verbal
005directions provided by your partner. Any clarity I can provide about the task. All right. So, you're going to partner up. One of you gives directions, one of you draws. >> So, I'm saying, "Okay, take a line straight down." She's not looking at it. And Lisa is trying to draw it as I'm describing it. Let's take about one more minute. Let's see what we can What we can manage in one minute. All right, direction givers, give one more direction if you're not quite there, and then we'll put a pin in it. So, if you haven't already, uh, artists, you may take your drawing and compare it to that yellow piece of paper to see how you did. I heard some whoops. I heard some laughter. I hear some almost. So if you're like others who have
006um done this experience, you might have found this to be a little challenging. Operating blindly without understanding exactly what is expected of you and not having that made super clear is sometimes very challenging. So one of the uh facets of PCBL is really a concept of clarity. Imagine if instead your partner had simply taken this yellow piece of paper, pushed it across the desk and said, "Can you draw that?" probably would have been a lot easier. The power of PCBL is really about unlocking some of the mystery and providing very clear expectations for our learners, also our our teachers and our system as a whole so that we can move further um with good pedigogy. So here's our technical definition. Personalized competency based learning. It's an educational framework in which learners are challenged and supported
007based on their learning progression which is guided by clear and explicit expectations and measured by a variety of evidence. It's still a handful and so we have really continued to simplify and summarize for staff especially. We think about this really in three big ideas. The first one is clarity. It's the concept of pushing the yellow piece of paper across the table and saying this is exactly what we expect from you as a learner. It's also this concept of me evidence. Many of you were looking over your shoulders partner at the evidence they were creating and you were giving feedback about how they were doing and helping to redirect the work that they were doing. So when we talk about PCBL we really think about it in terms of clarity, evidence and feedback. Admittedly, when I
008was first uh really sort of diving into this particular concept, I turned to a colleague and I said, "I guess I'm I'm I don't get it." I said, "It really just seems like good instruction. It seems like good pedigogy." And it is. That's what PCBL is. It is a really clear and intentional approach to the teaching and learning that happens in our classrooms. So, as we think about school improvement, whether that's or CISP or any other sort of systematic improvement. Um, purposeful and planned design and implementation is important. So, we wanted to let you know and give you a little glimpse at what that has looked like for our PCBL implementation. Actually, there's a couple of years prior to this. If you think about uh 22 23 and even into 2122, there was a lot
009of principal and leader learning happening. But we have essentially divided our courses into two phases because we can't do everything at once. We're still quite a bit at once, but we can't do everything at once. Our phase one courses are K12, English language arts, and math. And then chemistry. Chemistry is a little um outlier there because they needed some curriculum resources. So, we got them into phase one. And then phase two is science, social studies, and our other electives. Um and so they move in um offset by a year so that we can keep them in their phases. And the first year of work, regardless of what phase, is the prioritization of essential standards and learning targets and some work with the curriculum advisory board looking at unit design, values of our departments, and scope
010of sequence. So there's a lot of curriculum work that happens in that first year as it relates to connecting to the state standards. Everything very tightly aligned to the to the Missouri learning standards. The second tier of each phase's work is the development of proficiency scales, which we'll discuss here in a in a minute. and the idea of common assessments andor artifacts which we will also discuss. And now we are in year three for our phase one courses. And this is the exciting part. It's the year in which we get to start trying to use an with our classrooms. It's the very first year of implementation. We have a multi-year implementation plan too because we can't say to our teachers, okay, here you go, be perfect at it. Right? So those words clarity, evidence, and
011feedback are guarding guiding our implementation. And the first year will be about clarity. We'll talk a little bit more about implementation here in a minute as well. And then you can see that phase two is staggered. Now, not every single course is in phase one and phase two. You might think of some of our advanced ELA courses, um some of our IB courses that are singletons. Those courses will be picked up in later phases, but for the most part after phase one or phase two, the majority of our coursework K12 will be through this work. So, I mentioned proficiency skills, and I'm going to pause here for a moment because proficiency scales are 100% the pivotal key understanding to PCBL. Okay. A proficiency scale creates the clarity that Lisa was just talking about. A proficiency
012scale represents a progression of learning starting from introducing vocabulary and the most basic fundamental skill up to the advanced pieces of a task. 3.0 and this is a potential place of confusion. A 3.0 on a proficiency scale is the target. That means you've mastered the task. Okay? So, for example, learning to drive a car, being able to successfully drive a car, pass your driver's test, that's a 3.0. You can do the task. Okay. Yep. >> Nope. >> No, not grading at all. In fact, we aren't we aren't going to we aren't going to even talk about grading because it's not a rubric either. It's not about how well can you drive the car because a 2.0 0 isn't driving the car poorly. A 2.0 is understanding the vocabulary and fundamental skills that build first. So,
013where is my turn signal? Um, how do I turn the car on? What is this roadside mean? It's like the book you get from the DMV when you're learning to drive. The other example that I use um and this is always a little risky for a high school English teacher to start talking chemistry when her boss is a science teacher. But um occasionally um occasionally I use the example that if the 3.0 is in chemistry to balance chemical equations, right? That would be a target task in a chemistry class. I think we don't start off by saying okay guys first day of class we're going to balance these chemical equations, right? What we do in first is we start talking about what are these elements? How does the periodic table work? What are the charges
014mean? What do the symbols mean? Right? Those are 2.0 ta skills. 3.0 task would then be navigating the balancing of the equations. A 4.0 is the extension or the enrichment beyond what is the target and application. So when we think about examples, you think about training wheels on a bike, playing uh wobbly riding, you can ride your bike smoothly and then you can do the tricks, right? It's a progression of learning. Couple of big ideas about proficiency scales. This is about what should be learned. It is very possible, Stacy, to your question that I might teach three lessons and they are only on a 2.0 O content cont uh tent, right? And you might get a 100% on all three of those lessons and have an A in that class, right? Because you got 100%
015on all those lessons and that's fine. But those are only 2.0 lessons. So on the progression of learning, you're only at a 2.0 and that's fine. It just tells you where you are in your sequence of learning. So it is very separate than grading. It is not where you are in terms of well this was a great paper or a poor paper or a well done project or a poorly done project. It is about that progression of learning as skills uh develop. The reason this is so important is that when we start to ask for clarity for teachers about hey does third grade look exactly like it's you know are you tackling the standard exactly the same way as you are in your third grade classrooms. Clarity is provided by what's in the proficiency skills.
016It helps students know and teachers know what is target and what are the foundational vocabulary skills and knowledge that build towards that progression. >> And if I could add in, so some of you seen parts of this at work for years at Summit Tech Academy, they've been doing this. Um, and you could convert them to grades, which Summit Tech does, but most that's not what we're shooting for. Um, some of you maybe not. Maybe I've had some board members come with me up to Liberty to their micro school at Liberty High School. This is what they're doing. And when you talk to a kid, they can tell you, "I'm at a 2.0. I am here and I know I need to be able to do this to get here and this is what I'm working
017on to get to that." So, um, the power of the kid ownership, the student ownership is so much greater when they have clarity. They know what the proficiency scales are. They know where they're at in this progression. Um, and thus, they know uh what they need to work on next. And we have been just because we know there's a potential place of anxiety. We have been very clear in all of our foundation training with all of our teachers that we do not have an intention of changing our grading practices. This is about clarity uh for the teacher and the student about what they're supposed to learn. It's about being able to see what I'm supposed to draw so I can work on being able to draw if we want to carry that analogy out a
018little bit further. Okay. So, we'll talk a little bit about what curriculum work has happened, what assessment artifact has happened, and then I'm going to wrap up talking about the supports we're providing for teachers to help them utilize these tools that we're giving them um effectively in their classroom. >> So, Dr. Barger already referenced some of the curriculum work in that two-year design piece of our implementation plan, but essentially there are some big steps that happen. I should also mention sometimes there's a little bit of confusion between the curriculum design work that's happening and PCBL. And so the way that I've explained this to teachers is that in order to implement with clarity to ensure that we're collecting high quality evidence and we're giving good feedback, we have to have a curricular infrastructure that is
019tight, that is clear, and that supports the work. And so the two years of design have yielded these following uh products. We have taken all of the learning targets that come to us from uh in in this phase one case from Missouri learning standards and we said are all of these equally of importance because really the concept of learning 87 uh discrete skills in one year is not uh very practical. So we really think about how those skills work together and how we um organize those into what we call critical concepts which really makes it very accessible palatable for our learners. And then once we really decided which was most important, we re-evaluated our units of instruction. We didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We went back to where we were and we
020said, "Does this still reflect what we think is most important. And if it does, then we didn't have a lot of revision to make. But where it didn't, we were able to really re-evaluate our scope and sequence, uh, how those skills were placed. And that was also a time where we spent some um time with our teacher teams deciding whether or not we had adequate curricular resources to support the instruction at the level that we had defined. And then in year two of design work, we move into developing those proficiency skills that Dr. Barger uh was referencing. I can tell you the professional academic conversations that begin to happen as a result of unpacking learning and not thinking about it through the lens of execution or delivery, but really thinking deeply and thoughtfully about what
021it looks like and what the expectations are. It's been incredible to watch our teams develop uh the proficiency scales such that then we can begin to talk about the evidence that will um give us feedback on whether kids are meeting those learning goals. the products of this work. We are so proud and so excited about what we've been able to provide to teachers. Dr. Varger referenced our curriculum advisory boards. These are teams of teachers that have thought really deeply around their content area and what we believe as teachers of literacy or teachers of mathematics and they have outlined what high quality instruction looks like in those classrooms. They've also developed what we call play sheets that provide very concrete explicit instructional strategies that support that work. So that really speaks to the instructional side. On
022the other side, our curriculum writing teams have developed what we are calling the LSR7 curriculum collection that is comprised of six different types of documents. Um, and those documents I'm going to unpack for you here in a bit, but essentially they are the what and they are the how with very explicit references to our like I mentioned our curricular resources, the vocabulary that would be uh taught at level two of those critical concept proficiency scales and so on and so forth. And this has been made available to all of our teachers in our phase one courses. So then in transition as a part of that work um and developing the assessments and understanding exactly how to measure the learning that's happening day in and day out um had the opportunity of meeting with the teams
023um that did a lot of the same work um that Dr. Jane just mentioned. There's about 20 of them K12 about 80 teachers and we first just started with conversation around this paradigm shift that assessment is a verb and not a noun and that we think of assessment just as test and that really um when did you see Dr. Marzano quot here it's about a process of gathering evidence um and that anything not just one piece of paper event at the end of a unit or a final um but anything can really measure and provide a student an opportunity to show what they know and a teacher to use that information for instruction and evaluation. And so as we shift and had these conversations away um into this kind of mindset of te from tests
024into artifacts um we spent a bulk of our time in the beginning of of doing some professional reading and studying and again all of these groups K12 teaching math ELA and chemistry work together to develop common definitions of what we mean by assessment here in Lee Summit and also then um how we use assessments and really this mindset that not just measuring what students know u but also using them as an opportunity to um provide feedback to students for students to be able to provide feedback to us as teachers um and respond to that with our instruction. Um and again also this mindset of kind of living these two worlds that this focus isn't about changing grades or grading practices and as Dr. Barger said the tests still are points and letter grades but it's
025really more so about using this lens of evaluating the learning that's happened in the classroom. And so ending um last year, our main goal when it came to artifacts was developing some actual common artifacts that teachers were used this year to give them those resources to help through that. And developing these common artifacts kind of provided four um supports for teachers. And first is that it's immediate resource that I know I'm teaching from this proficiency scale. I've got this Karman artifact that I can use as an assignment in classroom and I know that it's aligned with the proficiency scale and the direction that we're going. um it provides some context to what the proficiency scales say in the expectations so that if I see in a scale that it a scale of 2.0 know is
026being able to identify um author's point of view and I know this artifact is aligned to that. that helps me as a teacher go okay so if I'm doing this that is what this means and provides a little bit of context to those scales for teachers and students um it's an example for additional artifacts because um obviously teachers are going to have multiple assignments and activities that they're going to do with students and as a teacher I can look at this and go oh I know this measures this learning expectation at a level two so I that gives me an idea to do this this and this that would also measure this level of learning at level two and kind of use as a benchmark to support teachers in this work. And then finally, um,
027it's a common source for feedback. So, we're all kind of speaking from the same place. And so, an opportunity for teachers to go, I use all teachers, no matter where you are in what building or what grade, we use this artifact, and here's feedback that we have on it. It worked. It really hit the target here. Uh, didn't do as well as we thought that it would do here. Allows us to collect and garner feedback as we build and continue this work with phase two and cycle through the work that we're doing within phase one. And just a few examples of what this looked like. Some of it's just as direct as in us breaking down what might a um assessment questions and and align specifically the targets that we have. Um that's a fifth
028grade math example. Here is an excerpt of a common artifact for I think ninth nth grade ELA. Um we have a new resource that they're using there and within there they are embedded specific questions and stems and discussion points um as they stopped as they read through a text. And so um teachers went through and said oh these questions align specifically to this point within a proficiency scale. So, as a teacher, when I know I stop and I have this discussion point or I use it as a writing prompt of some sort, I know exactly what I'm measuring as it's aligned to the curriculum and resources we provided. Finally, we're also working on providing artifact guides for teachers, not just assuming that if I give you this that you automatically know what in the world
029it is and how to use it. And so, um, teams are developing, um, these to go along with this so that, uh, they understand here's what the purpose is of it. Here's the considerations that you might have before you um provide the artifact or use it. Um it explains how it aligns to the proficiency scales. What questions measure what and why? Uh another feature that we'll work to continue to add on for this year is then the artifact feedback and response portion. So I'm a new teacher and I go I know I'm supposed to give this artifact and I give it and I grade it but kids missed it. Now what do I do? It's teachers providing some feedback to go okay well did they make these mistakes? Well, you might consider retaching this type
030of concept. Or if it went this way, you might consider these next steps here, providing just as many resources and supports we can for our classroom teachers to use these artifacts to gather the information they need to make the best instructional decisions possible. So, speaking of tools that we have provided our teachers, I mentioned the curriculum collection. So this happens to be a a screen grab of a temporary curriculum hub. We actually have a consolidated curriculum hub that we are uh populating as we speak. But this is what we shared with teachers last year. And you can see from a literacy um reading instruction standpoint, everything that you would need K5 lives in this one document. And there are multiple documents in that collection. As I mentioned, I'm going to go through them very briefly.
031So the first uh we call it simply the learning target document. So this really answers the question, what am I supposed to teach? I'm brand new to LSR7. I'm teaching sixth grade math for the very first time. What are the skills that are required by the state of Missouri and our Missouri learning standards and also by our school district for me to teach? And while there are a lot of them, I am expected to teach all of them. However, some of them are going to take a little more time or a little more energy because they're a little more important. And so this simply answers the question of what the next uh document is what we have called the proficiency scale matrix. So these also live as uh vertical documents. In this case you can
032see we have our sixth grade math all the way up through uh geometry algebra 2 our high school math our main uh pathway of mathematics instruction. And down that first column, we have all of the critical concepts that live in each of these courses such that you can hop into this matrix and you can get a sense of which grade bands are working on which particular critical concepts. And then clicking in to look at each one of those proficiency scales to see exactly how it it evolves and grows and changes each subsequent year. So that not only are we talking about a vertical progression of learning within a scale, we're demonstrating for teachers the progression that happens across multiple grades and multiple courses to ensure a seamless experience for our learners. Then we have a
033scope and sequence document. Uh it's sort of funny when we shared all of this with teachers last year. We have a protocol we go through and they are all just chomping at the bit. Just get to the teaching part, right? I would I just want to see the scope and sequence. What am I doing right out of the gate? And this is exactly what uh that do this document focuses on. So you can see um the unit is is uh provided. There's a rationale here in this particular document. We've provided links to the proficiency scales, the artifacts. Um there's a link to an actual unit plan. But in about three pages as a new teacher, I can look at this document and have a sense of what my entire school year is supposed to look
034like, including some suggested pacing um unit by unit. And then we whittle down even uh to a more granular level. This is a unit plan document. So a couple things I would highlight here. Um all of our units are written around essential questions. We believe that inquiry is a really powerful motivator for learners and it gives meaning and purpose. Um so we have written essential questions that guide each one of our units. We do provide a suggested time frame. We know some learners are going to move faster, some might need a little additional time. So it is suggested. There's a rationale. We have again reiterated which critical concepts live in that unit including the specific learning targets associated with those concepts. And then you'll notice in that middle column this has been pretty tedious but
035really important work of our curriculum teams. They have gone into our existing curriculum resources and said where do we have a resource that will support teachers in ensuring that that learning at that particular level is going to happen. We know teachers should not have to find their own resources. And so we have gone to the the uh the work we've done the work of really making sure that alignment is clear. You'll notice also that there is academic vocabulary that's been identified. That's part of that level two that Dr. Barger mentioned on the proficiency scale. We've even created a glossery such that we know that when we're defining those terms, we have a consistent and common definition across all of our sixth grade math courses. And then our math friends are very detailed curriculum writers. They
036added their own column for notes, but appreciated by their colleagues, I'm certain. So where does this get us? This really again is that curricular infrastructure that ensures that we have clarity. Teachers know what's expected. They're able to put those expectations in our learners hands. And we know that leads to consistency. And ultimately, we're charged with providing a guaranteed and viable curriculum for all of our kids. Guaranteed. We know that regardless of the building, regardless of the teacher, they are getting the same learning experience as it's been outlined in those curriculum documents. I do want to point out, none of us here believes that teaching is a wrote automatic practice. We know that teaching is party. It's part technical work. Uh it's knowing your kids and what they need. And so our documents have been crafted
037very intentionally to provide guard rails and clear expectations without getting into the weeds of the how. We know that our teachers are best equipped in order to make those decisions. So instructional strategies and daily activities and um you know the sequence of learning activities within a unit that is very much at the discretion of our teachers who really know best how to deliver. Um but ultimately when we have this this clear curriculum and we provide these tools to teachers, it sets us up to continue the implementation of PCBL, which is really about getting into the messy but awesome work of instruction, which is about collecting evidence, those artifacts Dr. Jones referenced, and also then uh beginning to think about how we provide feedback to help kids move through that progression of learning. So again, clarity,
038evidence, feedback, like that's what we're really trying to hold on to with our teachers, curriculum work, proficiency skills. provides clarity for the teachers, provides clarity for the students, evidence, feedback. We have a three-year implementation process and each year is focused on one of those things. So remember that in the phase one courses, this is the first year of implementation. We are only asking teachers to focus on clarity. Are you clear with what the proficiency scales are asking? And are you talking to your kids about the proficiency scales? Next year, they'll focus on evidence gathering and then feedback. Will it of course start to merge? Yes, but we're only expecting a phased in implementation to support our teachers. Um, we built a proficiency scale for teachers to model this. Level 3.0 would be someone who was
039a a master teacher having done PCBL for years. We don't expect anyone to be at a level level three probably till three or four years out, right? Because we aren't working our way through it. So, we have highlighted in blue on this the things that are related specifically to clarity because clarity is this year's implementation focus. Just like for students, this allows teachers to see what the end goal is, but kind of also self assess where am I in the work. We've developed clarity look fors for year one implementation. So this is a non evaluative tool. But if we were to walk into a classroom and see that a teacher was trying to implement at a clarity level talking about proficiency scales, able to say, "Oh, yeah, this is a level three activity or kids
040were able to do that that these were the things we would see." Now, do we expect that we're going to walk into a phase one classroom on August, you know, 25th and see all of this? No. This is a year of implementing clarity. We're going to do walkthroughs. We're going to gather data without teacher name and we're going to watch hopefully these data points increase over the course of the year as we continue to provide supports and teachers begin to come more and more comfortable using these proficiency skills and this new curriculum. The professional development and support for teachers has looked like this. In year one of whatever phase you're in, you get a half day of foundation training. Um last year Dr. Janeway and I did 18 half days ourselves. This year we're sharing
041that um experience with some of our uh colleagues on instructional operations team. Um we um but every single phase one teacher came for a half day of what is PCBL and what is a proficiency scale. Then there was a half day of curriculum review and collaboration where they got the stuff that Dr. Janeway just described. And then we had someone come in from Morzano and who is um wellversed in this and has a classroom teaching experience to talk about how to best teach with proficiency skills. So the phase one team got that last year. Phase two teachers are going to get that this year. Phase one teachers are now in year two. They're getting a half day of proficiency scales and how to continue to use them for clarity for two different days on our
042professional development days. And then the last PD day is going to be focused on evidence because remember year two of implementation will be evidence. So we need to start teeing them up for that. We also have a group of PCBL champions which is one teacher in each building who has had intensive training um some by Dr. Marzano himself and they are a thought partner for principles. They are a cadre. They are trying new things. They are visiting each other's classrooms. They are on the cutting leading edge of the work so that they can um help us be ready for the next stage of implementation with their peers. So really the intention of today I mean we could talk about this for days because we love it. Um, but the the intention for today is that
043when you hear teachers talk about this PCBL stuff that you guys can really talk to it being about clarity, evidence, and feedback, about creating a very clear set of tools for our teachers to feel equipped so that teachers understand the level of rigor, the level of focus, the level of consistency needed so that we can have that guaranteed and viable curriculum so that students have the clarity that would be so much easier when I would just hold this up and show them this this is your target, right? So, let's let's figure out how we get there as opposed to this is your target. That's the intended goal of this work and that we have lots of PD support, lots of resource support, and a phased in implementation, um, which we believe is best practice as
044we're trying to implement change for teachers. So, um, with that, um, we're right at about what we thought was our time, but we'll be happy to answer any questions about the work today or ongoing. Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. I just want to say I love this. I'm so excited about this because I really do think that it helps to um focus on what kids are good at and they get to have their voice in all of the work that they're doing. Um, and so I think it's just so powerful because we're able to get the same get the same result which is what they're wanting what the target we're wanting them to learn but they get to choose is what I'm hearing. they get to choose the path in which their learn you know
045their learning style is going to come into play with this method is that >> yes I mean yes yes and right I mean there'll be opportunities for that and there's going to be also opportunities where just like traditionally you know you're sitting in class and you're taking notes right because there's all sorts of instructional pathways but most importantly is that the student gets to be able to say I know right where I am in my learning progression and it's not just that I got the C on the test I might have got the C on the test but I know it's because this piece of the learning progression is where my skill breakdown was. Um, and that is really what we're trying and and here's what I think I can do. Maybe I can show
046that to my teacher a little bit differently. Um, but yes. Yes. And >> yep. >> I would even add to that. So if if you have an A in math class, I've arrived. Right. Well, if you're looking proficient skills, maybe I got all these different skills. I'm proficient at a 3.0, but on fractions I'm a 2.0. So as a kid, I now understand, oh, this is the part I need to work on. Whereas the A hide the part you have to work on. So that ownership piece is a very important piece of this too. >> I love it. Thank you. >> Welcome, >> Dr. Nickens. >> Um I just have a question about the levels. So level three is the target. Are some courses then just level one courses? Does that make sense? Or does
047every course move up through the target? >> Every course. So it's really organized through those critical concepts. So when we look at those critical concepts, the proficiency skills are aligned to the critical concepts. So you might think through um that's a great point. It's not like everybody has to be at the 12th grade level, right? But you might think through what is the third grade state standard for this. Okay, that's the three. So what are the vocabulary pieces that come right before that? That's the two. So um I'm hesitant, but a little sort of to like being on grade level, if you will, in that critical concept would be the three. I really love the um the idea of learning progressions. This came out in the next generation science standards years ago and I always
048wondered why the other content areas hadn't jumped on that because it really clarifies what needs to be taught first as foundational material. So really interesting. >> Well and Dr. January's team and our teachers really um have done a beautiful job on that one document. When you think about those critical concepts like um ratios being a critical concept in math and you can really not you can watch that progression from sixth grade I mean really from kindergarten to 12 ratios not in kindergarten but you know all the way up and have the proficiency skills and say you know what today guys we're talking about this and it's a 2.0 like you're not going to get a 3.0 after this lesson because to my example we're only talking about the elements we aren't balancing equations yet but
049That's a separate conversation than how did I do on my test or did I get full credit on my assignment? It's about that progression of skills. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Very helpful. Thank you. Okay. Uh item 2.02 02 is the student representatives discussion and this really is coming from me so I'll own it before we even get started. Um I had hoped that in our summer retreat we would have a little bit more time to visit about this topic and we all know that we got pinched on time and we kind of over we just kind of went over a few things. So um I wanted to start just I I love the having our student representatives is great. you all
050know the days they come in. I love I I just love the energy of high school kids. Um I also think it's a really really good opportunity for them. So that I'm not in any way, shape, or form saying let's let's get rid of the the program. That's not where I'm at. What I would like for us to entertain is a discussion about how we go about selecting the students. Um the process currently they make application they get recommendations then we have a little subcommittee of board members that go out and interview and make recommendations and it's it's I've done it twice now and it's for me it's somewhat uncomfortable because it's kind of like I'm back to coaching again where I'm making cuts but I'm not really in that position anymore. And my proposal
051to us would be is that we entertain the idea of letting the buildings provide us with their representatives and um just here's you know from the three high schools here's our five kids that we're sending you this year and from Summit Ridge here's our one and um that's kind of where the discussion is coming from and and we just if it if it happens we're going to need to make a change to some wording in our in our policy. So, I needed to get it on the agenda sooner rather than later because we all know that first semester, one minute you're sitting here, it's August and the next minute you're sitting here it's December. So, um that's kind of where we're at this morning. So, the floor is or this afternoon is open for any
052comments or thoughts or um but I would need we would all need to come to a consensus on this to to try to move forward with it. And yeah, go ahead. Board member Haley, you had your hand up. Yeah, I I think that's a great idea to let the campuses select their representatives. Um um and that as you mentioned that takes the the the burden off of you to be the person to rule people out. Um and and that's not the point of us doing that. So I would support that process. Um you know, the way you've described it with just letting them I don't know what it might look like at the individual campus level, but I think it is a great idea. >> Dr. Nickens, thank you. So, how would you propose like,
053and I'm not that familiar with how you do it now, but how would you propose that the buildings would conduct this process? I guess just off the top of my head, what I was thinking was that there would still be an application process that would I'm assuming like a lot of other things that go through there. There's somebody in that guidance counseling office or something that I mean we we get emails all the time for hey we need anybody got an idea about a kid we want to send to boy state or girl state or something like that. So I think being able to generate from the faculty is definitely one way to go, but I also think that the opportunity for kids to be able to self, hey, I'm interested in doing this. I
054mean, I I I think that it could be coordinated somehow out of the counseling center would be I guess my off the top of my head just thought. Um, but I again I I think they can >> then who they can do it. Would it be a a student body vote or would it be the counselor selecting or who would actually make the choice of the students who apply? >> My my thought it would be the the staff of the building would send us here's our five kids. That's how I um sorry I've lost track now of all the people that have buzzed in. I think um Dr. Johnson was the next the next one on my list. >> Uh thank you. So, I was thinking about with campus selection, I think there's caveats to
055either way we do it. Campus selection, I think about, you know, it being those same rising stars every year that staff, people know who get it. Um, the flip side of that is so far, and this is just me, full transparency, I have not been completely satisfied with the process because I was under the impression that all board members would be present for interviews. If only one board member is present, then that's a different level of bias to me as opposed to having a panel of people. So, um, and my hope or my thoughts in terms of the rising stars in the building would be that it wouldn't just be those who the staff know, those people coming to us. It would maybe open up the applicant base and uh, who would apply for it
056unless we were kind of prescriptive or in how we have the staff choose those people. I don't know. Um those are just my initial thoughts. Again, I don't I actually didn't see a challenge with us picking them because we know what we're expecting from them, but my expectation is that it's a panel and not oneonone. >> Vice President Miller. >> All right. Thank you so much. Um I agree. Um Dr. Johnson, I think um the expectation was that we have a panel and because of scheduling and things like that, it hasn't happened. I do think that that's a place in my opinion, we could update the policy to make sure that that is something that's in there and that's that's done because I do think it's important to have a collective voice with multiple people,
057not just one. 100% agree with that. Um I think that um this this has been a you know passion project mine, but even long before I was on the board, um board members before me have um advocated for student voice and more student voice. And so I think that that's why we see things in the district currently that we've tried to open up opportunities for um more students to be involved. So inter murals is a great example of that. um kids that don't make the team or maybe don't feel comfortable trying out for teams, they have inter murals as an opportunity to continue to to participate in something that maybe they wouldn't normally get to do. Um so I understand we don't want to hurt students. We don't want to make students upset. Um but
058I also think that taking the onest off of us is a little unfair. I mean, we do ask our teachers and our coaches to be targets every day. Um, and so for me, it's like as the board of education, I don't understand why we wouldn't be okay with also being a target. Um, we get board we get emails all the time from parents just like just like teachers get emails all the time from parents or students. Um, I think that this policy was created with a lot of intention and um to help to eliminate biases. That's really one of the biggest pieces of this and to give students voices that aren't the A students, you know, aren't the National Honor Society students, but to give um to give opportunities to all students that want those
059opportunities and not the ones that um I don't know. I'm just have it open, you know, keep it open. Those that do have multiple leadership roles, great. You can apply. Those that don't have any leadership roles and um maybe are too nervous to um to have something um or to try out for something or put their name in the hat for something. This could be an opportunity for somebody that doesn't have any leadership roles. Um I also think it was I've taken I've written notes because I'm just wanting to make sure I get all my points. Um open to capture a wide range of students. I think that was a big one um for for the team that was creating this policy. And so I think for me um I feel really strongly about um
060the policy that we have in place and I'm open to like are there changes to the policy that we could make that would that would make it more fair or make it different? That's fine. But um I don't know. As long as I'm on the board, I feel really passionate about making sure that we're capturing as many student voices as possible. And I think that that was the intent of the policy. And I feel like it's, you know, a little bit unfair and disingenuous if we take that away. Um, we have we have we already have um we already have opportunities for students to vote for their peers and that's student council, right? We have opportunities where um teachers are choosing um positions for students to be in and that's part of what happens I
061believe how some of I think Dr. Buck your student reps are chosen from their teachers. Some are so I think we have this this intention was they're student board reps because they're chosen by the board and so I I do feel very very passionate about keeping it that way. Um, so that's I might have more to say after this, but I'll give some others a chance to >> Thank you, Dr. Buck. >> I don't think there's a right or wrong way to do it. I do have a parallel group, so I'll just share with what we do. Um, with that, I don't select them. They do not apply to me or to Katie because I don't want to be the person picking the people I want to hear from um because I might have bias
062in that. I might pick people who I align more with my thoughts and so I I want to be careful of that. All right. Um what buildings get to choose their way right now. Um they've done that in the previous six years. Um most of the time they use student council to populate. Sometimes a principal will self just select folks um with whatever process they want. I can tell you the diversity from the student council has I I just want to defend the student council for real quick. Um is very diverse. diverse demographically, diverse GPA wise, diverse what interests and activities or not they're involved in, diverse in extrovert versus introvert. Always kind of surprised me when you see a student council kid that ends up on my on my uh superintendent council who's an
063introvert. You're like, well, you had to put yourself out there for an election. But I just want to defend that it is a it has been more diverse than I've seen our applicant pull from from what we've received the last couple years for u um for the board reps and more diverse than what a principal picks which I think is fine kind of interesting. I think our we got to rely on our kids to do well. Um but I just wanted to make a a you know this isn't my agenda topic but a plea of why I don't pick a kid to be in my advisory. I don't pick the teachers to be in my advisory. I don't pick the principles and administrators to be on my administrative advisory because I don't want to have
064a bias of picking people. I want to hear from I want to hear from everybody. So, >> thank you. Um, let's see. Board member Dawson. >> Everybody wanted in on this, so I've got a list. >> Um, I'm because this is my first year and I didn't see how the process went in the Just from what I've heard, I would be supporting the method that would minimize the bias like what Dr. Buck talked about and what uh Dr. Johnson talked about. Um, so because I would want to see representatives from across the student body and so I'm wondering if rather than dramatically change what's already written, maybe just tweak it a little or add to it a little to give some guidelines for what students were looking for. like not not ending up with the
065same allstars that would sign up for, you know, you know, for for leadership roles in their schools, you know, and and getting students of all different grade point averages, all different backgrounds, all different activities, all different lack of activities. um maybe putting some guidelines in place saying, you know, from your school, we don't want to see all student council reps or all athletes or all uh music, you know, folks in the music program or folks in the theater program or whatever or folks in inter murals or, you know, like have you know, we want to see we want to see diversity from your school. We want to see someone from a different, you know, a cluster of kids from the same group uh or the same activities or the same leadership roles. I don't know.
066I'm wondering if there's just a way to to bolster it a little bit so that the students coming to us have been vetted a little bit by their schools and then the selection process would be like a panel or something at our level that would be not like cutting K. I mean, it would be more just confirming and and saying, "Yes, this is this seems representative of your school. We're happy with these kids." And you I don't know. I don't I don't know if there's a way to to like go down the middle with this. I I just want representation. >> Thank you. Uh Dr. Dickens. >> Um so we have not as a board we have not been doing this. We haven't had student reps for how many years? We've done it for two
067years. Okay. So, have I understand um Dr. Johnson's concern about the board members who are assigned to the committee need to all be present. That is valid. And I understand that that it's u does put a lot of responsibility on on the board members on that committee which are how many? Usually three. Um to make the choice. So, I understand those as being sort of drawbacks of our current process. But, have there been other problems? Like, have we failed to get enough candidates or have there been complaints or concerns that kids were um screened out unfairly or or anything? Have there been problems with the current process that I'm not aware of? >> I think that we've been fairly fortunate in the lack of problems with our current process. Again, my perception uh it varies
068from building to building as you would expect how many applicants come forward. And um again, my word choice was intentional. It's just it's an uncomfortable thing that this isn't meant to be something uncomfortable for them or for us. We want to give students the opportunity to participate. And um again I I um I think we've been a little bit fortunate. I'll just Yeah. >> Yeah. Um so only two years in I guess I'd be hesitant to completely change the process if we haven't had big obstacles. I guess I would lean more towards revising maybe looking at the criteria that are specified. Um they are required to have a reference right which would I would think most likely be a teacher or a coach um that's familiar that might have referred them anyway. From from my
069perspective um in higher education, I just see this as being a great opportunity for kids to have a competitive thing that they've had to go through an energy process with the school board and they can put that on a job application. They can put that on a college application. They can put that on scholarship applications. Um, and I just see that as being um a process that is set apart in in a competitive way, a selective way versus being um voted on by your peers. So, I guess I'm hesitant to kind of throw the baby out with the bath water, maybe look at the obstacles that you see in the current process and try to iron those out before we completely switch gears and do a completely different selection process. That would be my personal
070opinion. >> Can I add, we did have some kids upset they weren't selected last year. Um, I think they reached out to Miss Bergen's office as the liaison communicating back and forth. Um, so we did have some of that, but that's going to happen. If you have 25 kids applying for 15 spots, you're going to have 10 kids not selected, right? So, >> not everybody makes varsity. >> That's correct. >> Um, I will also say there were some um applicants who were quoting board members. So, some kids have access to board members, some kids do not have access to board members. So, there's that equity piece there, too. Um, so I just want to put the There's no perfect process and there's no wrong way to do this, I don't think. Um, I just wanted
071you asked if there's been issues and I think those are two things I've heard issue wise. >> Um, let's see. Board member Haley, >> thank you. Um, it seems to me like that the process started two years ago. Uh we've we've enjoyed the process for two years and now we've identified an opportunity to let the process evolve. I'm very sensitive to uh Vice President Miller and and her wanting to have the right the right group of folks on on the the committee and I think that they do serve a wonderful function here. Um it seems to me like it's incumbent upon us to define the type of kids that we're looking for very specifically and um what what we're expecting out of those folks. And I believe if we do that, we can we can
072pass that along to let some other because the kids that go to Lee Summit West, the faculty out there know those kids far better than I do or or anybody else here. So I mean I feel very comfortable letting our faculty in some way be involved in this process and make the choice as long as we are defining what we're looking for appropriately. Um, and I see I can see that as a one option to move this process forward and and achieve everything that you're looking for. >> Dr. Johnson. >> So, in terms of some challenges, this going back to Dr. Nickens and I was going to mention it anyway. What we have seen is even though we interview this many candidates and we bring this many candidates on the um participation rate at the
073meetings is not always consistent. And so I know at one point I feel like we toy with or discuss do we have to make cuts because we need alternates sometimes. Um I don't know how many applicants we've had in the past. Full transparency, I've not been on that committee until this year. But so if there are 25 people who apply, do we need to cut anyone if only 10 show up? I don't know what the attendance rate looks like though. Um I think the crap, I lost my train of thought with that. I do think it is an additional I don't I hate to say burden because Burton has a negative connotation but it's additional burden on the staff for something that we asked for. Um so when we talk about putting it back into
074the schools I think what's most important here and I would like to know if there's an answer to the question have we asked the board reps. So I think that that is a group we should talk to also before making this decision if we don't have that feedback yet. Good point. Uh, Vice President Miller. >> So, um, I just want to also reiterate, I just speak to Dr. Nick. It's your question. We had one person last year that I'm aware of that that I got an email from um that didn't make it and and was was questioning why. Um, I do think that there was a disconnect and I don't know where that came from. There was a disconnect in um understanding of she was currently on the as a board rep and she would
075automatically be renewed as a board rep the next year. And that's be I don't know where that came from. my my it didn't come from from what I understand um Katie or Talia or any of us that that was the case. I think it probably came from another board rep that was on it previously because the first year because it was the inaugural year and we they had a shortened session. They only had um like three months, four months really. Um we said that within the policy the first group could come back if they chose to, if they re they still had to reapply, but they could come back. And so, does that make sense? I'm just wanting to clarify that that's where I think the messiness got, but I that's that's my understanding. Um,
076I do I'm just curious why we are I do I understand, Mr. Haley, I understand your um thought of like we're progressing and that makes sense. And I think that as we have had this for a couple years, it's time to look at it and see what changes do we need to make. Do I think we need to do a full overhaul of the policy? Absolutely not. I think that um when we think about a policy and a practice that was unanimously approved by a by all seven of us us and some of you weren't here yet, but by seven board members, it was unanimously approved. I don't understand why we're now overhauling it just two years in. Um, and honestly, I I would love to have what Dr. Johnson said. I would love to
077for us to open it up and have more. I know that was a question. Um, but honestly, I'd really love to talk more about how we're going to make the process better for our student reps instead of spending so much time on talking about changing the policy that was unanimously approved. Um, that's where I would love to be able to spend the time is how are we going to make the process better for the students that we currently have and the students in the future to make sure that student voice is heard and is um recognized as something that's important because we're making decisions every day on this DAS for our students. >> Dr. Johnson. >> Okay, this will be my last point. Um, so I know we say two years we've done this. I
078think what's important to acknowledge here, it has not been two years of the process being consistent. So the first year, like we stated, we let it the first we let that first set of students come back. We didn't allow that again. The second year, we did not do panel interviews. So we actually haven't adhered to the process that was intended in the policy yet. And it'd be interesting or I think it'd be helpful to actually adhere to that and then make the change. But we're making a change based on two years and neither of the two years did we do what we intended to do. >> Yeah. So, so what I'm hearing is we're not completely on board with um I just want to clarify I'm not asking to revamp the entire policy. The the
079the last section on selection of student representatives was the only portion of this activity that I was wanting us to look at. I think perhaps I'm hearing a couple of things that have come out that we need to consider. um for improvement. One would be getting some feedback from the reps about the the the choice process. Um two would be perhaps figuring out a little bit better way in terms of doing the interviews if we're going to continue the way that the policy reads. Um a lot of time and energy and effort gets put into trying to work around the students schedule on Miss Ismert's part. Maybe we're maybe we need to rethink that. Maybe we need to say here's the times you need to sign up for your interview and come up here and
080the panel of the three uh board members could be here that way. Uh there's step one if you really want to do this right you're going to come over here. I don't perhaps we need to just talk a little bit further about that um with that smaller group not necessarily at the dis but what I'm hearing right now is we don't really have the the u the will to want to completely put it back to the buildings just yet. Is that accurate from Okay. Well, hey, I appreciate the dialogue and the discussion and we are going to uh close out our work session and head into closed. Thank you.