PDC Meeting Minutes for November 12, 2003
November 12, 2003
District Level Team
Minutes
November 12, 2003
The meeting of the District Level Team was called to order on November 12, 2003 at 3:55 p.m. in the Central Office by Rex Mauck.
Members attending: John Showman, Rex Mauck, Sharmon Polson, Shelly Hasenkamp, Skip McMillen, Tom Schroeder, Bob Myers, Jane Rottinghaus, Janelle Glatczak, Beth Reust and Pam Slifer.
Absent: Brenda Bergman, Karen Morton and Sherri Alverson.
1. Approval of Agenda
Skip McMillen moved to approve the agenda with the addition of 7. Testing PASS Plan.
Bob Myers seconded the motion. Motion carried 10-0.
2. Results of team assignments.
a. PDC Annual Training
Pam Slifer is to add sentence, “PDC members will receive mandatory training annually.” to PDC plan.
b. Measures of impact
Impact of staff development priorities is determined by:
1. Analysis of teachers’ implementation and effective use of related knowledge and skills through surveys given at the start and conclusion of each academic year.
2. Assessment of students’ academic performance on specific academic targets annually.
c. Reporting staff development results
1. Individual teachers share evidence related to each level with
his/her designated supervisor when IDP points receive initial
validation.
2. PDC representatives report results to PDC district team annually.
3. PDC chair reports results to the BOE annually.
d. Appeal Process
Grievance Procedure to follow for disputes involving the Individual
Professional Development Plan.
The procedure for approval of the IPDP includes:
1. The individual completes, signs and submits the plan to the designated supervisor.
2. The designated supervisor reviews the plan for approval, disapproval, or modification and if he/she approves/signs the plan.
a. If the IPDP is not approved by the designated supervisor:
i. The plan is returned to the individual with recommendations for revision.
ii. The individual may appeal in writing or in person to the building level PDC representative.
3. The IPDP is passed to the PDC building representative.
b. If the IPDP is not approved by the PDC building representative.
i. The plan is returned to the individual with recommendations for revision.
ii. The individual may appeal in writing or in person to the entire PDC at a designated time during one of the PDC’s regularly scheduled meetings.
4. The IPDP is passed to the PDC for approval, disapproval, or modification.
c. If the IPDP is not approved by the PDC:
i. The plan is returned to the individual with recommendations for revision.
ii. If a person is unable to attain approval of an individual development plan through local professional development council, the person may appeal to the licensure review committee for a review of the proposed plan as provided for by Kansas statute 91-1-206(d).
GrievanceProcedure to follow for disputes involving the awarding of PDC Points.
The purpose of this procedure is to secure at the lowest possible level, equitable solutions
disputes involving the awarding and approval of PDC points between district staff and the
PDC which may occur from time to time. The term grievance refers to any disagreement
over the awarding of PDC points. The level of implementation granted, or the number of
points granted for a specific inservice and the points requested.
1. The individual completes, signs and submits the request to the designated building PDC
representative.
2. The points request form is then passed to the building supervisor.
3. The designated supervisor reviews the request, and if he/she approves, signs the form and forwards it to the PDC recorder.
Level One
The individual may appeal a dispute in writing or in person to the building level PDC
Representative.
Level Two
The individual may appeal a dispute in writing or in person to the supervisor.
Level Three
The individual may appeal a grievance in writing or in person to the entire PDC at its
next regularly scheduled meeting. Decisions made by the PDC are deemed to be the
final word on the matter.
e. Inservice points - questions – Greenbush option.
John Showman moved to become members of the Greenbush Staff Development
Consortium.
Skip McMillen seconded the motion. Motion carried 10-0.
f. Discuss inservice needs called for in district plans and grants. Tech, PDC plan,
grants, follow up of knowledge level presentations, etc.
Beth Reust presented the committee with a professional development outline chart.
3. Schedule time to go over our new plan and state training information with staff.
It was decided to wait until our membership with the Greenbush Staff Development
Consortium is started. The new PDC plan and the Greenbush ToolBox will be covered at the
same time. However, at the Nov. 25th inservice, there will be a brief overview of the new
PDC plan.
4. Final decision on out of district and non employee PDC and inservice participation.
It was decided that anyone who is out of district or a non employee, should have an IPDP on
file to participate in district inservices. Charges for the inservices will be determined at the
School Board Meeting.
5. Review upcoming inservices.
November 25, 2003 Inservice
The agenda for K-6 will be ITBS & Mucking the Data.
The agenda for 7-12 will be unpacking.
K-12 will be Blood-borne Pathogens.
There will also be a brief overview of the new PDC Plan.
Shelly Hasenkamp left the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Jane Rottinghaus left the meeting at 5:34 p.m.
Bob Myers moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Seconded Tom Schroeder. Motion carried 8-0.
