Meetings

Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG)
Selections
March 11, 1999

Members Present: Carolyn Babione, David Cooper, Gertrude Howard, Dave Kinman, Bet Kotowski, Marie Theobald, Mark Seele, Lyn Klosowski, Judith Gibson, Carolyn Mock

Member absent: Marlane Tisdale

Also Present: Anna Lynch (recorder)
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG) was called to order by Bet Kotowski at 8:30 a.m. on March 11, 1999, at the Administrative Service Center of the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township located at 3801 East 79th Street, Indianapolis.

Review of Themes Across the Standards
The group initiated review of the grids that had been compiled to reflect the four themes (Reading, Exceptional Needs, Technology, and Diversity) across the Standards. Reading was discussed in detail (each performance was discussed and edited) and revised by consensus.

Discussion
The following issues were discussed:

The Glossary for the Comprehensive Standards Document (CSD) should clearly define the following:

...leading to student success... includes the adherence to "best practices."
Best practices refers to educational practices that have a strong research base and philosophical underpinnings, and are based on the practices advocated by Learned Societies.
Communication, Reading include all English Language Arts Literacy.
Interdisciplinary includes the idea of English Language Arts literacy within content areas.
Students should be explained thoroughly (does "students" automatically include gifted and talented (GT) learners as well as those with exceptional needs?)

The introduction to the CSD should mention what it means to be a 21st Century student. That is, the CSD should note the growing challenge of integration across the curriculum as it fits the needs of today's students.

Each theme needs to be clearly defined at the beginning of the CSD. The group should also include a description/explanation of how each theme was pulled out of the performances.

Assignments
No assignments were given.

Adjournment
CSDAG meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Comprehensive Standards Document Advisory Group (CSDAG)
Selections
March 12, 1999

The group gave Marilyn Scannell (M.S.) an update in the following areas:

Overview of the agenda (Where are we? Where are we going?)

By the end of this meeting, we will have introduced each area within the CSDAG charge.
CSDAG will have a Building Level Administrator (BLA) report submitted for approval in time for the next Board meeting.
CSDAG will have the Gifted and Talented (GT) statement submitted for approval in time for the next Board meeting.

Early Childhood (EC) and Middle Childhood (MC) Generalist Content Standards

Anna reviewed the reformatting she did and the problems she encountered.

Little developmental level content (taken from the content standard appendices) was written as performance-based. This created problems for consistent formatting.

Marilyn responded:

For the first "go-around" these are good documents. That does not mean that there will not be any weaknesses. There may still be some problems that need to be worked out. The CSADG could simply submit a report showing what we did, how the document comes together, and indicate where needs are. Where it does not fit the performance-based format, the CSDAG should not stretch to make it fit, but should simply indicate where revision is needed.

CSDAG Response to Licensure School Setting Proposal

Based on the work of various group members, the CSDAG indicated that it supports the adoption of the Early Childhood- pre-K, Early Childhood- Primary proposal. It was agreed by committee members that any piece of the developmental levels could just as easily say "primary" or "preschool" and nothing else would have to change. Content is nearly the same, the differences lie in the educator's understanding of the developmental level.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Comprehensive Standards Document (CSD)

Marilyn indicated that there is a possibility that NCATE Elementary Standards (currently draft) may be adopted as supplementary to the IPSB standards. The CSDAG believes that showing how IPSB standards and NCATE standards align is a fairly easy task . The group agreed to create and review an Early Childhood (EC) /Middle Childhood (MC) content standards document that shows the alignment of NCATE and IPSB content standards, including three sections: Introduction, Performances (bulleted), and Discussion. It was agreed that this is one way to include draft NCATE standards in our CSD while not sidelining the work done by other IPSB advisory groups. The following was agreed upon:

Where the draft NCATE document was used as a reference, it will be clearly cited.
When Anna types up the draft document, she will highlight duplicative language which will then be edited by the CSDAG.
CSDAG will submit two documents for Board approval: a draft document with highlighted duplicative language, and a draft document with the CSDAG- recommended revisions/editing.
The original advisory group introductions (which are each unique) may also be used in the discussion section.

The following concern was discussed:

Does adopting NCATE draft elementary standards necessitate an NCATE folio review? No, adopted draft NCATE elementary standards would be used to supplement the IPSB document as reference/research citations. This does not mean that the NCATE folio review will be adopted.

Themes Across the Standards

The CSDAG intends to define themes carefully and show how they appear (explain/highlight implicit references and key words).

National & State Alignment

The CSDAG created two alignment grids, one for general themes, and one for content areas. The general themes grid should include INTASC, NBPTS, and IPSB standards. The content grid should include NCATE, IPSB, and Indiana State Proficiency Guides.

Final CSD Product

CD-Rom/Web and paper document.

Continuing Work With Themes Across the Standards

The group continued the discussion of themes across the standards. The group went through all performances, reviewing the area of Exceptional Needs. Revisions were made by consensus.

The group then agreed to assign each group member three content standards. For each content standard assigned, the member is expected to review the draft grid for consistency across themes (Did we keep the same focus/language for each area?) and note rationale while highlighting key words.

The following assignments were agreed upon:

Carolyn Mock: Library /Media, Mathematics, English /Language Arts.
Mark Seele: Building Level Administrators, Library /Media, Science.
Carolyn Babione: Building Level Administrators, Science, English as a New Language.
Gertrude Howard: Mathematics, Social Studies, Vocational Education.
Judith Gibson: English /Language Arts, English as a New Language.
Lyn Klosowski: Exceptional Needs, Social Studies, Foreign Languages.
Marie Theobald: Health Education and Physical Education, Vocational Education,
Foreign Languages.
Marlane Tisdale: Fine Arts, Exceptional Needs, Health Education and Physical Education.
Dave Kinman /Anna Lynch: School Services Professionals.
Bet Kotowski /Dave Cooper: School Services Professionals.

Assignments
Four Themes (all, see above).

Unique/Unifying Themes (all)

Validate, assist Higher Ed see how themes can be embedded across curriculum, add Content & Field Experience to what Carolyn Babione has already done.

Anna Lynch:
Submit notes to CSDAG.
Submit selections for IPSB approval.
Submit two alignment grids to CSDAG for approval.
Compile four separate theme grids and disseminate master grid to CSDAG.
Disseminate BLA final grid for CSDAG approval.
Disseminate GT statement for CSDAG approval (D.K. compose).

Adjournment
CSDAG meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.