Category: Education

2013 Gilpin County Spelling Bee results

by Patty Unruh

Congratulations are in order for fifth-grader Bailey Hobson-Kroll, winner of the 2013 Gilpin County Spelling Bee, held February 7.  Bailey won when she correctly spelled “comportment,” a noun meaning “bearing or demeanor.” She persevered through seven rounds to triumph over a field of about 60 intense competitors in fifth through eighth grade, winning the $150 first prize.

There were two other finalists, seventh-grader Carly Johnson and sixth-grader Olivia Randall. Carly, who earned second place, won $100, and the third-place winner, Olivia, won $50. Additionally, all students, including the three finalists, won one dollar for each correctly spelled word. The awards will be given at the academic awards banquet scheduled at the school in May.

Carol Murray, secondary school secretary, advised that this was the second year in a row that a fifth-grader had won the spelling bee. Had Bailey been in sixth, seventh, or eighth grade, she would have been eligible to advance to the state competition if she chose to do so, but fifth graders are only eligible to compete locally. The state spelling bee will be held March 15 and 16 at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. The national spelling bee is scheduled for May 28 through 30 near Washington, DC.

The purpose for the spelling bee, as noted on the Scripps National Spelling Bee website, is to help students improve their spelling, increase their vocabulary, learn concepts, and develop correct English usage that will help them all their lives. A week or two before the spelling bee, students who chose to participate were provided with a Scripps list of words to study.

Secondary language arts instructor Jeff Scheussler was the pronouncer, or the one who gave the students the words. He began by explaining the rules to the contestants and instructed them to warm up with a practice round, where each contestant stepped up to the microphone one by one and spelled his or her name. That gave spelling bee officials a chance to make sure that the sound system worked well and that each contestant faced the judges and spoke loudly and clearly.

The judges were Interim Superintendent Morris Ververs, Deb Benitez, and Suzanne Paulman. Their role was to uphold the rules and determine whether or not words were spelled correctly. They had complete control of the competition and had the final decision on any questions.

Scheussler gave each contestant a different word. “Magnificent”…“monumental”…“superstar.” One after another, the competitors hoped to have those terms applied to them as they tackled tricky nouns, verbs, and adjectives.

The first round began with moderately difficult words, such as “wasp,” “cloudy,” “prove,” and “landmark.” Each contestant followed the procedure of pronouncing the word, spelling it, then pronouncing it again. Scheussler would tell the student whether the spelling was correct or incorrect. Those spelling incorrectly were disqualified. The others proceeded to the next round.

Round two words included some that occasioned a few giggles from the audience, such as “amigo,” “Martian,” and “snarky.” Contestants in the third round sweated through such posers as “ferocious,” “covetous,” and “reign.” There were eight students remaining at the beginning of round four. No one was “demonstrably” “flirtatious;” rather, they were “prominently” “intuitive” in their spelling. For the final three rounds, only three students were left. Bailey Hobson-Kroll, Olivia Randall, and Carly Johnson battled it out for the honor of spelling bee champ.

In the seventh and final round, Bailey correctly spelled the word “recyclable.” Olivia faltered on “subsequent,” and Carly was eliminated on “fallibility” (no, it doesn’t mean “able to fall”). Everyone held their breath while Bailey enunciated the letters of the anticipated championship word: “comportment.” The spelling was pronounced correct.

Then cheers erupted for the 2013 champion of the Gilpin County Spelling Bee!

The spelling bee was conducted according to Scripps’ Rules for Local Spelling Bees. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary was the final authority for the spelling of all words appearing on that list.

If a word had one or more homonyms, the pronouncer indicated which word was to be spelled by defining the word. A speller was allowed to ask the pronouncer to repeat a word, define it, give it in a sentence, tell what part of speech the word was, give its language of origin, or provide an alternate pronunciation. If it was apparent that a speller misunderstood a word, another word was given.

The spelling finalists followed a clearly defined procedure for the end of the bee. Only one finalist spelled her word correctly in the fifth round. She was then given the anticipated championship word, but misspelled it. A new one-word round began with all three girls, spelling in their original order. The same thing happened in the sixth round. Finally, in the seventh round, two finalists were eliminated and Bailey won as she correctly spelled the championship word.

Noah Webster, one of America’s founders and author in 1806 of the first truly American dictionary, urged altering many words to eliminate what he called “needless confusion,” such as changing “tongue” to “tung” and “women” to “wimmen.” Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and others opined, “Pity a man who can only spell a word one way.” Maybe we’ll have to take those thoughts into account for next year’s spelling bee.

Gilpin School Board hears teachers’ presentation; considers proposal for panic button system

by Patty Unruh

The Gilpin County School Board held a meeting February 4. Those present were President Craig Holmes and other members Brook Ramsey, Kersten Armstrong, and Rusty Hardy, as well as Interim Superintendent Morris Ververs. Member Charlotte Taylor was absent.

FLIP Classroom Presentation

  Secondary science teacher Barb Bedwell addressed the board about her implementation of a new classroom technique called the FLIP classroom. The technique in effect “flips” the traditional order, where the teacher gives a classroom lecture while the students take notes and then do homework. Instead, Bedwell videotapes her ten-minute lectures and posts them on YouTube. The students watch the lectures as homework, then use time in the classroom to address questions, discuss the material, and do projects. Bedwell has begun using the method with her chemistry, biology, and honors biology classes. She explained that the method was invented by someone in Colorado and did not originate with her.

Today’s tech-savvy kids can pull out their phone, Kindle, computer, or i-pad to watch the lectures. They can watch the videos at home or on the bus as they travel to a sporting event. They can access the videos as many times as necessary to gain understanding and can work more at their own pace.

With the traditional classroom model, Bedwell said, “you’ll have some students who are very engaged and loving it, some who are lost, and some who are bored.” She added, “Homework is often a complete waste of time,” explaining that a student may get stuck on a concept and not complete the work, do all of the homework incorrectly, lack time to get it done because of other obligations, or forget to do it. “With FLIP, it’s the opposite. They go home and watch the lecture and do the homework at school.” She added that the videos are intended as a vehicle to aid what goes on in the classroom.

There are many advantages to this method, Bedwell asserted. “I can help a student who is lost. If someone works fast and is bored, they can move ahead. We can do discussions and projects in class.”

Bedwell, whose enthusiasm for the technique was infectious, said that her favorite advantage was that FLIP is self-paced. A student can rewind the lectures if they need to hear them again, or fast forward if they already understand the material. Another advantage is that it is flexible; it can be done at any time or any place. If a student is absent, they have access to the lecture at home so they don’t miss it.

Parents and kids can watch the videos and learn together. The parents can hear information about assignments. Fast learners, as well as learners with lower-end skills, can all benefit. Bedwell told the board that classroom management problems are gone. The young people are working together on science now, she advised, rather than visiting and passing notes.

She said that the method discourages students from copying others’ notes. Everyone is accountable for their own learning. The students have a responsibility to watch the lectures with understanding in mind. They are to bring questions to class, and she will address all questions.

Bedwell stated that the new method is “just one part of a culture change. It is a shift to a standards-based classroom. The student can’t move along until they demonstrate understanding.” The students have to articulate what they are supposed to be learning and use “I can” statements to tell what they know.

Bedwell admits it has been a huge amount of work to implement the FLIP method. “I’m about to shoot myself for going this big,” she said, “but I wanted all three classes to get the benefit.” She was pleased about the recent test scores for one chemistry class. She said the lowest score was 84 percent, where previously several of the students had failing grades. “Kids are now saying, ‘I know how to do this.’ Even kids who thought of themselves as failures are getting it. I get goose bumps because they are doing so well.” She has received mostly positive feedback from her students.

She added that math teacher Rachel White is also using the technique in her classroom.

Bedwell did say that most of the young people have access to the necessary technology. If they do not, they can learn the subject in a more traditional way.

Instructor Sunshine Vincent accompanied Bedwell, demonstrating smart board and clicker technology. She gave the board a demonstration quiz. The quiz was projected from her computer onto a smart board, with true-false, multiple choice, or similar questions. She gave board members some clickers, so they could respond as a student would. The clicker is a remote device on which students select an answer by pressing a corresponding button. The teacher does not know how each individual student answers, but he or she can see the overall results. The results can be displayed on a chart, or the chart can be hidden so the students don’t see the results. The students are also able to send text answers to certain questions.

Vincent is enthusiastic about the technology, because “it gives everybody a voice,” she said, “even the shy kids who don’t want to raise their hands.” The kids are trying to “one up” one another to see who can give the best answer.

The board members all agreed that it was an exciting presentation. When asked the cost of a smart board, Vincent estimated that it was about $2,700. She said a response receiver was about $400. Board member Hardy said the district should get more receivers and not wait until next year, but Holmes stated that the issue should be tabled until the next meeting, to have time to figure a cost and how many units to purchase.

Ververs brought up the fact that the school’s technical committee had met recently about what to work into next year’s budget. “We don’t have a plan or anything that ties into student outcomes,” he stated. We need to make sure that every dollar spent on technology affects student achievement, and we need to make sure that new technology is compatible with the rest of what we have.” His observation was that often school districts will go for the latest trend and do not consider how it will affect the students.

Panic Button

Since the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings in late 2012, the Gilpin school board has been working on a plan to beef up security by keeping a full-time deputy at the school. The board has also decided to cut down on emergency response time by installing panic buttons for several “front-line” staff members. An alarm would go directly into the sheriff’s department. Ververs presented a cost estimate for the installation of a panic button system, which he had obtained from SecureTech Systems, Inc. of Irving, Texas. The cost of a WAVE wireless instant notification system was quoted at $9,350, not including tax, and would include one control panel with an e-mail/texting module, four single button duress alarms, one repeater if needed, and on-site set-up and training. SecureTech’s proposal listed such features as a wireless receiver, the ability to add virtual buttons to computers within the network for transmittal of panic alarms, radios to transmit alarm notifications, and a backup battery that will keep the system functioning in case of power failure.

Ververs also met with County Commissioner Gail Watson about a full-time armed deputy and stated his intention to be at the Commissioners’ meeting on February 12 to discuss the issue. Ververs told the board that Watson suggested a Community Forum on Student Safety for February 20.

New Superintendent Search

At a special meeting of the board held January 28, member Hardy announced the four superintendent finalists. Board President Holmes stated he would notify each finalist. The next step in the search is training for the interview committees on February 13. Interviews will take place February 15 and 16, with final selection scheduled for February 19.

District Policies

The board approved on second reading several policies that they had been carefully reviewing for the past few months, including some policies that the board had referred to legal counsel.

Among these was the District’s policy on Parking Lot Searches, which states, “The privilege of bringing a student-operated motor vehicle onto school premises is conditioned on consent by the student driver to allow search of the vehicle when there is reasonable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of contraband.” The policy also states that if a student, parent/guardian, or owner of the vehicle refuses to allow such a search, that refusal may result in the motor vehicle privilege being terminated, as well as disciplinary action and notification of law enforcement officials.

The board also approved the policy on Student Interrogations, Searches and Arrests. This policy states that if a school official has reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of school rules or federal, state, or local laws, or to suspect the presence of something harmful, the principal or designee may search a student or student’s property, while on school premises. The official may seize any property deemed detrimental to the safety of students and staff. A search of the student shall be limited to the student’s pockets and any object in the student’s possession, and a “pat down” of the exterior of the student’s clothing. The search shall be respectful of privacy considerations. Anything found which violates the law, school board policy, or school rules or which presents an immediate danger of physical harm may be seized and offered as evidence in any suspension or expulsion proceeding or returned to the student or the parent/guardian, as appropriate. The student is allowed to appeal the search decision to the superintendent, whose decision will be final. The policy also addresses circumstances when a law enforcement officer should be involved.

The board approved the policy on Staff Leave of Absences, which states that leave days will be granted according to the terms of the employees’ contracts and will be earned monthly. An important feature of the policy is that any individuals wishing to donate days to another staff member may do so at the administration’s discretion.

  Also approved was the policy on extracurricular activity transportation. This policy provides that students participating in a school-sponsored activity that requires travel outside the school district must ride to the activity with the group on transportation provided by the school. Students may have this requirement waived, provided that prior arrangements have been made with the activity sponsor and the proper consent forms signed. In that case, they may ride to the activity with their parent or other responsible adult designated by the parent or guardian. Following an activity requiring outside travel, with the agreement of the activity sponsor, a student may be released to his parent or other responsible adult. The proper form must be signed, and the parent must show the sponsor that the student is in his or her custody before the school-provided transportation leaves the vicinity.

Summit for Innovative Education

Ververs attended a Summit for Innovative Education held this week and gave a brief report to the board. The Summit’s focus was on pathways followed by top-performing schools in order to rise rapidly from poor to good, good to great, and great to excellent. Ververs stated that the topic was timely for Gilpin staff, which is working hard this year on improving student learning outcomes.

He also said that one of the main messages of the summit was that legislators and governors are concerned about America losing its economic advantage, and that test scores and student achievement is tied into our gross national project. One speaker had told the summit attendees that businesses have made changes to adjust to the world, but many schools still have not done so.

Hearing required before District submits plan to CDE next week

by Patty Unruh

The school board held a brief hearing the evening of January 8 for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to ask questions and make comments about the school district’s unified improvement plan. The plan’s purpose is to help students to bring their academic performance up to Colorado state standards.

Board members present were President Craig Holmes, Charlotte Taylor, Rusty Hardy, and Kersten Armstrong. Interim superintendent Morris Ververs, secondary principal Alexis Donaldson, and elementary principal Lisa Schell were also present. District Accountability Committee members Gigetta Nadeau, Mary Lorenz, and Dee Adams attended as well. No other parents attended; however, they have been kept well informed throughout the process.

Ververs began the hearing by noting that the hearing was being held as required by law to allow parents to provide input about the District’s plan to make improvements in students’ learning outcomes. The District is required to submit the plan to the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) by January 15. The changes are to be in place for next school year.

Ververs summarized the progress, stating that this past October, the District came up with a plan with the help of the CDE. The plan was in place by November 11, and educational consultant Ava Lanes came to work with the teachers on techniques to bring the school in line with state standards.

Ververs was pleased at the “rich discussion” that had been held previously with the District Accountability Committee (DAC), who is required to approve the plan. Holmes thanked Ververs and the two principals for “digging into the numbers and not waiting until September.” He believed the school would reap the rewards for beginning work on the plan aggressively.

Gigetta Nadeau rose to speak. “I’ve been on the DAC for three years,” she said. “I’ve been watching Lisa (Schell) and Alex (Donaldson), and we are headed in the right direction. As a parent, I believe this is the right direction. Let’s work with the state, but not wait for them.”

Board member Armstrong was also pleased that the plan was being attacked vigorously. “One problem has been to align to the test standards,” she said. “But that is not as important as the elementary students having the tools to be successful in middle school and high school. The task is to align the teaching with the testing. It’s a more achievable goal than teaching things that we are not already teaching.”

The law is S.B. 10-191, which is intended to provide “a system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel to improve the quality of education.” Its provisions include feedback for professional growth and continuous improvement, and a basis for “making decisions in the areas of hiring, compensation, promotion, assignment, professional development, earning and retaining non-probationary status, dismissal, and nonrenewal of contract.”

For example, the definition of principal effectiveness notes, “Effective principals in the state of Colorado are responsible for the collective success of their schools, including the learning growth and achievement of both students and staff. As a school’s primary instructional leaders, effective principals enable critical discourse and data-driven reflection about curriculum, assessment, instruction, and student progress, and create structures to facilitate improvement. Effective principals are adept at creating systems that maximize the utilization of resources and human capital, foster collaboration, and facilitate construction change…”

The Unified Improvement Plan for the elementary school shows the 2011-12 federal and state expectations for academic achievement status at 72.05 percent for reading, 70.11 percent for math, 54.84 percent for writing, and 45.36 percent for science. The actual results were 75.61 percent, 71.84 percent, 53.47 percent, and 48.65 percent, respectively. The elementary school’s main difficulty shows not having clear grade-level expectations as a root cause to low writing achievement.

Documents from the plan and assessments show that the 2011-2012 state and federal expectations for middle school and high school reading were 71.43 and 73.33 percent, respectively. The actual results were 74.32 and 81.08.

For math the expectations were 52.48 and 33.52, and the results were 54.05 and 40.54. For writing, the expectations were 57.77 and 50, while the results were 54.79 and 64.86. For science the expectations were 48 and 50, while the results were 68.75 and 63.16.

That means the school meets expectations on those categories.

Gilpin also meets expectations for overall rating for secondary academic growth, meets the expected graduation rate of 80 percent (with 89.5 percent), and the expected mean ACT composite score with 20.2. The expected score was 20.

It is approaching the expected level for dropout rate of no more than 3.6 percent, with a figure of 6.8 percent, although in a small school like Gilpin, that figure may be problematic, and each student can impact that figure greatly, whereas in a large district each student would have nominal impact on that.

Gilpin also is approaching the expectation for overall rating for growth gaps.

Other results show that the school did not meet the target for academic achievement for 5^th and 6^th graders, although the students went from 68 proficient and advanced in 5^th grade to 69 percent and advanced in 6^th grade. The expectation was 71 percent.

Regarding academic growth, the high school met expectations, with an academic reading score of 65. For middle school, the score was 41, with 42 being the expected result.

Gilpin confirmed it has implemented a literacy intervention in middle school, and officials hope to address individual student gaps in reading, because the average growth percentile in reading for grade 6-8 free and reduced lunch students, while it was hoped to increase to 48, actually rose to 39.

Among the observations was that the school needs “to use standards to align instruction as opposed to a particular text book.” The school also concluded, “We must use ACT/PSAT data to drive instructional decisions and intentionally teach ACT test skills.”

Also assembled were targets for the coming school years, with hopes that ACT averages will rise to 21, then 22.

“Although we saw a significant increase in our ACT scores in 2012, our composite score remains below the state average: 20.7 (2010), 17.6 (2011), 20.2 (2012).

Plans are to provide training time to teachers as well as schedule formative assessment training, four days at $1500 per day, and formative assessment coaching days, four days at $1000 per day.