---

Standards Review Cycle Committee (SRCC)

Selections

March 23, 1999

Members Present: Cheryl Clapp, Arthur Hochman, Wanda Fox, Elizabeth Stull, Bet Kotowski, Connie Griffith

Members absent: Marlene Stout, Dorothy Winchester

Also present: Ron Barnes, facilitator

---

The Standards Review Cycle Committee (SRCC) was called to order by Ron Barnes at 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 1999, at the Administrative Service Center of the Metropolitan School District (MSD) of Washington Township located at 3801 East 79th Street, Indianapolis.

Task 1: Election of Chair
Members of the SRCC elected Wanda Fox as Chair of the Committee.

Task 2: Description of the Standards Committee (SC).
The meeting began with a discussion of who should make up the standing committee, how long terms of service should be, and a clarification of the Standards Committee Charge. The following was agreed upon:

Committee Make-Up (12 positions)

• Public School Teachers (5)
• Public School Administrators, Building and Central (2)
• Department of Education (DOE) (1)
• Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) (1)
• Indiana Public Community (1)
• Indiana Higher Ed (2)

Terms of Service

• 4 positions for 1 year
• 4 positions for 2 years
• 4 positions for 3 years

Committee Charge

1.	Review existing Standards according to established cycle and procedure.
2.	Collect data and obtain testimony relevant to deciding whether new standards should be created or existing standards revised.
3.	Establish a set of criteria by which such decisions (2) will be made.
4.	Recommend to the IPSB, one of the following four options:   a. Take no action.   b. Establish a work group to make minor revisions.   c. Establish a subcommittee of the SC to work on the task.   d. Request that the entire SC convene and work on the task together.

It was further agreed that attention should be paid by the SRCC to the process of getting input and expert testimony, that there should be a vehicle for actively seeking outside input, and that a system for dealing with critical issues should be built into the established processes.

Task 3: The SC Cycle and Time Line
The next task addressed was the proposed cycle for the SC. In other words, the SRCC attempted to answer the following question: In what order, and by what criteria will standards be reviewed?

The following issues were considered by committee members to be worthy of serious consideration:

• The IPSB review should coincide with other planned assessments and reviews.
• With the first groups, the maximum possible advance notice should be allowed.
• Assessors' and submitters' input should be systematically included in assessments.
• Portfolios, if chosen as an assessment tool, should:

  a.	include input sheet and scantron sheetsquantitative numbers,
  b.	be data-driven,
  c.	and be used to highlight consistently low-scored areas for investigation.

The following time line was approved:

July1 to June 30 Cycle; 1st terms will be 1.5, 3.5, 7.5 years. There will be a 3 year term after the initial placement has expired.

	1 YEAR	2 YEARS	3 YEARS
Public School Teachers	x
		x
			x
		x
			x
Public School Administrators		x
			x
DOE	x
IPSB	x
IN Public		x
IN Higher Ed	x

It was also agreed that the SC will meet bimonthly, that training will be required for new members, and that a mentoring system will be utilized to assist in these matters.

 

Assignments

General Brainstorming:

• How will one apply to be on the SC?
• Process Issues

  a.	How will the SC handle issues?
  b.	What types of issues are SC issues?

• What will the criteria for revision be?
• What will the final design be?
• How will the final product be presented to the Board?

 

Individual Tasks:

• Develop a cycle for review - which standards when (May-Dorothy Winchester).
• Develop an application process (Cheryl Clapp and Beth Stull).
• Clean up Charge (Arthur Hochman).
• Develop an advisory committee structure (Wanda Fox).

 

Future Tasks (May):

• Develop a cycle for review - which standards when (May-Dorothy Winchester).
• Develop a process and specify criteria for the development of new standards and the revision of existing standards.
• Review dissemination process.
• Respond to potential questions (define substantial).
• Clarify process for certification - sub-areas (five areas under Social Studies).
• Adjust dissemination process.
• Develop system for the orientation of new members.
• Specify the needed staffing and support.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.