January 7, 2005 Minutes
Minutes
Commission on Secondary School Reform
January 7, 2005
I. Location and Attendees
The meeting was held at George Washington High School, 655 S. Monaco Street. Members of the Commission in attendance were co-chairs Lucia Guzman and Dorothy Horrell; Commissioners Brian Barhaugh, Dana Bryson, Leanna Clark, Ariel Cisneros, Judi Diaz-Bonacquisti, Regina Groff, Maria Guajardo Lucero, Christine Johnson, Ginger Maloney, James Mejia, Rick O’Connell, Bill Ritter, Esther Rodriguez, Al Yates; ex-officio members David Barber, Jeff Buck, Ann Greenfield, Mario Williams; staff Trish McNeil and Liz Aybar; and facilitator Jeff Wein.
Observers included DPS School Board members Elaine Berman, Michelle Moss, Theresa Pena; Sally Mentor Hay, DPS Chief Academic Officer; Leo Smith, Citizens’ Committee on Bond Expenditures; Nancy Mitchell, Denver Rocky Mountain News; Alison Sherry, Denver Post; Elisa Cohen, North Denver Tribune; TV representatives from Univision, Fox 31 News, and Channel 4; Al McMahill; and Martha Loera-Olivas, DPS.
II. Introduction, Approval of Minutes, Overview of the Day – Dorothy Horrell
Ms. Horrell welcomed Commissioners. Ms Guzman noted it has been a difficult week for DPS and asked the Commissioners and visitors to observe a minute of silence. Ms. Horrell asked Commissioners to read over and approve the summary from the December 10 meeting. Commissioners approved the minutes. Ms. Horrell reminded Commissioners that the report will be discussed with the Board on Monday, January 31 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. She also noted that although the Commission has time scheduled to meet next week, if consensus on the key issues is reached today that meeting may not be necessary.
III. Discussion of Process for Finalizing Report – Jeff Wein
Mr. Wein began the day noting that there is a lot of agreement on the bulk of the recommendations, but there are a few areas where there is some disagreement, need for clarification or revision. He noted that it is important to focus on those areas where Commissioners are not clear or disagree and to try to reach consensus. He explained that when talking about consensus, there are two major components: (1) everyone can live with it, meaning that enough of each person’s needs are met that they feel it is a good set of recommendations and they can support going forward and (2) everyone agrees not to undermine or sabotage the agreement once it has been made. The Commission needs to get to the point where everyone can live with the set of recommendations and agree to support them. Mr. Wein noted that the objective is to get a consensus report rather than have a minority report. Mr. Wein asked Commissioners for comments or reactions to moving toward consensus. Commissioners noted that consensus is critical and that the Commission is diverse and by reaching consensus it will send out a strong message to the community. They emphasized that the support of the community is very important if the recommendations are to receive support.
Trish McNeil then explained the timeline. If consensus on the key issues is reached today, Ms. McNeil can email the draft report to Commissioners on January 20. Commissioners will be asked to make comments by January 25. In addition, as she is working on different sections that Commissioners have particular interest in, she will email those sections to those Commissioners as soon as they are written. The final version will then be emailed to Commissioners prior to giving it to the Board on January 31, but it will not be a formal, glossy version-- that will be done in February.
IV. Discussion of Key Issues – Jeff Wein
Mr. Wein noted the key discussion areas are: small, weighted student formula, implementation entity, DPS/DCTA relationship, and early graduation. Commissioners decided that devolution of authority to principals may also be an issue and should be discussed. These issues only represent those recommendations with which some Commissioners had some level of discomfort or needed additional clarification.
Discussion about "Small"
There were some concerns expressed about placing a focus on small schools. It was clarified that the intent is that restructuring and reorganization should be one of the strategies to ensure students develop relationships with each other and with teachers that will enhance their learning. It was agreed that emphasis should be placed on learning environments that help foster strong relationships.
Commissioners noted that small schools are one strategy to achieve the Commission’s vision, and not necessarily the only strategy. They also emphasized that it is critically important that small schools and small learning communities be implemented well, and that size alone does not create a good school.
Commissioners agreed that it should be clear that ALL high schools will be high quality schools, regardless of size, and that steps should be taken to ensure that occurs. There should not be a one-size-fits-all fix-it strategy.
Discussion about DPS/DCTA Relationship
Mr. Wein noted that there is a limited span of control this Commission has on this relationship, so he focused the conversation on in what way the Commission can make an impact on it.
Commissioner Jeff Buck explained the conversation with the Union president and superintendent from Rochester (who have a very positive, collaborative relationship) that some Commissioners had on Wednesday. He included the following points in explaining the conversation to the Commission: Collaboration is not a luxury. If we are not all pulling in the same direction, we are dead in the water. Even with collaboration, it is an incredibly difficult task. No one will argue that the relationship between DCTA and DPS could stand some improvement, but it could be worse. The relationship between the Rochester union president and superintendent used to be bad, but it has since developed into a strong team.
Ms. Horrell, who was a part of the conference call, said it starts with a different mindset. She emphasized the importance of engaging teachers in the process. Rochester demonstrated that it starts with everybody being committed to improving student performance. Nothing can be discussed in the contract without saying how it will improve student performance. Rochester also has a "Living Contract" where a group meets once a month to examine if the contract is meeting the needs of students. Rochester is also giving some schools in a pilot program control over negotiating the contract at the school site. It is a different culture where teachers are seen as a valuable partner in thinking about how to get things done. Prior to the call with Rochester, Ms. Horrell and Liz Aybar met with principals who discussed that it can be difficult to do what they want to do because of the contract. However, Commissioners noted that often it is not the contract preventing reform, but the relationships between adults that serve as impediments.
The Commission agreed that it would be valuable to recommend that the union and district be partners and that the contract should support fostering student achievement. In addition, a recommendation should say that the Board enters into dialogue with the union to discuss these recommendations for a certain amount of time. Commissioners noted that they may also add that the partnership should identify and address all issues in the contract to ensure they promote student learning and that a focus on student achievement should guide all decisions about the contract.
Discussion about Weighted Student Formula
Mr. Wein defined the weighted student formula to mean that budgeting and resources available to schools are weighted based on a set of factors pertaining to students, i.e. socio-economic level, special education status, language ability, etc. The Commission is considering proposing that DPS should study it and see what difference it would make in the distribution of funds across schools.
Commissioners noted that the most important element is the alignment of financial resources with the identified strategies to improving our high schools. One way to create this alignment might be to allocate funds using a weighted student formula.
Discussion about Implementation Entity
Mr. Wein noted that the Commission has talked about whether this group or another group or individuals should work with the district to implement the recommendations. In addition, he raised questions about the implementation strategy for the recommendations.
Commissioners noted that the Commission should recognize the Board’s role and provide specific advice but also allow for creativity in the implementation of the recommendations. They also felt that there needs to be some level of oversight and continuity in the implementation of the recommendations.
Commissioners also noted that it will be very important to include all stakeholders in the implementation of the recommendations.
Discussion about Flexible Completion Schedule
Mr. Wein explained that this topic deals with the amount of time it takes students to graduate high school. The Commission is considering recommending that the DPS high school system allows students to graduate in a shorter period of time (3 years) or longer period of time (5 years) based on meeting standards.
Commissioners emphasized that the district needs to make sure standards are set very high and students get out in 3 years because they have developed high level skills in important areas. In addition, the district should work to make staying in school for five years a positive choice for those students who need more time.
Discussion about Decentralization to High School Principals
Mr. Wein explained that this topic deals with decentralizing authority and budget to the high school principals. The Commission is talking about studying this possibility as a part of the strategy to improve student achievement.
Commissioners agreed in their feedback that this would be valuable with important support systems from the district in place. It should be studied with care and deliberateness to examine its impact on student achievement.
Commissioners also noted the importance of school leadership. It is this set of recommendations around leadership that will cause dramatic and radical change in the district if they are to be implemented. Also, Commissioners noted that these are the most difficult of the Commission’s recommendations to implement. It should be recognized that the process for implementing this and making it happen must be thoughtful and inclusive. There needs to be complete buy-in from the district and schools to move it forward.
V. Wrap-up
During the wrap-up time of the meeting, a few other issues came up.
Other Issues:
Choice- One Commissioner noted that the Commission should not put a number on how many schools students have to choose from. What the Commission is saying is that students should have available to them convenient alternatives that are high quality schools that will help them realize their aspirations. The biggest thing is that we want our kids to have access to high quality schools, therefore must start with premise that all our high schools must be high quality.
Future Meeting- Ms. Horrell asked if Commissioners comfortable going forward without an additional meeting. Commissioners expressed comfort with exchanging ideas via email from here, so there will not be a meeting on January 14.
Conversation with School Board- The Commission talked about the importance of having a dialogue with the Board on January 31 so they clearly understand the recommendations. They also talked having other constituencies at the meeting to allow for a broad group of people to understand what the recommendations are and how they were developed.
Involving Stakeholders: Commissioners noted the need to be clear in their report that all changes should actively engage the administrative and teaching staff in flushing out the recommendations.
Additional recommendation: There is a need for an additional recommendation that deals with the physical safety and comfort of students.
Focus on the Whole: Commissioners expressed the desire to be sure their recommendations include the importance of forging relationships that will also help improve housing, health care, etc. for Denver’s families.
Finances: Commissioners expressed that it seems the bulk of the $2 million earmarked for secondary school reform should go toward getting these things implemented (i.e. study of weighted student formula or DCTA/district conversations). There should be a focus on building the infrastructure and backbone to what the Commission wants to do, rather than doling money out to individual schools.
Studies/Research: Commissioners noted that if there are studies done, there needs to be a product. There needs to be an attitude of research and development in DPS. This often takes place in the context of doing something small, seeing how it worked, refining it, doing it again, evaluating, refining and doing it again. The district should take a developmental approach with small projects and research to build on the success and modify the failures.
VI. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.