Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Profile Of A Graduate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Talbot County board weighs updating Policy 1.4 'Profile of a Graduate'
Summary
Board members and district staff discussed updating Policy 1.4 — the school system's 'profile of a graduate' — to reflect modern competencies, while noting the need to define who counts as a 'graduate' and how goals will be measured.
Talbot County Board of Education members on March 17 reviewed Policy 1.4, the district statement of system goals and the "profile of a graduate," and discussed proposed competencies drafted as part of the district's strategic planning process.
District staff opened the discussion by laying out the policy history and next steps. Ms. Gardner, district staff, said the current policy was adopted in 1991 and reviewed in 2010 and that the strategic-planning work groups are pairing a refreshed mission and vision with a proposed profile of competencies from the district's consultant.
Why it matters: The board must approve any change to Policy 1.4 because it defines districtwide goals that guide curriculum, assessments and accountability work. Board members said modernizing the language could shape expectations for all students over the coming decade.
Board members debated scope and definitions early in the conversation. "I guess that's where it takes me — thinking about what a profile of a graduate should look like today as compared to what we thought about in 1991," said Dr. Horsey, a board member, arguing that technology and job expectations have changed since the policy's adoption. Several board members asked for clearer definitions of who counts as a "graduate" under the policy — whether it includes students who leave through certificate programs, students receiving diplomas after special-education supports, or any student who completes their time in the district.
Board member Debbie (Board member) urged attention to basic academic skills: "One thing that's not on here and it really bothers me is our children cannot spell," she said, referencing school walkthroughs she had performed. Other members raised study skills and rigor, citing concerns about a local "no homework" practice and whether current grading and honors-track preparations adequately ready students for college-level work.
Special education and equity concerns were explicitly raised. One board member asked whether all students who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) should be held to the same profile items; district staff said special-education students are measured against individualized goals and that staff would examine how the profile can include those goals without excluding students with differing abilities.
District staff recommended pairing any new profile with measures in the strategic plan so the district can show how students meet each competency. "Once we deem what the profile is, then it will be measuring so that we can say how we know our students have these traits," Ms. Gardner said.
Next steps: Staff said they will work with the consultant to align the proposed competencies with the district strategic plan and then route suggested language through the policy committee before returning to the full board for consideration.
The discussion did not include a board vote on changes to Policy 1.4 on March 17.
