November 30, 2004
Superintendent' s Advisory Task Force Minutes
-
We
began with introductions and the superintendent explaining to all
participants the specific purpose of the committee: To provide
the superintendent with recommendations as to the closing and/or
restructuring of our 3 schools on the state AYP Watch List: Grant, H.
Irving, Lincoln.
-
The
superintendent informed the committee that it has been determined that
we cannot effectively close 2 schools by next year. The committee was
then directed to list facts on Grant and Lincoln as he gave a
PowerPoint presentation.
-
The
superintendent gave an abbreviated PowerPoint presentation, similar to
the one given to 275 community and staff members over the past 5 weeks.
Questions and comments were included.
-
Next, an explanation on why only one school would be recommended for closing.
-
Questions and comments were addressed as a whole.
-
Committee
broke up into 3 smaller groups to discuss the plus/deltas of closing
Lincoln and Grant school, and to formulate questions.
-
Each
committee summarized their initial findings (see attached) and gave a
brief summary of their discussion/findings to the whole.
-
The
group discussed the importance of sharing the same information to the
public: We found out that it has been determined that we cannot
effectively close 2 schools by next year. We spent most of our meeting
receiving information/data on the findings of the facility study and
NCLB implications. We then began discussing the data we collected to
try and determine which school should be considered for closing. Our
next meetings are on Dec. 7th and 21st. We still have much to do!
-
See you on Dec. 7th, 4:30-6:30.
Group A Chris DePooter, Teresa Campbell, Lori Young, Phyllis Schwindt, Liz Byczynski, Keith Gotthardt
Lincoln School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Larger enrollment
Grant School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Fewer number of students to move
Lower enrollment (116)
Suggestions
On Corrective Action
If Grant is closed, allow the students to go to
No special education classes to move
other schools and not be forced to go to Lincoln or
Hawthorne-Irving. Make Lincoln a K-3 or K-2 building and
Hawthorne-Irving a 4-6 building.
Group B Kimberly Calhoun, Stephen Moller, Lucille McCorkle, Liz Sherwin, Linda Taylor
Lincoln School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Enrollment primarily consistent
Tight community
Scores continue to increase
Parents helping kids there
Fourth school in matrix
Grant School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Teacher turnover high
Well established in neighborhood
Low enrollment
Structurally sound
Continued declining scores
Not accessible
At corrective action stage
Highest points on matrix
Parents unhappy with school schedule
Different than other RI schools
Not expandable
More students leaving
$100,000/student
Already restructured since 1987
Group C Gary Rowe, Connie Snell, David Bloom, Mark McVey, George Henderson, David Rockwell
Lincoln School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Retain self-contained special education students More children affected (295)
Maintain diversity
Negative impact on neighborhood
Lose parental involvement
Loss of positive progress at Lincoln; improved test scores
Children disrupted from neighborhood school
Grant School Closing
Plus/For
Minus/Against
Fewer students affected (116)
Lose America's Choice model at Grant
Oldest building in district would be closed.
Loss of history, district institutional memory
Chance for children to make progress
Negative impact on neighborhood
Opportunity for greater diversity for students Children disrupted from neighborhood school
Adjustment problems/issues for those Grant students sensitivity/diversity training needed.
|
+
· Well done.
· Setting meeting premise at the start set a good tone.
· I appreciate working in small group setting.
· Good cross session of community members.
· The thought of having a variety of people on this task.
· Cookies and pop!
· Web information.
· Good group discussion.
· Meeting on time.
· Opportunity to have discussion.
· Good cross section of participants.
· Questions handled well appropriate, yet didn t interrupt the flow.
· Fast pace to review information.
· Organized.
· Willing to listen.
· People were thoughtful and seemed genuinely interested in students.
· School personnel (Rick and Jay) presented data that were concise and helpful.
· Open communications.
· Questions answered.
· Good attitude.
· Questions encouraged.
· Move fast.
· Information condensed.
· Lots of organizations.
· Decisions not just emotions but based on data.
· Open discussion.
· Well run.
· Diverse group.
· Lots of information.
· Support from members of committee. |
· Room temp.
· Have real food, end at 6:30 p.m.
· Lots of data to absorb; could we share some background information in advance?
· Need name tags.
· Difficult decisions for those directly involved.
· The data for Grant does not reflect the why s of data. Many factors contributed to data.
· Don t let anyone repeat information already discussed.
· Difficult decision not a lot of time.
· Any decision will make parents/students unhappy. |
print this page
This Page was last update: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 3:42:58 PM
This page was originally posted: 3/29/06; 3:08:06 PM.
Copyright 2008 Facilities and Restructuring Study
This site is using the RISD41 theme.
|
