| Time: |
700 - 9:00 pm |
| Location: |
Ed Center Tower Room |
| Present: |
K. Mehas, M. Harris, J. Allen, M. Markus, S.
Bolton, P. Ing, K.C. Clark, E. Russell, C. Schmidt, D. Gudger , J. Dimino,
A. Lane, E. Reichel , G. Salmi, J. Berney, C. Turley, G. Berkey, P. Miller,
R. Lancaster, J. McLemore, E. Tepfer, P. Berrian, T. Rochholz, P. McDonald.
Facilitators: Don Brown and Tom Henry. |
| Absent: |
A. Villanueva, B Nardo, L. Patterson, N. Pollard,
P. Stolp, G. Blea-Nunez, S. Schriver, K. Costello, B. Toll, B. Kamhi, E.
Russell, J. Dimino, E. Reichel, R. Lancaster. |
| Notetaker: |
Don Brown |
|
|
|
| Time |
Topic |
Presenter |
|
Revised Agenda for February 3, 2000
|
|
| 7:00 – 7:10 |
Attendance and Public Comment Time
Public Input: Bill McConochie
First Topic: His interest was primarily for student safety.
He has developed a test of Violence “Proneness” for students. He
suggested establishing a permanent committee of community stakeholders
to oversee programs that address psychological needs, counselors, nurses,
and support programs for students and parents. Teaching “civility”:
many modern problems are related. ORI and University partnerships
could support this. He emphasized that the District should stay in
touch with the research community.
Second topic: He felt that the planning process was not done
as well as possible and suggested a search process. He suggested
having “All important players are at the table before you start”.
He thought that conflicts could then be resolved more easily.
He further stated that in any job, variations exist in effectiveness:
that the District should test applicants to predict for the best teachers
before hired for all positions in the district. His email address
is Tstmastr@rio.com |
|
| 7:10 – 7:30 |
Large School / Small School Presentation:
- Principals report revisited
- Facilities implications
-
300-400 student buildings have been proposed for new elementary schools.
-
Mixture of classrooms makes it easier to accommodate student needs.
If there is only one classroom, there are no options for students and no
ability to mix students.
-
Less richness based on a diverse staff in small schools
-
Leads to closure and/or consolidation of schools, especially for our inner
core schools.
-
Opposing view: strength of district is based on small neighborhood schools.
And we should continue.
Executive Summary: Large schools provide a wider spectrum of
programs and have more flexibility. The learning environment has
been a concern, that small schools have a better climate. There is
no huge effect on student achievement. Large schools can structure
into small schools within a school. Nationally, some elementary schools
are in the thousands. We are not talking about that. Our notion
of a large school is 300-500 at one site. This could be an alternative
plus a neighborhood school. That counts as one school with one principal.
Committee members Discussion:
Kelly/Yujin/daVinci- Inability to mix up students is an issue.
They recognize the limitations of the program to parents. The behavior
can more effectively be addressed due to each student staying in the program
3 years. Small size lends itself to addressing affective (emotional)
needs of students, but there are limitations in curriculum offerings, math
for example. |
Tom Henry |
| 7:30 – 8:00 |
Brainstorming Q4: How do we assess program effectiveness?
- Framing assessment goals
- Whole group brainstorming
-
Exit interviews that are extensive and include all program areas: What
did they gain? Open-ended questions used, address how it felt as
well as learning. Use this to give direction to school for change.
-
Expand peer groups for feedback
-
Longitudinal follow-up, including after graduation
-
Students have opportunities for “metacognitive” self-assessment; purpose
is to find out what they need. Involve students in many kinds of assessment.
-
Teachers also have opportunities for self-assessment.
-
Ongoing teacher evaluation by students, including feedback from student
and parents about assessment of student
-
Students see their own growth, individual progress instead of ranking among
peers
-
“Developmental” assessment, not based on age or grade of student
-
Some measure of behavior and other less tangible attributes of students
-
Use of checklists
-
Civility: clarify parent expectations, school expectations
-
Limit the frequency of measuring and time spent testing
-
Emphasize problem-solving
-
Require “CIM Teams” for K-12 articulation
-
“Value-added” concept: consider where student is starting from
-
Develop measurements based on what we as a District are looking to create
-
Compensate for inequities
-
Use assessments in the short term, use them consistently
-
Collect and track information (statistics) on achievement, attendance,
graduation and behavior
-
Consider SES factor in student expectations
-
Develop a safety assessment for schools and communities
-
Examine the “Children First” report
-
Examine the motivation behind the assessment: politics? money? learning?
-
Establish a clear target for students
-
Use rubrics
-
Use peer review
-
Include Parent Education
-
Create a team: students and teachers
-
Use assessment results as a guide to take action in bringing resources
to schools
-
Establish a triage team to provide immediate help if called for in assessments
-
Plan to build in change to make it less threatening or negative
-
Use a simple record keeping system
-
Communicate accommodations for special needs students clearly to parents
and the students’ next teacher
-
Do not let tests drive what is taught
-
Direct and indirect community involvement in assessment
-
Consider effects on “fragile” students before they fail
-
ASK WHY
-
Use a systems approach that includes student, school, program
-
Assess climate
|
|
| 8:00 – 8:45 |
Addressing Guests from Facilities Group
School Climate is a critical element, knowing teachers and peers. Building
structures at HS and MS need to create a sense of community and have a
sense of aesthetics. (i.e. windows). Creating intimacy feeling.
Two middle schools competing. Elementary schools competing. Issue
not big or small so much as what is effective? What will give
students a sense of belonging, power, community, etc?
Size less important less than the feel. How can we make sure
students have a sense of personal gratification?
Core programs can be unique, but specialists can be shared between programs.
Separate for part of the day…mix part of the day. “Coming from a program
standpoint.”
Neighborhood concept: if we group schools, can we group an alternative
school with a neighborhood school? Or two neighborhood schools if they
are close together? School should still be a center of the community.
Goals in consolidation: Enhance program, Preserve schools identity,
Preserve neighborhood. Is there a population cycle? Replace the schools
that are the most dilapidated. |
|
| 8:45 – 9:00 |
Drafting report and additional meeting dates
Additional meeting times:
-
February 15th
-
February 24th
-
March 2nd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< Return to Educational
Programs |
|
