April 26, 2016 Study Session of the School Board

April 26, 2016 Study session of the School Board

• H: Amy's article, Pedro Nogera, Alan Blankenstein
• inclusive opportunities for all students
• building a school of opportunity begins with detracking
• clear preference for option 1 in voting in task force and subcommittee
• Amy: process of detracking must be done with careful thought
• look through the options
• Ken: pdf of whole document posted onling?
• math, same acceleration with changes?
• committee of teachers will do this work?
• test in or criteria?
• Amy: What supports will there be for kids in the Challenge For All model?
• (20:00 #1) Gretchen: now we have supports in Math class remediation
• After school study help
• Lab class (only math now)
• support class instead of an elective
• Heather: advisory intervention time
• Ken: what if they need math, reading, science? there's not enough time for that support in the day
• Heather: differentiated curriculum has supports built in 
• Sandy: a student in Challenge for all, what would that curriculum look like for a struggler?
• G: springboard example
• S: how do you make sure certain demographics of students aren't getting a lower version of curriculum by teacher, same as gen ed?
• Kimberly: 60% take at least one challenge class
• David: current curriculum already uses springboard so this is just equalizing equity and detracking
• Ken: I don't follow
• I read the book "Despite best intentions"
• social capital is more precise term for racial tracking
• we don't have racial tracking
• even UW study said we don't have racial tracking
• I think we misdiagnosed the problem, not a problem with the classes
• I think we don't have a problem in challenge, we have a problem in gen ed.
• gen ed and social capital are a problem
• Amy: how to set up curriculum in Middle School
• limited resources
• what's the best way?
• point in time where we can change everything at once - rare opportunity
• Kimberly: major decision. We need more time to talk about this
• Amy: Can create a system and have unintended consequences
• Achievement gap in MS
• how does it work today for equity?
• G: class composition data - F&R had lower % of challenge participation
• H: people in building need to look out for kids without help at home
• remove barriers of choice or advocate
• G: teachers and counselors say they encourage kids to take challenge but students don't see themselves as challenge kids
• don't express confidence
• choice doesn't solve that problem
• Kimberly: Achievement gap in k-6 that we are trying to right in MS
• differentiated learning in k-6 now, yes?
• so differentiation hasn't closed the k-6 achievement gap
• don't see how dismantling Challenge will close that gap
• Carolyn: Not dismantling Challenge we're selecting all kids into Challenge, 
• Minorities didn't show up
• Larry: is our 4 tier model perpetuating the achievement gap?
• C: Option 1 says we believe in all students to learn. gives access
• Kimberly: I struggle to understand. We had kids speak. They move between Challenge classes and Gen ed. Those kids don't think they are dumb
• Amy: Friends son didn't take challenge because he thought he was dumb
• Ken: Hesitant to make a massive change when we haven't diagnosed the source.
• D: Sandy made comments in September. Kids getting conflicting info.
• In K-6 they have differentiation, in HS they have choice and can go in different directions
• 3 grades in the middle, what is an appropriate age to choose? 6, 7, 8?
• H: subcommittee studied that and this is there recommendation
• Kimberly: Option 3 was 2nd choice of the task force?
• How does keeping status quo cause inequity?
• Also, isn't the task force and subcommittees creations of the board and shouldn't they take minutes or be video taped?
• Amy: we checked and since they are not board members no minutes have to be taken
• David: Do we have time to implement any of these options?
• Larry: All 4 options have some support from the TF and subcommittee
• remaining 16 months
• we can use them to implement any of these models
• D: any problems not implementing a new change right away? 
• implementing 12 months after grade reconfiguration or so
• would that be a problem?
• (10:20 on #2) L: Things become the norm and what people are use to
• so rip off the bandaid
• it will be harder politically and culturally to make the change later
• S: Middle school isn't HS light.
• we have the opportunity to change instruction
• lose the opportunity to change if you wait
• We aren't copying HS
• Ken: task force chose the philosophy AMLE
• Addendum shows discredit of AMLE
• focused on solution before problem
• choose philosophy first
• big problem to identify and understand
• disagree with L about band aid
• agree with Charla about making smaller changes
• We are elected representatives and the community is against option 1
• Highly problematic to move ahead without focusing on real problem
• Kimberly: would you be fore option 3?
• Amy: we're not voting today
• Kimberly: have to innovate and play with the idea
• have one class be challenge for all and see how it goes
• Sandy: freed of constraint of having 9th grade in MS
• are you saying we keep Jr High model?
• challenge portion is status quo?
• Ken: option 3 is lowest risk with highest value
• Kimberly: No data showing challenge has any problems
• have not surveyed the community on challenge
• in the Grade reconfiguration survey we have the raw data
• 10% comments on survey were about challenge
• Amy: first reading good for discussion or do we need another study session?
• Kimberly, David: another study session
• Sandy: We have to vote in may, so we need another study session