Welcome

Agenda review 

The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to review the SOF process, the timeline, the format for the final report and provide a last opportunity to give a heads-up to the task groups on their work before they submit their reports and recommendations.  She noted that all the task groups have experienced high levels of participation and that members have maintained their commitment to their work.

Public comment 

Review of SOF process; outcomes 

Calendar Review

Evie Matthews said there is a plan for some kind of celebratory event at the end of the process when the committee’s report has been submitted to the Board.

It was noted that the  SFC will have to synthesize the reports of the task groups and send the final report to the School Board.   It was suggested that a meeting of all the task groups could help with the process of synthesis, and also broaden perspectives beyond the individual task group.  The Board will take some time reviewing the report and probably will not make any decisions until the fall.   That may be the time to gather everyone together so that Board members can share what they see as the next steps and get the larger body’s feedback. 

Format of Final Report

Discussion of the report format included comments/suggestions in the following areas:

Vision and Specific Recommendations

• Question:  Is there a difference between two sets of recommendations - Chapter Two and Chapter Three?  // Chapter Two is about what we want; Chapter Three is more about process, courses of action.
• Chapter Three needs to relate or tie back to the Vision Statements.  It is important to use the Vision Statement to communicate “what did we learn?”  and “how did we put it together in some meaningful way” to make a compelling sense of what’s notable about the vision.
• Be sure we state to the consumers of this report why we did this; describe the situation.  // That should be in the part George writes.
• Chapter Two then could establish what we think needs to be done.  Chapter Three could include more detail on how to get there.
• Need strategy connected to the vision; recommendations should be tied to “what’s the point.”  We should be looking for outcomes.
• Need to identify the priorities and the significant changes to be made.  “In the next 3 years, you will consider these ideas, radical ideas that will accomplish the change we seek.”
• Can we look at the task groups and determine which issues (i.e., Resources, Facilities, etc.) are enabling and which ones are drivers, and link those to priorities?
• To avoid an impractical document, need to ground the strategies we recommend in the context, and  sort out recommendations that address an immediate need and others that might address future-building.
• Respect the work of the task groups and take their recommendations seriously.
• Expand the chapter than includes next steps to say, “and here’s how we think this document can be used.”

• Board will take the document and consider in the context of its current goals for the district.  It will spend time looking at how those mesh and where they lead us, and then set a plan in motion.   It could then be distributed broadly to the community as a whole. 
• Need to discuss how/if the report will be used to educate, get people excited about the vision and to advocate for change in the community, to change views in legislature.  Could it be used as a marketing tool with foundations or corporations to bring more money into the community to carry out the recommendations?
• Need to use the report to inspire people and help them understand that education is different than they think it is, moving in a different direction than people think it is, and that the state standards and mandates are not working for most students.
• May be groups who will use this report and the information it contains as the basis for their own actions.
• This group (SFC) should plan a strategy to help draw attention to the agenda put forward  by the report.
• Thought should be given to how the report can/will be used at the individual school or education center level. 
• One member plans to cite the report and the values it presents as something that he stands for, that is active and forceful and important because it deals with kids.
• Use the report as a way for the Board to get their message to the State Legislature and generate public support from community members.

There was concern expressed about the short  timeframe for the SFC to do the synthesis and generate its report.  Margot reviewed her proposed process to put the six vision statements on large sheets of paper, to write each task group recommendation on a strip of paper and ask the SFC to sort out and re-group the recommendations as they relate to a vision statement.   She suggested forming small groups and having reps from the task groups review and discuss each of their recommendations with each small group, so there is more clarity about the intention of each recommendation.   This would also be an opportunity to surface the recommendations that are key.  She envisions it as an active process in which the group builds a picture of the future together.   Committee members will receive information regarding the planned process for that meeting ahead of time and will be expected to do some work outside of the meetings.  Susan also encouraged people to go to the task group web pages and review their work there.  The co-chairs will meet to review tonight’s discussion and put together a plan for the next meeting.

Discussion of task group presentations 

Educational Technology

• Apart from enhancing student learning and educational goals, technology can also be used to increase operational efficiency.
• Need to maintain flexibility because new things are always coming along.
• Need to emphasize the positive aspects of technology and how it can facilitate educational goals, as well as relating barriers to the acceptance of technology in education.
• Maintaining flexibility,  keeping up with the changes in technology will require financial maintenance fund that goes along on an annual basis.
• Technology can be an enabler, connecting those who may be isolated - both students and teachers.
• Connection to the private sector is critical; need to identify two or three private sector people who can act as advisors to the technology folks within the district.
• Schools may need to have new kinds of relationships with the private sector so they can rely on the expertise and/or equipment to do the up-front development of higher end technology applications.
• School district cannot do everything itself; partnerships important to keep abreast of, make the best use of technology. Go to the technology provider to get the appropriate training on current technology.
• Good that the Ed Tech task group is attuned to links with Educational Programs.

Community Engagement

• Good focus; perhaps need emphasis that schools are most responsive and responsible to their local communities, neighborhoods and the fewer orders that come from higher bodies the better.
• Good that people are thinking of new concepts of learning space, with facilities being a subset of that.
• Good to remember that school is an aspect of community; it’s not just about teaching kids, but all the things that schools can do if they have the money.  Those things are more important than we sometimes realize.
• Important to remember that it will be a minority of the community who actually have students in the schools; need to have a broader understanding of how to address the 75%+  of the population without students in school and how to engage them.
• The more you can engage the entire community, the more support there is.
• A whole number of groups have community engagement goals, so there tends to be competition for the attention of community members.
• Can also collaborate with other groups intending to engage the community, rather than compete.  Facilities can be attractive to other groups if we organize them properly.
• Demographics can change drastically and quickly; community engagement would have to change in response to those changes.

Educational Programs

• Five to ten years a good timeframe to look at.  Appreciate comments on factory-model as compared with the systems-model for schools.
• Appreciate reference to teachers as professionals.
• Question regarding the appropriateness of educational programs dealing with values that encourage people to contribute to each other as opposed to focusing on their own goals.  May be too specific as to the content of educational programs, instead of process.
• Concern that this recommendation gets into the area of values.
• Would like to have task group’s perspectives on how we gauge the quality of the product in education.  How to assess more meaningfully.

Educational Facilities

• Size Issue
• Size is an issue; some people uncomfortable with schools of 600 students, even though economies of scale indicate it would be more efficient.
• Size is relative; people want very small schools.
• Need to clarify trade-offs implied in their choices; need a level of specificity that gives people a context.
• Resources impacted in small schools.
• Issue may not be size; need to communicate to folks that their kids are not going to be educated the way they were - it’s a different time.
• Size intricately related to social issues, family issues.
• Is there information, research on the size issue?
• Research indicates that it’s not so much an issue of size, as quality of program and connection with the kids.
• Costs/Comparisons
• Need specificity on budget; how much money devoted to capital improvement and maintenance.  What types of facilities are most energy efficient; most costly to maintain.
• This committee needs basic information on what the bottom line is for each school, cost to operate, etc.
• Outside the Box
• Perhaps we should think of centers regions, and spaces that have functions.  ‘Big’ and ‘small’ keep us thinking about buildings.  Perhaps we need to think about what are types of choices.  Longer range thinking needed.
• Don’t have to stay stuck in formats we live with now; need as a community to push harder to go beyond what we know now.  Could have Art and Music centers that go across age brackets.
• SFC needs to feel it has permission to go beyond the task group recommendations.
• Just because we can do something outside the box, doesn’t mean we’re going to do it.   We should  think outside the box, it’s good to do so;  but we need to recognize that the rest of the community  may support some innovations.

Educational Resources 

• Need a lot more partnership and dialogue between community resources; the more people who are involved, the more educated they are about the problems you’re facing, and the more willing they are to support you.

School Choice 

• Need a definition of what’s “best”  for all kids? Are resources fairly allocated?  What should the parameters of choice be?
• Not thinking in terms of an average kid, but looking at the diversity of kids’ needs.  Not looking for one size fits all.
• Has the group given any consideration to different models for choice?

Process Issues for Next Meeting

It was suggested that  the task groups provide an executive summary, one page that defines the most critical strategies that need to be explored, along with a timeline.  It needs to be succinct and provide an overall image, be a graphic organization of their priorities.  It was added that while task groups and the SFC may recommend, prioritizing recommendations is ultimately the responsibility of the School Board.

Public Comment 

It was noted that 4J had six schools rated as exceptional on the state’s report card.  It is important to get this information out to the public.