Untitled Document

Section C: The Planning Process

1. Accreditation for Growth Commitment Form

2. Composition of the Planning Team

The composition of the Planning Team was established by an ad hoc committee of five faculty members (Donna Gavitt, Alex Gruenberg, Tracy Hepner, Larry Lawson, and Bill Switala) and one administrator (Reed Messmore) who first met on May 17, 2006. At this meeting, the committee reviewed the AFG guidelines for Planning Team composition and decided upon the committee membership illustrated in the table below.

Proposed Planning Team Structure

Number	Role	Rotation schedule
Faculty
2	Internal Coordinators	“3-year Rotation.” (The 3-year term is a formality as these are expected to be permanent members. Should replacement become necessary or advisable, new coordinators would be drawn from among teachers already on the committee.)
4	Department Representatives English Social Studies Mathematics Science	3-year Rotation
3	Additional At-Large Faculty	3-year Rotation
Administration
3	Principal Assistant Principal Curriculum Coordinator	“Permanent” members. Replacements occur through attrition.
Students
2	Representatives of all class years, in rotation	2-year terms. Member, Class of ‘08, serving through 2008, replaced by Member, Class of ‘10. Member, Class of ’09, serving through 2009, replaced by Member, Class of ’11. In this way, we always have one junior and one senior on the committee. Promising students can be identified and invited to participate at the end of their sophomore years.
School Board
1	Representatives of SASD Board	3-year rotation
Parents
2-3	Parents	3-year rotation, 1 replacement each year starting in Fall, ’09.
Community
3-4	At-Large Members, to include community leaders, police, SU faculty, Career Link, and/or business leaders.	3-year rotation, 1 replacement each year starting in Fall, ’09.

21 Total Members. The goals are 1) to maintain continuity within the process of directing change through ongoing self-evaluation, and 2) to infuse new ideas into this process with a regular rotation of new members. After year three, we should experience a 1/3 turnover in membership each year.

After the composition was agreed upon ad hoc committee, a general solicitation went out to the faculty in May of 2006 for participation. Some faculty members responded to this invitation, but additional faculty seats were still open. The faculty who comprised a skeleton version of the committee met on August 28, 2006, to brainstorm additional possible members (from the faculty, student body, and community) for the Planning Committee. These people were solicited by individual members of the committee, until the full membership was attained. This initial membership is given in the table below.

A. F. G. Planning Team Structure

Selinsgrove Area High School

Number	Role	Rotation schedule
Faculty
2	Internal Coordinators Mr. Larry Lawson Mrs. Donna Gavitt	“3-year Rotation” (The 3-year term is a formality as these are expected to be permanent members. Should replacement become necessary or advisable, new coordinators would be drawn from among teachers already on the committee.)
4	Department Representatives English – Mr. Alex Gruenberg Mathematics – Mr. Joe Schmitt Science – Mrs. Tracy Hepner Social Studies – Mr. Bill Switala	3-year Rotation
3	Additional At-Large Faculty Mrs. Janet Conn (Health & Phys. Ed) Mr. Ray Moyer (Mathematics) Mrs. Truly Zimmerman (Social Studies)	3-year Rotation
Administration
3	Principal – Mr. Reed Messmore Assistant Principal – Mr. Charles Longwell Curriculum Coordinator – Mr. Chad Cohrs	“Permanent” members. Replacements occur through attrition.
Students
2	Representatives of all class years, in rotation: Class of 2008 – Mr. P. J. Adams Class of 2009 – Ms. Abby Yavorek	2-year terms. Member, Class of 2008, serving through 2008, replaced by Member, Class of 2010. Member, Class of 2009, serving through 2009, replaced by Member, Class of 2011. (In this way, beginning in the fall of 2007, we will always have one junior and one senior on the committee. Promising students can be identified and invited to participate at the end of their sophomore years.)
School Board
1	Representative of SASD Board: Dr. Jeff Whitman	3-year rotation
Parents
2-3	Mrs. Annette Gray Mr. Garth Shipman Mrs. Karen Stauffer	3-year rotation, 1 replacement each year starting in Fall, ’09.
Community
3-4	Dr. Christine Jaegers Mr. Chris Markle Officer Mark Wolfberg	3-year rotation, 1 replacement each year starting in Fall, ’09.

We have a total of twenty-one members. Collectively, we hope to 1) maintain continuity while directing change through ongoing self-evaluation, and 2) infuse new ideas into this process through a regular rotation of new members. After year three, we should experience a yearly turnover in membership of approximately one-third.

3. Planning Team Operation

Meetings to date of the full Planning Team:

September 28, 2006

October 26, 2006

November 16, 2006

January 11, 2007

February 22, 2007

March 22, 2007

May 10, 2007

November 7, 2007

Minutes of these meetings have been archived in the sample binder for Planning Team members, which includes all minutes, agendas, and handouts that were distributed at all meetings.

How the Planning Team makes decisions:

The Planning Team had its first meeting on September 28, 2006. This and all Planning Committee meetings were chaired by Larry Lawson, with assistance from Donna Gavitt.

At the first meeting, the overall philosophy and guidelines of the AFG approach to self-evaluation was presented to the committee, and the committee in turn agreed to a general approach to its task. Meetings were to be held on an approximately monthly basis. Karen Stauffer, parent representative, agreed to serve as secretary. Her minutes would be distributed electronically to all members, and a vote for approval on each would be called at the subsequent meeting. (In January, when Ms. Stauffer’s schedule prevented her from attending a sequence of meetings, secretarial duties were taken over by Alex Gruenberg.)

The committee agreed to communicate primarily via email, to be supplemented by hard-copy documents distributed at the meetings. Most importantly, the Committee agreed to attempt throughout the process to seek consensus whenever possible on its decisions. In addition, the Committee agreed that, when it came to the formal adoption of Student Performance Objectives (SPOs), formal approval would require the presence of a quorum, which the committee further agreed to define as the presence of at least sixteen of twenty-one members, including at least fifty percent of each individual constituency represented.

As the planning process unfolded, two of the twenty-one members became effective non-participants and, because of various personal conflicts, it became impossible to generate the quorum as originally defined. Consequently, the Committee agreed to redefine its required quorum for adoption of SPOs as being comprised twelve committee members, with appropriate representation of all constituencies.

Our two SPOs were tentatively approved at the January meeting so that they could be submitted to Middle States for preliminary review. These SPOs, modified with the assistance of Middle States feedback, were formally adopted “in principle” at the March meeting.

The role of the Planning Team in current and ongoing educational growth and improvement activities

A primary activity of the Planning Team’s first meeting in September, 2006 was the sharing of positive and negative reflections about the school. This process allowed the team to identify specific areas of concern about the school and its programs for further investigation.

As a follow-up to this activity, the Planning Team decided to survey the community in an effort to determine the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the school, and thus to guide its thinking about the development of appropriate SPOs. Larry Lawson and Donna Gavitt (faculty reps), Abby Yavorek (student rep), and Christine Jaegers and Annette Gray (parent/community reps) agreed to serve on an ad hoc committee to develop and distribute such a survey, with questions derived from the preliminary concerns identified by the Planning Committee.

That initial survey was designed to identify broad areas of concern and was kept intentionally brief, in the hope that it would be more likely to generate a greater number of responses.

The results of this initial survey became the guidelines for the committee’s discussion, at its next meeting, of where to focus its attentions, as far as the development of SPOs was concerned. Through the course of a lengthy discussion, it was noted that the three survey statements generating the highest combined percentage of “strongly agree” and “agree” responses were “SAHS needs to raise its expectations about the academic performance of all students,” “SAHS needs to improve its preparation of students for general citizenship in the community, the nation, and the world,” and “SAHS needs to raise students’ expectations about their own capabilities.”

Committee members were leery of taking on too large a project, and so agreed with the general recommendation from Middle States to focus on two areas for Student Performance Objectives. The first statement above, focusing on external perceptions of student achievement, and the third statement, focusing on students’ internal perceptions, were selected by the Planning Team for the development of SPOs.

The Planning Team will continue to operate on a monthly basis in preparation for the planned visit of the Middle States Validation Team in November of 2007. After that, the team will meet two or three times a year to review the data indicating the progress toward our SPOs, to modify and/or redesign individual Action Plans if necessary, and to address new concerns as they may arise during the course of our first seven-year AFG process.

Orientation of new Planning Team members

Because the planning team has chosen to function as a cooperative pursuit of consensus, orientation of new members, when the occasion arises, will not be especially formal. We have archived several binder copies of all agendas, minutes, and information distributed to the team, and this collection will serve as available background for new participants. Realistically, however, as new members come on board, they are more likely to be interested in the ongoing planning and decisions of the group. Since all new members are likely to know at least a few members of the Team, we will rely on those relationships to get our new people “up to speed.” The most important principles of the Team’s operational routine—and the ones that must be stressed to any newcomer—are the desires that all discussions be candid and that all decisions be reached, if not with consensus, at least in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.

Relationship of the Planning Team to Action Plan and Implementation Teams

The Planning Team narrowed its Student Performance Objective options down to two draft statements, including proposed measurements, focusing on areas of increased academic performance and increasing students’ expectations regarding their own capabilities. We then divided ourselves into two large groups, generally along the lines of personal preference, with the purpose of creating Action Plans (each having multiple components) to effect the desired changes of each SPO.

Once the Action Plans were in place, each large group divided itself into subgroups, with each subgroup responsible for documenting, as well as monitoring and/or implementing, a single component of a general Action Plan. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t seem accurate to label these subgroups “Implementation Teams,” because they do not always have the authority or resources, on their own, to implement the Action Plan components with which they are associated.

However, each of these subgroups does have multiple responsibilities, including some or all of the following: deciding the precise steps to be taken in accomplishing the specific Action Plan component; gathering any data necessary either to implement the Plan component and/or to evaluate the success of the Plan component; when possible, undertaking the necessary steps to accomplish the Action Plan component; evaluating the success and/or progress of the Plan component on a yearly basis; and, finally, reporting its annual evaluation to the Planning Team, and recommending to the larger Committee whether to continue with the Plan component, to revise it in some way, or to replace it with some alternative component. The Planning Team will then discuss and decide how to act on the recommendations of each Action Plan subgroup.

Leading the community in celebrating our successes

It is clear at this point that the Planning Team understands and willingly accepts its obligations to keep the community informed of the specific aspects of the ongoing AFG process. The work of the individual Action Plan component subgroups will be compiled in an annual report of our general progress in achieving our Student Performance Objectives. This progress and achievement can be publicized through press releases as well as through the high school’s quarterly newsletter to all parents.

4. Planning Team Feedback

At our meeting of the Planning Team on November 7, 2007, those present were advised of our need to complete the survey required by AFG process. In addition, all members of the Team were reminded via email of our need to complete this survey. Members were advised to “Please respond candidly and in as much detail as you would like.” The survey was set up once again on SurveyMonkey so that those taking the survey could make anonymous responses. Below are all of the responses that were submitted.

1.	How has your work during the planning sessions reached the expectations that you had for the planning process?
1	It was a very good experience and I thought the process was very detailed.
2	I expected that there would be a lot of work for the Planning Committee, and there was. I expected (and hoped) that the members of the Committee would approach that work with a good sense of esprit de corps, and (for the most part) we did. I expected that somehow we would complete the work laid out for us and produce good, meaningful results. I think we did.
3	I felt that the planning sessions were run extremely well and efficiently, i felt we got a lot of work done quickly.
4	I was pleasantly surprised by the level of commitment displayed by the committee. Members were very much engaged, thoughtful, and focused on the task.
5	IT WAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. WITH SO MANY VOICES IT WAS SOMETIMES TOUGH TO STAY FOCUSED.
6	yes, The goals to critique, and make positive change is good. I question why can't this isn't be done anyway, and not spend taxpayer dollars to get accreditation. We could use these dollars to implement some of our ideas.
7	I found that it wasn't actually as bad as I thought it would be. I was the first to question the new process as too labor intensive; however, I found that it wasn't too time consuming. I felt that we all had input that was heard and processed.
8	The assignments were daunting but doable; The seriousness with which each member completed the assignment was admirable; the detail with which the reports were returned are well done; the professionalism and tenacity of the chair was great.

2.	What are the most positive results of the planning sessions?
1.	For me, the positive was getting to know, and be a part of, the future of our school.
2.	The Committee focused on effecting meaningful changes in the school climate. We made a good effort to nudge the culture of the school in a positive direction, and we generally maintained good attitudes toward the process. For the most part, all parties embraced the common goal and were willing to work together.
3.	The most positive results from the planning sessions were knowing how parents, staff, and students felt about our building. And knowing what people felt were the most important things for our building to change.
4.	The process identified a school-wide set of academic goals. I believe this is the first time such universal goals have been adopted at the school in my 28 years here.
5.	THE GOALS WE SET FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND OBTAINABLE.
6.	The group is looking for ways to improve the education of the student.
7.	We will put into place a few really positive actions to improve our school. The planning sessions were generally open and and free flow of ideas were encouraged.
8.	The teachers came together to work collaboratively and participated in open discussions. Teachers don't often have the time to do this and I enjoyed it. Some of the findings reinforced feelings about the issues such as the dire need for building upgrades and the need for better cafeteria options. Everyone had an equal stake and voice.

3.	What suggestions do you have to improve future planning sessions?
1.	Although the group did use electronic means of communication, there was a lot of paper used. Next time maybe completely paperless?
2.	Whenever possible, agendas should be relatively short and tightly focused. The planning committee needs to consider ways to keep the process fresh as we continue to meet over the course of the next several years. Also, we need to bring in new members to replace those we have lost, and to integrate those new people effectively into the process.
3.	Schedule meetings more in advance so that possibly more members could attend.
4.	None.
5.	IT IS TOUGH TO KEEP A GROUP FOCUSED AND YET HEAR ALL VOICES. SMALLER GROUPS WOULD EXPEDITE THE PROCESS.
6.	There needs to be more representation of area employers (human resource managers), they will be able to provide feedback on the student's and graduate's education, and the demands of the workplace.
7.	Overall, I thought they were good. None of the meetings seemed to be "just to meet". They all had a purpose.
8.	More business/community members on the planning committee. Only one person was from outside education.

4.	Do you find that planning sessions provide an open forum for the free flow of ideas?
1.	Absolutely. There were many discussions with input from everyone.
2.	Generally, yes. There were times when some parties held back their opinions because, I think, they hesitated to risk offending another member or displaying their (occasional)frustrations outright. We did manage to maintain our professional courtesy with each other throughout the process. I was proud of us for (generally) staying on task and making the larger good of the school and students our primary consideration.
3.	Yes very much it seems to allow us all to say exactly how we feel about certain topics.
4.	Yes. I was pleased at how well people were able to contribute, disagree, and work out solutions as a group.
5.	YES. LARRY VALUED EVERYONE'S OPINION.
6.	Yes, the dialogue has been very open, the group is receptive to new and different ideas.
7.	I did. I actually mentioned that in question #2 before I saw this question. I felt that everyone had an equal opportunity to speak and were encouraged to share ideas.
8.	For the most part but not always. There remains a void for valid choice of career options in the bottom academic half of the student body.

5. Role of Administration

Selinsgrove Area High School has been largely autonomous in its conduct of this planning process. Our Director of Curriculum and Instruction for the school district, Mr. Chad Cohrs, is a member of the Planning Team and has provided our link to the Strategic Plan process, which he directs. Dr. Frederick Johnson, District Superintendent, sat in on one meeting of an Action Plan team as it was developing the strategies to achieve one of the Student Performance Objectives.

Both the principal, Mr. Reed Messmore, and the assistant principal, Mr. Charles Longwell, were members of the Planning Team. These individuals were highly active, integrally involved participants who brought invaluable knowledge and expertise to the process; yet both were careful not to infringe on the leadership roles of the Planning Team chair and co-chair.

6. Role of the Governing Body

Following initial Board approval of the AFG commitment, a member of the Board volunteered to participate in the Planning Team process.

7. Role of the Internal Coordinators

Larry Lawson, teacher of English and chair of the Planning Team, has been primarily responsible for directing the course of the AFG process and keeping members of the Planning Team informed. He has generated the agendas for and conducted each meeting of the Planning Team. He is also responsible for keeping the community informed of the actions and decisions of the Planning Team.

Donna Gavitt, business teacher and co-chair of the Planning Team, has handled nearly all of the “technical” side of the process. She has overseen the distribution and collection of survey documents, as well as positioning those same documents on Survey Monkey to facilitate both web access for survey takers and easier evaluation of survey responses. Many of her business students have had hands-on involvement in this process. Mrs. Gavitt serves on the district’s Strategic Plan Committee and is our link to that process. She has also kindly made sure that refreshments were provided at each Planning Team meeting—a vital part of keeping us all agreeable.

Neither teacher is being remunerated. Mr. Lawson received relief from homeroom and all other non-classroom duties for the 2006-2007 school year and for the first half of 2007-2008. By coincidence, Mrs. Gavitt’s 2006-2007 schedule provided her with an extra prep period each day.

8. Role of the External Coordinator

Not applicable.

9. Communications and Awareness Activities

Methods used to inform constituent groups on the planning process and the content of the plan

At its first meeting the Planning Team decided to survey the community in an effort to determine the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the school, and thus to guide the Team’s thinking about the development of appropriate SPOs. Larry Lawson and Donna Gavitt (faculty reps), Abby Yavorek (student rep), and Christine Jaegers and Annette Gray (parent/community reps) agreed to serve on an ad hoc committee to develop and distribute such a survey, with questions derived from the preliminary concerns identified by the Planning Committee.

That initial survey was designed to identify broad areas of concern and was kept intentionally brief, in the hope that it would be more likely to generate a greater number of responses. Copies of the survey (shown below) were sent home with all students, along with a letter of explanation. In addition the survey was publicized to the community through an article in the local newspaper, a copy of which is shown here.

News

Email Print Subscribe

EDUCATION

District surveying community about school performance

By Asten Smith
The Daily Item

October 12, 2006

SELINSGROVE — The Selinsgrove Area School District is surveying community members, including students and parents, on how to improve and raise school performance.

The school is preparing for the 2007-08 school year through the Accreditation of Growth Process under the Middle States Association, which accredits schools for academic progress made.

The Middle States Planning Committee, composed of local members with ties to the education system, created the survey, which is part of the self-evaluation process.

Larry Lawson, a teacher and co-chairman of the committee, said the objective of the survey is to see if the same concerns that were formulated into questions in the survey are echoed in the community. In addition, the committee hopes to bring to light any additional concerns throughout the community the committee did not originally address.

The program is a cooperative effort between the district and the Middle States Association which recommends the school focus on two to four areas of concern that can be targeted during the next school year. The 2007 school year is the self-study year for the school district.

The district will compile information they have gathered and use that material to create action plans to target areas that need improvement.

These plans will be implemented during the fall of the school year of 2007 when a validation committee from the Mid States Association will spend four days at the school to ensure the plans are working.

If they find the plans aren't working, "it's back to the drawing board," said Mr. Lawson.

The school district has pledged to make a seven-year commitment to enhance the Selinsgrove district's effectiveness among staff and students. The seven-year commitment, Mr. Lawson said, is a contract formed between the district and the Middle States Association.

"The district is choosing to hold itself accountable ... for particular goals that will be established." The goals that become the focus for the upcoming school year are called "student performance objectives." Each year teachers will have to re-evaluate plans that have been applied to the student performance objectives.

The success of plans in progress are assessed through multiple measures.

Drafts of action plans are submitted to the Middle States Association for any adjustments that need to be made before adoption of the plan.

Mr. Lawson said it is not mandatory for schools to participate with the Middle States Association. However, school districts do receive recognition for achieving higher levels of excellence when action plans are met.

The survey can be accessed through the school Web site at http://www.seal-pa.org/dnn/default.aspx under the "Middle States Survey" link. Copies of the survey also can be picked up at the Selinsgrove Public Library, Selinsgrove Area High School and the Greater Susquehanna Valley Chamber of Commerce office in Shamokin Dam.

Completed surveys can be dropped off or mailed to the high school. The deadline for receiving surveys is Oct. 20.

Community members could respond by picking up a hard copy at the school, at the local public library, or at the office of the Susquehanna Valley Chamber of Commerce. As noted in the letter and in the press release, people were encouraged to access the survey via a link on the district website to an e-version of the survey, which had been uploaded to SurveyMonkey.com.

Some responses were entered directly to the SurveyMonkey site. Those responses submitted as hard copies were in turn uploaded to the SurveyMonkey site by students in Mrs. Gavitt’s class, including a verbatim transcription of any comments entered.

The initial survey:

This survey can be completed by one or two respondents. First, please start by indicating your relationship to the school. Select the general category to which you belong and then check all subcategories that apply to you.

Respondent #1 Respondent #2

Student	Community Member	x	Student	Community Member
9 th grade	parent of a current student		9 th grade	parent of a current student
10 th grade	parent of a recent graduate		10 th grade	parent of a recent graduate
11 th grade	SAHS graduate		11 th grade	SAHS graduate
12 th grade	SAHS graduate		12 th grade	SAHS graduate

Here are several proposals about possible ways to improve the job done by Selinsgrove Area High School. Please consider each proposal carefully and separately. You don’t need to think about ranking them. If you are returning this paper survey rather than taking the on-line survey, you may indicate choices for two people in the household.

Please use the following scale to select your responses:

5 (strongly agree) 4 (agree) 3 (don’t know/care) 2 (disagree) 1 (strongly disagree)

SAHS needs to strengthen the general literacy levels of all students.