May 4, 2016 Study Session of the School Board

May 4, 2016 Study Session of the School Board

Amy:

  • This is the process to get to a vote
  • It's possible vote won't be unanimous
Kimberly: I have polity questions to discuss

David: I have questions to submit, it's ok to get answers later
Ken: 
  • This is a large process, a journey
  • amendment to propose
  • Propose an achievement gap task force to be made
  • we will decide on one option
  • Status Quo isn't quite option 3, almost
  • MSGRTF is looking at so much 
  • we'e only looked at Academics from TF so far
Heather: Some decision of the task force have been reviewed by the cabinet, Electives and Athletics sent to cabinet, not to school board for approval
Kimberly: Since board directed the formation of Challenge, the board has to be the one to decide if we get rid of it
Sandy: Actually it's the district who brought it to the board
Larry: Schedule, electives courses haven't been voted by board, administration and operational level
Ken: I would like to have the option to reject it all
Larry: option #2 would be status quo
Kimberly: I see #3 as status quo
Amy: back to process
Sandy: no question. 6th study session on topic, tree's worth of paper, feeling good about moving forward
Amy: I'm at a similar point as sandy but have 1 or 2 questions
Kimberly:
  • 7 areas for questions
  • 4 options but really just 2 choices - Challenge for All or Self Select Challenge
  • 1. we have policy 4200 community relations 
  • another 2180 about parent relationships
  • we were told a survey would be conducted
  • to my knowledge we weren't told there would NOT be one
  • feel like we haven't done what policy would do and MSFT on general grade reconfiguration wasn't synthesized into a report to us
  • went through that survey raw data and 10% of comments were about challenge, 8% said keep challenge
  • don't feel like we've had our community voice 
  • representation on subcommittee - missing voices on special ed, minorities
  • we don't speak or those populations
  • Hispanic parents say they want challenge
  • says it doesn't marginalize them
  • the report says "underrepresented populations are not choosing self select challenge", we need to not say statements like that
  • I've heard union reps saying it as well
  • 50% of F&R who got 3 or 4 on SBAC selected challenge.
Ken: so what you're saying is that there are proportional #s in challenge from all groups?
Kimberly
  • and those who score 1 and 2 on SBAC shouldn't be in challenge for all
  • Those 1's and 2's will then be in academic labs and lose electives
  • even kids not F&R/ELL/etc. only 50% are enrolling in challenge
  • so what about the other 50%
  • implementation strategies - how do we implement?
  • policy 2090 program evaluation
  • we don't have data specifically on our own model
  • looked @AMLE and arguments on both sides
  • there does not seem to be a model like ours 
  • I've looked in Boston, Clevelend - they've published results
  • before we pull something out saying it's not working we need to hire someone from outside to evaluate how the program works
Larry
  • Don't want to interpret the task force recommendation as an indictment that Challenge doesn't work
  • tasked to look at the best model for MS
Kimberly
  • trying to move to middle school model look at policy 2210
  • 2210 Grade Organization - supports different classroom environments
Ken: current practices go along with that policy, Kimberly, you're concerned proposed model doesn't go along with that policy?
Kimberly
  • Kids excelling in one area can advocate for themselves in self select
  • struggling with differentiation in elementary school. that's not closing the achievement gap
  • how can that work in MS?
  • you say challenge is not equitable but differentiation in Elementary school is causing inequity
  • My main issues are 
    • Implementation
    • Achievement Gap
    • No Survey - haven't heard all voices
    • program evaluation of our own program
    • Demographics of the task force
David:
  • Implementation
    • how does differentiation work? how do teachers do it?
    • How do we implement it?
  • Opportunity gap
    • doesn't see how this connects
    • Elementary to MS are we seeing another equity issue in the new model?
    • With option 1 saw need for differentiated learners - lets not have to do this in another 2 years.
    • what can we do if we see Challenge for all has some things we want with metrics for success?
    • concerns with differentiation - have diverse populations in self select but if it expands how to teachers effectively differentiate?
    • look what motivates kids - take away stigma to be smart and not smart kids - designation on report card for honors in challenge for all to recognize taking the challenge option in class.
Larry: like the lake washington model
Sandy: I like the part about not being here doing this again in 2 years
Ken:
  • What keeps us moving forward?
  • community voice is important
  • progress we've made so far is substantial
  • no problem identification
  • process problems
  • board needs to choose the philosophy not a Task force
  • adopting AMLE closed the thinking on the issue
  • composition of subcommittee appendix B
  • 10 of 17 on committee were chosen in collaboration with NSEA
  • report is almost the same as comments of NSEA
  • our process did not include parents and students, groups like SEPAC
  • need student Task force voice
  • voices we haven't heard for a change this big
  • needs of Teachers are also important
  • trying to find the combination of things that will be respectful of the teachers
  • we haven't been able to engage community members, can't move forward without them on board
  • has to balance
  • Research: NSEA  - 2 bodies of research go back and forth. This is old research
  • Balance of evidence tilts toward Save our Challenge, not the Task force and NSEA
  • Task force read what they were given
  • ability grouping is coming back as looking like a good option
  • premature to make a change
Kim: 
  • I'm concerned that the NSEA research is someone's opinion on a blog
  • This other article says ability grouping has best outcomes for underrepresented 
  • we have a biased selection process for HiCap, universal screening is the best way
  • without that self select is best
Amy:
  • in the super search process, principals used the term "Heart work" saying staff has an investment to students
  • teachers request flexibility to do heart work
  • no system is perfect - can always make it better
  • implementation is critical 
  • lets not exchange one problem for another
  • curious about budget impact
  • interventions are expensive, like lower class sizes
  • gen ed classes have lots of 504, IEP, EL and are overwhelmed
  • budget question
  • anxiety and bullying at JH
  • how to help remove anxiety and competition
  • feel some options address this 
  • there are still problems in one classroom - can track itself
  • agree - staff sees problem that kids think they're dumb
  • fixed resources, buildings
  • enrichment in all classes for some teachers
  • is it different by subject? intervention for math and ELA
  • intervention not in science and social studies
  • maybe do a different model by subject
  • equity framework come before academics?
Kimberly
  • JH is when self identity happens
  • bullying happens
  • kids know who is in different groups in each classroom
Ken
  • emotional points 
  • especially among girls
  • mixed ability classrooms harm girls
  • smart girls are treated badly
  • act smart and others tear you down
  • Normal at this age
  • not convinced that arguments make challenge bad
  • in mixed ability classrooms I'm not convinced bullying would go away, not convinced academics would be better
Sandy: 
  • at NJH yesterday and kids are already in academic labs, 
  • what would increase be in Challenge for All? 
  • don't want kids to be impacted negatively
Heather:
  • supporting students can happen in different ways
  • 33 minute advisory/pride time
  • after school programs for teacher support
  • support class during the day
  • LAP funded math
Carolyn : you can't serve everyone so you serve the neediest
Larry: 
  • per student funding formula
  • fixed $ buys less every year
  • decrease in f&R %, growth in high $ area of district
  • prioritize LAP funding 
Heather
  • other support class - reading support
  • incoming 7th graders skill deficient is about 15-20%
  • not made the decision to add additional support classes
  • in TF, exploration with electives was prioritized
Larry 
  • in perfect world, we would add staff to support struggling learners
  • know we will need more staff for more opportunities with 24 credits
  • 28-32 students is a big load
  • elementary 24 student average
Kimberly: more differentiation need for more kids in JH/MS
Ken
  • 7 periods - deeply concerned we are seeing the day as 6.5 hours when MS model recommends 7 periods
  • could help with struggling learners and others with more time
  • I'm in favor of breaking the habit of a 6.5 hour day.
larry
  • expanded day in HS could be rolled out to MS in some forms
  • after school and activity bus
  • will we ever get to funding for 7 periods?
  • expand school day after school
Kimberly: is math now test in or self select
Heather: 
  • test in for double jump
  • maintain - team of teachers will decide self select or criteria
Kimberly: algebra 1 in 8th grade is important
Ken: ability grouping is important in math
Kimberly: 
  • test in concerns me for math
  • bringing new super here with community in uproar
  • think a new super should be part of the decision
  • a new perspective
Larry: 
  • I hear that
  • any super coming in will have previous decision
  • could see it being hard on a new super to be expected to know all of this
  • make sure we aren't ill prepared
  • staff properly trained
  • 16 months minus summer not a ton of time to do it well
ken:
  • option 1 and 3 are ones TF found acceptable
  • option 1 is a big change
  • option 3 is a more modest change
  • notion of challenge for all is unknown
  • transition  - start with AMLE, keep what we have for self select challenge
  • blocks for 6th and 7th is a modest change
  • option 3 is second choice of SOC and TF
  • I'm comfortable with option 3
  • the middle is sometimes ok
  • I think we should only move forward with options 1 and option 3 to make a decision
Sandy: Moving forward with option 1 and option 3 at first reading? Love it! Let's make that work
Amy: narrow down choices to 1 and 3?
Kimberly: both sides have option 3 as a second choice
Larry: you can take action at study sessions, motion, second, vote
David: I make a motion to read options 1 and 3 for first reading
sandy: second
All in favor unanimous
David:
  • 1 and 3 comes to 2 issues
  • how did they come to this in TF?
  • Equity?
  • is component where opportunity gap will be addressed in Challenge for all?
  • don't see it in Elem
  • option 3 has 2 models
  • if equity is the issue then #3 isn't as good
  • if achievement gap is the issue then #1 isn't as good, how will it fix that problem?
  • do we do studies to see which it is?
kimberly: can program evaluation and achievement gap task forces be the same thing? We can do program evaluation on self selection and get data on challenge for all at same time
amy: if we vote on that we can create those task forces

Ken:
  • communication with community is important
  • option 1 is confusing
  • self select is being taken away but that's not clear to community
  • elementary parents don't know what's going on, what might happen, what we are considering
  • lots of anxiety about option 1
Kimberly:
  • how will kids scoring 1 and 2 on sbac and struggling in Challenge for all be served?
  • how will pace be handled for HiCap kids?
  • differentiation is hard
  • science has been expanded to challenge since we've been here
  • program evaluation later might say
Larry: you are asking for a report on L3 and L4 students in ELL. FRL % compared to non?
David: pull 1 and 2 as well
Kimberly: how do we serve our 1's and 2's?
Heather: we have 1's and 2's now in challenge just like we have 3's and 4's in gen ed





No comments:

Post a Comment