Here are some interesting comments form the "Official" Minutes of the December ASC/CRT meeting. Comments of my own come to mind. I will insert them in bold italics where they fit into the minutes. Other than that, draw your own conclusions and feel free to post comments and questions of your own. For those certain individuals who like to copy and paste onto other blogs, get you clicking finger ready girls.
The next meeting is Monday from 4:30 to 6pm at district offices.
K-3/4-8
The K-3/4-8 resolution, approved as an underlying planning tenet at the July 11, 2007 BOE meeting, was brought back for reconsideration at the December 5th BOE meeting. The following points were made during discussion:
* The need for a facilities plan that achieves community support and the extent to which grade reconfiguration compromises that support.
* Benefits of grade reconfiguration were to increase the number of sections per grade level and allow more neighborhood schools to remain open (reduced the number of schools that were initially discussed as possibilities for closure).
* Discussion of whether there is “a public outcry” for not reconfiguring grades based on the feedback received to date.
* Some concerns heard regarding mixing 4th and 5th graders with 6th – 8th graders may be “uninformed” given the K-8 models we currently have. [The K-8 we currently have completely separate K-5 from 6-8. At Traeger, the students start at different time, have separate playgrounds, finish at different times, and take different buses. With 4-8, the students will ride the same bus under the three-tiered system proposed, will start and finish at the same time. Unlike Traeger, other 4-8s do not have the land to create separate playgrounds. I wonder if the cost of creating separate playgrounds has been added to the $60 million.]
* Grade reconfiguration was a way of best utilizing the buildings we have – particularly the five current middle schools. At the present time, we have about 300 student excess capacity at the five middle schools if they are to be exclusively used for 6th – 8th graders. [Since we are expecting a continuously declining enrollment, why not move towards reducing the middle schools by one building? Why not look for less traumatic and less expensive changes like moving 5th up to the 6-8 or 9th down to the 6-8? Adding a couple of classrooms to a few buildings has to be infinitely less expensive than huge additions and major internal reconstructions to all 4-8s.]
* The K-3/4-8 configuration was the least costly of the initial options that were developed.
Discussion of “how this board can be brought together on any plan.” [Not all options were given equal consideration. One suggestion that included turning Oakwood into a K-8 was dismissed and never really examined because it was not K-3. That leads me to ask if K-3 really is the least expensive or most efficient.]
* Ultimately, the BOE laid over any reconsideration with the clarification that administration be provided the flexibility of developing hybrids (K-3 and K-5, 4-8 and 6-8) or whatever Team 6 feels is the best plan.
Attendance Area
The Attendance Area Planning Team has made a recommendation to the BOE and had a resolution approved 4-3 identifying attendance areas that would be shifting as part of the planning tenets for Team 6. If the plan recommended by Team 6 contains a hybrid of K-3 and 5-4 primary/elementary schools and 4-8 and 6-8 intermediate/middle schools, this may impact the attendance area shifts that were recommended. For instance, if Tipler was to remain a 6-8 middle school rather than change to a 4-8 intermediate school, an attendance area change would need to take place for Franklin so as not to put that school – which would then house grades K-5 – from being put over-capacity.
Transportation
The Transportation Planning Team made their recommendation at a workshop at the November 7th BOE meeting and recommended three-tier busing as a component of the final facilities plan. The team presented two options – both having an early start time for high school followed by middle school and lastly elementary in option #1 and elementary school followed by middle school in option #2. “Pros” and “cons” of the three-tiered approach and the two options were discussed.
SAGE
The SAGE Planning Team made their recommendations at a workshop at the November 28, 2007 BOE meeting. There recommendations included:
1. Maintaining five SAGE contracts. At this time, those would be at Jefferson, Washington, E. Cook, Read, and the replacement north side elementary school.
2. Maintain SAGE class sizes of 15:1 – with the flexibility of going up to 17:1 and holding the statutorily-required public hearing. The SAGE team did not recommend the mandatory 3rd grade team teaching model that would put a larger number of students together in one classroom with two teachers.
3. Establish district-wide criteria for rigor for SAGE classrooms, along with common goals in reading/writing/math and 2-3 site goals per subject annually reviewed and assessed based on student achievement.
4. Professional development would be site-based and data-driven, consisting of 2+ hours per month outside of the contract day. It would be aligned with the REACh initiative. There would be a leadership focus on literacy and math and an analysis of student mobility and best practices for orienting highly-mobile students.
5. The lighted schoolhouse component would include aggressively pursuing community partnerships and provide for educational and recreational partnerships that help families help themselves. This would be driven by an annual assessment of needs,
6. Future evaluation of SAGE would include incorporation of statewide research, grade-level benchmarks, and enhanced data analysis. [Excellent recommendations. I would like to see OASD hang onto all five SAGE contracts. However, I am not sure we can afford to expand SAGE and still be cost effective, especially when busing Oakwood or Sawyer Creek students could reduce the SES % enough to make SAGE too expensive to maintain without dipping into the General Fund.]
Special Populations
Karen Lieuallen shared the recommendations that will be presented to the Board on 1/16/08. She emphasized that some of the recommendations are already occurring. She highlighted portions of the recommendations that had changed since the ASC/CRT last reviewed them:
· # and size of classrooms needed at each building pp. 15-19
· Staff development page 28
· Conclusions page 30
Karen was asked to add a definition of a “big” and “small” classroom.
Team 6/Facilities
Tom Czajkowski provided an update, stating that Todd Gray had joined Phil Marshall and Tom as a c-chair. The architects are on version two of the drawings for most of the buildings in need of renovation or complete re-builds, and they have been great to work with. The plans for Lakeside, Green Meadow, Oakwood, E. Cook, Roosevelt, Tipler, South Park, Webster Stanley, and Merrill have been modified based on input from the affected principals and maintenance people. Bray Associates is bringing some consistency to the building designs, and the architects continue to embed design provisions to meet Special Education needs.
Team 6 is scheduled to present comprehensive recommendations to the Board on 1/16/08, recommendations which will contain K-3/4-8, Attendance Area, Transportation, SAGE, Special Populations, and facilities/maintenance/referendum recommendations. These are scheduled to be voted on at the 2/13/08 Board meeting. Todd Gray stated that the actual date could vary depending on Team 6’s recommended date of a referendum. September 2008 may not be the best time for a referendum as summer is not the best time to bring information to the public and because of the presidential election. February 2009 is another option being considered. [Excellent recommendations. If we can meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students. This is something I would consider a worthy investment of resources for all students and teachers. Many of these items need to be done regardless.]
Feedback on Team 6/Facilities
· Check the consistency of the color coding from drawing to drawing.
· Consider asking the architects to offer an opinion or ballpark cost estimate on buildings identified for closure.
· Refer to architects’ drawings from the 2001 referendum for a new north side school. These may be helpful.
· Develop an estimate of what it will cost the district to address deferred maintenance if a referendum doesn’t pass. [Smart move to consider two questions. We need to ensure our buildings get what they need whether the community buys into the other initiatives or not.]
Revision of Educational Implications
These were not discussed due to time constraints - held over to the next ASC/CRT meeting.
Next steps:
- Provide additional input to the Special Populations recommendations at the January ASC/CRT meeting. Present recommendations at the 1/16/08 Board meeting.
- Post Dr. Heilmann’s update on the OASD web-site. Ron announced that Ellyn Lahr will be maintaining the facilities site.
- Continue development of building plans. The next Team 6 meeting is scheduled for 12/20/07 at 4:00 p.m. at Central.
- Discuss Educational Implications at the next ASC/CRT meeting.
3. Current situation and the future of facilities planning
Purpose:
Input from CRT and ASC
Background:
The facilitator reminded the group that the roles of the ASC and CRT have changed over time. Originally, the ASC developed parameters and scenarios and asked for CRT input before presenting these to the Board. After the six planning teams were formed, the combined ASC/CRT monitored progress of the teams, looked for areas of overlap among the teams, and provided input to the teams. Throughout planning, three different Directors of Finance were involved, and the District was without a Director much of the time.
With only one active planning team, Team 6/Facilities, Ron stated that fewer ASC/CRT meetings have been held because there has been less to report. The facilitator acknowledged concerns expressed by some CRT members over the reconsideration of the grade configuration recommendations. She invited CRT members to share their perspective on the facilities process and progress.
Discussion:
Comments from the CRT
Member comments focused on threats to the facilities plan. The following are representative of the comments made.
· I am disappointed to see K-3/4-8 brought up again after substantial effort has been made by planning teams based on the grade reconfiguration. For example, Special Education’s recommendations are built on K-3/4-8; changing those recommendations would involve an enormous amount of work. [This should not be a surprise. Considering the system of yes/no questions that were supposed to ensure the process stayed on the right track and questions were answered, the process should have stopped and reassessed. No part of this plan is set in stone. The information has already been gathered and the goals set to make restructuring a recommendation to fit any configuration possible.]
· I have encountered very little objection to K-3/4-8 among the many community members I have spoken with. Those who have objected changed their view after an explanation. How many really object? Is it the same few who object over and over? [I think some need to take the advice they have given me over the last few years. They should stop surrounding themselves only with people who think like they do.]
· We do represent the community. We are typical of the community, but you seem to listen to a few whose only purpose is to divert you, to keep you from changing anything.
· Your credibility with the community is gone when they cannot trust that a decision you made will stay made. [What credibility to you stand to gain by sticking with a decision that the community will not support? Changing your mind toward a better, less costly, and more efficient plan will get more credibility than you think changing your mind will cost you. Sticking to your guns when you do not have the support of the community is not leadership, it is a cowardly excuse to get what you want.]
· The criticism by two or three Board members that the facilities planning process has no leadership and is fragmented/ unconnected is unfounded. Look at the status report Ron provided at the beginning of this meeting. Substantial progress has been made. [Such professionalism and respect for colleagues who are not even present to defend their positions. How does this behavior unify anyone? If the BOE represents the community as had been stated above in another comment, how can anyone expect the BOE to be in total agreement on everything. I seem to recall neither side willing to budge. Compromise works both ways. At least the three (attendance area plan) had a reason for sticking by their opinion. No reason was offered by the four in opposition.
· You no longer trust your own administrators, and they are outstanding. They continually ask themselves, “What is best for children?” The recommendations represent the answer to that question. Show some trust.
· I felt a glimmer of hope when I saw the emerging plans for the buildings at a Team 6 meeting. We need to move on these buildings, to catch up with the quality of our education. Who knows what our children can learn in up-to-date facilities? Invite the public into our buildings. Put on a big slide presentation of the condition of the buildings at Alberta Kimball. [Good Idea!]
· This has been a good, orderly, transparent, defensible process – up to now. You commissioned a bunch of people to do this work, and they did it. There is no reason to slow down. The only reason you are doing so is because you have a few obstructionists on your Board. The administration views a 7-0 vote on facilities as critical. I question whether we need that, because I don’t think we’re going to get it. If you don’t move forward with the majority you have, you will shatter what is left of public confidence.
· There is no doubt in my mind that we are building a better plan every day that we work on it. This district is in desperate need of modernization. People are proud of their students, proud of teachers; they want to be proud of their buildings.
· You did not trust those you commissioned to develop attendance area recommendations, so you created your own plan. Those of you who wanted to create your own plan and did so then voted against it. You have a few members who will vote against everything. [The plan that went to vote was not the plan proposed at the special retreat. The changes that were made to it before the vote were what was voted against. Not an accurate statement.]
· We must contrast the options. The choice is not between the current recommendations and doing nothing. The choice is between the current recommendations and critical maintenance of existing buildings. [Yes! You will lose support by making threats that it is the referendum or student programs will be cut. It won't matter if it is true, the threat will put people on the defensive which is counterproductive to gaining support.] Additional Note: See Comment above about having two questions to ensure maintenance is covered regardless of referendum.
General discussion
Board members, administrators, and CRT members engaged in a discussion of the issues raised by CRT members. The discussion helped frame the strategic questions confronting the Board at this juncture:
· Is it time to accept that a 7-0 vote will not happen and move forward with the vision of the majority supported by the ASC, CRT, and planning teams?
· Should we simplify/minimize the plan to maximize the possibility of passing a referendum? Is there too much to explain in the current plan? Does it provide too many reasons to vote against a referendum? Or . . . do we move the best plan forward even if it contains many elements – showing how it will be implemented? If we remove elements from the referendum, should the Board vote on them now?
· When can we communicate the plan to the public? When is it done “enough” to take out to people so that they can see the concrete changes that will be made? Who will do that – Team 6, an expanded Team 6, Team 7?
Team 6 asked if it should continue to plan with the K-3/4-8 configuration in mind, explaining that even though the Board indicated Team 6 could look at other configurations, the reality of time and money constraints would make this very difficult. CRT members answered with a yes. Four of the Board members present indicated their continuing support of K-3/4-8 because of its efficient use of buildings – bringing more students of the same age to the same buildings. [400+ 6- to 9-year-olds in a K-3 mega school. Does anyone see this as a problem? How about 500 to 1200 hormonal 10- to 13-year-olds in a 4-8 mega-mega school?]
Next steps:
The discussion will continue at the January ASC/CRT meeting.
See you Monday.
0 comments:
Post a Comment