December 10, 2004 Minutes
Minutes
Commission on Secondary School Reform
December 10, 2004
I. Location and Attendees
The meeting was held at West High School, 951 Elati Street. Members of the Commission in attendance were co-chairs Lucia Guzman and Dorothy Horrell; Commissioners Hank Baker, Brian Barhaugh, Dana Bryson, Leanna Clark, Ariel Cisneros, Maria Guajardo Lucero, Debbie Jessup, Christine Johnson, Steve Kaplan, Jesse King, Ginger Maloney, James Mejia, Rick O’Connell, Esther Rodriguez, Pen Tate, Al Yates; ex-officio members Jeff Buck, Ann Greenfield, Mario Williams; staff Trish McNeil and Liz Aybar; and facilitator Jeff Wein.
Observers included DPS Superintendent Jerry Wartgow, Assistant Superintendent Wayne Eckerling, Chief Academic Officer Sally Mentor Hay, School Board member Theresa Pena, Chief Information Officer/Chief Technology Officer Ed Freeman; DCTA President Becky Wissink; Leo Smith, Citizens’ Committee on Bond Expenditures; Nancy Mitchell, Denver Rocky Mountain News; Gully Stanford, Colorado Commission on Higher Education; Wendy Silveira-Steinway, Northwest Parents for Excellent Schools; and Phil Chung, Colorado Foundation for Families and Children.
II. Introduction, Approval of Minutes, Overview of the Day – Dorothy Horrell
Ms. Horrell welcomed Commissioners and asked for approval of the summary from the November retreat.
III. Student and Teacher Forums – Dorothy Horrell
Ms. Horrell introduced a video of clips from the Student and Teacher Forums. Commissioners watched the video and then discussed their reactions.
Commissioners’ reactions included the following ideas:
Students don’t have this venue to express their ideas on a regular basis where they’re listened to by adults.
As students have more experience expressing their ideas about schools, their recommendations become more clear and feasible.
Students were very practical. They like certain aspects of their schools (i.e. social life), but they also commented a lot about the external support (social service types of things) that they need.
Students are yearning for a relationship with an adult. The importance of relationships was a common theme throughout the day.
Most students were juniors and seniors and when asked what keeps young people in school, they emphasized the importance of positive relationships with peers or adults.
Students discussed that project-based learning is valuable.
Students want interactive, community-based learning in small groups.
Some students wanted to be more challenged.
Students in small schools miss social aspects of large schools.
Ms. Horrell asked if anything came out of this that we should keep in mind as we move forward in our work? Commissioners responded that:
Personalized learning in small learning environments does not equal small schools. You can have bad small schools.
Heard outcry for making learning relevant. Students want to do things that help them connect with others and make their work relevant.
Students feel communication is lacking.
Is it important to let principals and communities decide what their schools should be like or should the district be more prescriptive?
There is value in allowing schools to decide on their own curriculums but will that hurt students who change schools?
We need measures of accountability for the 3 Rs of Rigor, Relationships and Relevance. Can we develop accountability measures for these?
What are the barriers that prevent the kind of relationships we know are helpful? Humans want to relate to each other and students will do that if given the opportunity.
Do we want to make a recommendation regarding CSAP (or is this the state’s responsibility?). The CSAP cannot be used as a single lens; it must be taken into consideration with other factors.
Ms. Horrell then read an email from a Florence Crittenton teacher written to the Commission explaining how valuable the Student and Teacher Forums were for both her students and herself. She wrote that she and her students felt that their participation in the forums was valuable and they were listened to. She also emphasized that establishing a sense of community is paramount for students to feel involved.
IV. Community Forum – Lucia Guzman
Ms. Guzman discussed the Community Forum held on December 9 noting that there was not a large turnout but the people who were there had substantive input. Ms. Guzman noted that a few themes seemed to resonate throughout. All speakers had a good sense of shared responsibility in their roles in this reform agenda. They seemed to be seeking facilitated support around information flow to communities, teachers, parents, students about curriculum, information about post-secondary options and resources in their communities. They wanted to ensure that parent and community groups understand how to be part of the system and reform. They wanted improved relationships within schools, between the district and schools and among the district, schools and community. Other Commissioners who went to the Community Forum noted that some speakers raised important issues (such as funding and the necessity to think about English Language Learners) and gave strong specific suggestions.
V. Additional Commission Details – Trish McNeil and Dorothy Horrell
Trish McNeil shared with the Commission that the staff has some data on DPS schools that will soon be analyzed and shared with Commissioners. In addition, there is someone helping us do an analysis of the DPS budget looking at issues such as the cost to provide transportation to all students and whether or not use of the Weighted Student Formula is worth investigating further.
Dorothy Horrell reminded Commissioners that there will be another meeting on January 14 and that although we had originally talked about reporting to the Board on January 20; we may need an extended session with the Board to discuss the details of the report. We will check the Board’s availability for Thursday, January 27 and Monday, January 31.
VI. Discussion of Recommendations – Jeff Wein
Trish McNeil explained that the focus of today is on potential recommendations that the Commission has discussed since the summer. The draft is just to put the ideas on paper to allow for the discussion.
Jeff Wein, facilitator, noted that the process would be to go through each the six draft recommendations and talk about what people like, what are their concerns and what’s missing. He emphasized that the focus the day is on major points of consensus; not necessarily reaching consensus and not wordsmithing.
Mr. Wein gave Commissioners a couple of minutes to review each recommendation and think about what they like; what are questions, issues, concerns; and what’s missing?
Recommendation #1: To ensure these recommendations meet the needs of Denver’s high school students, there must be ongoing dialogue with and continuous involvement of the community (including students, families, teachers, administrators, and the general public) in the reform process.
Commissioners’ comments included: staff and community at the local level must be involved in the change process; reform efforts should be considered in the context of early childhood education through college; and ongoing assessment must ensure our schools are continuously improving. Commissioners also noted that this recommendation is different from the others in that it is more about process. They discussed the idea of putting this recommendation in its own section to emphasize the importance of stakeholder engagement.
Recommendation #2: There must be an unrelenting commitment to the vision that Denver’s high schools will be the best educational choice for students and families and that every student who enters high school will graduate having mastered rigorous and relevant learning in an environment that fosters strong, positive relationships.
Commissioners’ comments included: the extent to which the Commission needs to specify what rigor means; how much control should schools have around what steps they take to ensure success for their students; and the importance of emphasizing a commitment to having all high school students graduate. In addition, Commissioners noted that what they are trying to do is create a set of recommendations that advises the district on things that can be done which results in an enhancement of student learning and achievement. It might be that if that’s what we’re doing, we say that up front and identify those things that we’ve learned from our readings and research that are important in accomplishing that. We should list attributes of schools needed to meet that vision.
Recommendation #3: High schools must respond to the needs and interests of individual students by offering a wide choice of high quality schools and learning options.
Commissioners’ comments included: to what extent should individual schools be able to vary their curriculum; there must be assurance that high quality choices are accessible to all students; students and families are empowered to make informed decisions about the kinds of environments that meet their needs; and there must be ways to ensure that personalization exists in schools.
Recommendation #4: Leadership, control and responsibility for learning should be centered at the school level.
Commissioners’ comments included: there must be investments in training; what accountability measures (i.e. performance contracts) will help schools meet the needs of their students; what needs to be in the union agreement and what can be decided at individual schools; and the necessity to train and support principals if they are to take on new roles in their schools.
After discussing the first four recommendations, Mr. Wein checked in with Commissioners due to time constraints. The Commission did not get a chance to discuss the final two recommendations:
Recommendation #5: The District should develop the culture and capacity to support the transformation of its high schools.
Recommendation #6: Traditional high schools should be redesigned and new small schools should be created over the next four years.
Commissioners decided there were still a few key issues to discuss and they should hold another meeting on Friday, January 7. Four key issues emerged that require further clarification and discussion: school choice, devolution of authority, small schools, and the union/district relationship. Before the next meeting, Commission staff agreed to further clarify the recommendations, relate them to the research and describe how they would help accomplish the results the Commission hopes to achieve.
VII. Adjourn--The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.