Reynoldsburg Community Advisory Council Monthly Notes
March 12, 2015
Many thanks to Joe Begeny and Sandy Long for spending time with Tina Thomas-Manning to find answers to many of the questions we’ve raised since our Council started meeting months ago. Granted, not all were answered, yet, but partly because the information is still being refined, and no one should want partial information released, only to be changed later. Below are the notes I took, though anyone is free to add or help revise!
• There is a project in the works to create brochures highlighting offerings from each building in the district, as well as a sort of ‘master’ copy of school offerings. Help me out- I think we suggested putting the information in spreadsheet form, for ease of comparison. We asked for details about timing, since people will have to make choices soon, and we’d want to allow people to compare apples to apples in order to do so.
• There will be streamlining across the district of what ‘typical’ classrooms look like at each grade level to help ensure equity and consistency by setting minimum standards for subjects/areas. This will also help to ensure that if, for example, administration at a building changes, the offerings do not, just because a principal doesn’t favor one program.
• Some differences in electives have occurred due to specific programming decisions that were made when specialized (STEM) buildings opened. For example, traditional Art doesn’t happen at Herbert Mills because they have other specialized, non-traditional offerings instead. Those choices were made when programs began, and the Council suggested ramping up communication so that people would be aware, first of the differences, and second of the reasoning behind the differences.
• There is a survey being sent out very soon regarding Gifted programming, in an effort to evaluate the current services and plan for the future- watch your (oops, help me out)- email? Snail mail??
• Some decisions have in the past been made solely by principals: Chinese being offered then taken off the shelf for example (It is being reinstated at STEM buildings, by the way).
• Reyn is working with ODE to nail down details about course offerings for high school credit (like HS biology credit vs. lab/no-lab/physical science instead… BUT much discussion occurred at the meeting about the fact that some courses (like middle school- or was it junior high? ) Spanish being taught via DISTANCE LEARNING. Likely with a parapro in the room, but the actual instructor on a tv… Not sure that’s a great idea, unless the distance learning is done with a group of highly self-motivated students- at least that was the general feeling in the room and I hope that is passed along to the Superintendent.
• Concerns still exist about the HS building where the two academies run on different bell schedules… This prevents kids from ‘crossing over’ to take sought-after yet very selective courses within buildings (AP Calc) and just seems a nightmare, frankly. Under discussion, I believe…
• We were told that counselors are beginning to coordinate across buildings to help with offering more specialized advice to kids (we’d asked about counselors crossing building lines to use expertise to help particular kids’ needs) and that this is a work in progress. I also found out that there are OSU interns in the fields of Psychology and Social Work at (I think just) the high schools) to provide emotional support. We were told this has been common practice for a number of years. Discussion ensued about the counselors’ role as ‘career advisory’ rather than emotional counselor… At the elementary level, principals determine counseling needs.
• Exit interviews ARE GOING TO HAPPEN for staff who choose to leave this year! While we’d rather see our great teachers stay, this represents a step in the right direction to help the district accurately gauge the REASONS teachers choose to leave. We had a conversation about how much we’d like to see the Supt use everything in her power to convince teachers she wants them to stay rather than simply allowing nature to take its course. It’s no secret that she views teachers’ career choices as mostly out of her hands, and while that is mostly true, some amount of wooing (thank you Julie Hartman for the perfect word!) may go a long way toward tipping the scales back in Reyn’s favor in terms of teacher retention. Yep, we mentioned Safe Harbor for teachers briefly too.
• All day kindergarten: This came up in teacher-focus meetings, and it seems that neither Tina Thomas-Manning nor Jana Alig see that there is a cost-benefit tip in favor of this investment… In fact, Jana Alig said that studies show that while there are short term gains (perhaps k-1-2) for all day kinder, there aren’t studies that show the gains (I forget the terms) continue? . I personally and wholeheartedly disagree, and in fact I specifically asked Joe to pass along those studies from Dr. Alig when he gets them, so that I can review them- none likely have been done since the onset of Common Core, and thus I believe those findings may be null and void. Bottom line, though, is that we were told that IF THE COMMUNITY VOICES AN INTEREST AND CONCERN that all day kinder is desired, they would likely revisit the topic. So… write!
JANUARY 22, 2015
Minutes from our Community Advisory Council meeting on 2/22. Please read carefully, as there is a CALL TO ACTION on the part of the community, if you'd be so kind. Reynoldsburg Community Advisory Council
Meeting Minutes 1/22/15
Submitted by Beth Thompson
* As always, I rely on my notes and memory, but because I tend to talk more than I write at meetings, I welcome others’ input as to things I may have neglected to include. Email to [email protected]
Future meetings have been scheduled: All are held the Thursday prior to Board meetings, with the intent of a report being made at the Board meeting, as well as any requests for administrative participation for the following meeting.
• Thurs., 2/12 7 pm Taylor Road gym
• Thurs., 3/12 7 pm Taylor Road library
• Thurs., 4/16 7 pm Messiah Lutheran
• Thurs., 5/14 7 pm Messiah Lutheran
For the February meeting on the 12th, it was decided that we would invite administrative representatives from each school- elementary, middle, junior high, and high school levels- to an open meeting to discuss and field questions related to the 2015-2016 school year. Particularly, there is interest in hearing what schedules may look like and what courses (including gifted, art, music, PE, etc) will be offered at each building. It is not our intent to ‘grill’ administration, but simply to see what each building is offering currently and is looking to offer next year. We are cognizant of the fact that staffing plans for the 2015-16 school year are being determined soon, so if the community is to offer impactful input, we should do so very soon. To that end, we are asking interested parents and community members to submit questions on this topic by next Friday, January 30th to Beth Thompson at [email protected] so that questions can be put together and distributed to administration via Superintendent Thomas-Manning by Thursday, February 5th so that principals are prepared for the meeting the following week. If principals are unable to attend, we respectfully request that answers to questions be provided, or a designee attend the meeting to discuss with the community.
TOPICS DISCUSSED- I’ve tried to organize these, but as we discussed at the meeting, they are so interconnected, it is difficult to categorize them.
Consistency of offerings
How much of an impact does site-based management have on offerings at the elementary level? For example, Herbert Mills has no art, while other buildings have access to art instruction for a quarter. Same for technology offerings- is there consistency?
A main concern is that elementary students funnel into the same middle schools, which feed the junior highs, etc- so if not all are offered similar specials, will the playing field be even at the upper grade levels?
Are our offerings, from arts and gifted at elementary to coursework at the high school level, consistent with what surrounding districts offer? What research could be done to find that out?
We recognize that the administration has discussed this topic at several recent board meetings, and we are hoping for a progress report on what has been decided going forward. Related to this topic, we would like to suggest the idea of a parent survey, perhaps designed and administered by the Director of Communications, to ask current parents their level of satisfaction with current offerings. It has come up at several meetings that parents are concerned that the district seems to be moving away from a focus on educating the whole child, offering a well-rounded and balanced curriculum for the purposes of exploration appropriate for a child’s age and developmental level. Rather, the focus seems to be rather narrow on what will allow a student’s test scores to increase the most rapidly. Parents at these meetings feel that this is not a healthy approach.
All Day Kindergarten
With the increased rigor of the Common Core across all grade levels, and the upswing in the amount of time spent assessing students, kindergarten expansion should be explored. Again, we recommend surveying current kinder parents, parents of current first graders, and incoming kinder parents, as well as kinder and first grade teachers and principals to gauge their opinions on the matter. We recognize that this expansion would present implementation challenges due to space and increased staffing, but feel that our students deserve extended time in the classroom with highly qualified kindergarten teachers, and that such a focus at the lowest level would reap many benefits as these students progress.
Defining “Communication”
It has been accepted by district administration that the community has, time and again, asked for more open and honest communication. To that end, a Director of Communications has been hired. We can appreciate the step in the right direction that such a move represents, but realized that in all the times parents and community have asked for ‘communication’ we may not have clearly defined what that word represents to us. So at this January meeting, we developed guidelines, each of which would contribute to open, direct, dialogue-style communication between the district administration and parents and community members.
• Rationale behind decisions being made (ie the Pass/Fail courses at the Jr. High, Standards-based report cards)- not just what is happening by why
o Before committing to major policy changes, we would like community input to be considered. This would give parents/students a voice, and involve them in the process, perhaps increasing buy-in on district decisions. This would also allow the district to be proactive rather than reactive with their
• All curricular offerings per school to be published so parents can make informed choices (to be made the topic of the February meeting)
• What decisions are district-level vs. site-based?
• An editable calendar on the district website so conflicts can be managed, though there is certainly no expectation that all conflicts are avoidable (*This seems to be progressing quite nicely on the district homepage! We are grateful for this step. Perhaps an announcement at the next Board meeting could be made to ensure people know it is there.)
• When at all possible, decisions about programming and buildings should be made and communicated to parents in enough time for them to digest, react, and make informed decisions. Much conversation has been had regarding midstream, mid-year decisions, and those made scant weeks prior to the beginning of a school year, when parents have little notice, and therefore may not buy in to a particular change.
• Going forward, what is the vision of the district regarding communication? What kinds of activities fall under the job of the Director of Communication compared to the building principals, or the Superintendant?
Topics to be discussed in detail at future meetings
• Gifted servicing- equity across the district, parental input into changes
• Pass/Fail courses for Junior High students taking High School credit- is there the possibility of adding a caveat to the student’s transcript explaining the rationale for this move? High school courses taken as P/F aren’t necessarily looked at favorably on college transcripts.
• Standards-Based report cards at the upper levels- how will this transition be explained for students applying to college? How will it work for GPA, which colleges still look for on HS transcripts?
• Taking a whole-child approach to education by creating pathways designed to offer a well-rounded educational experience
• Upper level (MS/Jr. High and HS) coursework- is there equity between building regarding what is offered? Are there options for students who are not developmentally ready to take higher level courses? What is being chosen by students and parents vs. being pushed/insisted upon by administration?
• HS satisfaction/impact survey- as the first four-year cycle of the academies is drawing to a conclusion, it is strongly urged that the district pause for reflection to celebrate successes of the academies design, but also to consider what might need to be tweaked in order to become better.
• HS discipline
Minutes from Nov 25, 2014 Reynoldsburg Community Advisory Council
These minutes will be heavily anecdotal and reliant on my memory, as I admit to being more involved in discussion than note-taking. Therefore, if I’ve missed anything that you remember and would like to see added, please email me at [email protected] Thanks!
This first meeting was very organic in nature, as all attendees introduced themselves and talked about their reasons for attending. Because this format was very productive, it was decided to leave this open, round-table discussion structure in place for at least the first few meetings, then ultimately organizing meetings based on grade-level bands, buildings, or specific topics of concern. That way, additional concerned community members could be invited to participate, as could the appropriate administrators. In this way, the ‘meeting structure’ that was initially envisioned has already changed, from the idea of including the same people at each meeting to allowing participants to change to best represent the needs of the moment.
Overall, it was felt that the elementary buildings do not have the same level of concerns as middle, junior high, and high school. The major items brought up regarding elementary were ones that stretched across all levels: consistency of offerings, and communication. At all levels, it is widely felt that the arts/specials are important to students and parents and should be offered at the same level in each building- the goal being equality of educational opportunities for all children. At the last board meeting, this issue was recognized, although what the ramifications are as far as policy, we are unsure. Although site-based management is purported as the reason for the current shift away from same offerings in buildings, we feel that the district could do more to help parents ‘fix’ what we perceive is a problem of inequity and inconsistency. For example parents offered this example: while at Taylor Road, students have Art (only) one quarter, at Herbert Mills, Art is not offered at all. Regarding communication, it was mentioned often that there should be a fairly simple way to create and maintain an editable calendar of events for the whole district, so that conflicts don’t continue to happen between buildings, if possible. For example, TRE’s Cookies with Santa event is the same night as Summit’s district-wide Reading Night, and our CAC meeting conflicted with an Orchestra event and Blended Learning meetings. Sometimes these conflicts are unavoidable, but an online, posted calendar would help to ease some of these problems. In addition, using the robo-calls and –emails would be a good way to continue quickly getting information out to the parent population.
Across the board at middle, jr. high, and high school buildings, the use of technology was a concern. There was discussion that focused on whether the teachers have been properly consulted/trained in using the technology they currently have, and if they in fact ‘buy in’ to things like the Edgenuity program. Parents feel that technology used in the classroom should be tied to what students are doing, and used as a true supplement, as opposed to just being used so that we are ‘using technology’ or ‘blended learning’. Parents also feel that if they wanted MORE technology, rather than MORE teachers in front of students, they would/could pull their children and enroll them in online education programs.
The implementation of any programming midway through the year can happen, and there is a recognition that this year is unlike any other we’ve experienced. However, when major changes are introduced, like increasing blended learning, or, the shift to standards-based report cards at the upper grades, the district’s communication should take into account feedback from the parents and students (the ‘customers’ in essence). Though there are meetings being held currently regarding these two topics, the shift to the standards-based reporting feels uncomfortable mid-year, particularly given the cancellation of early conferences. Standards-based reporting, even with the online training videos sent to parents, is a tremendous shift from A-F grades that parents understand currently, and there are many questions to answer about how that shift will affect high school students’ transcripts, sports eligibility, etc.- parents will attend meetings to ask these questions and report back to the group.
There is an overall feeling from parents that the amount of testing kids undergo is too much. We recognize that some of that is state-directed, but there is concern that students are progress-monitored more than they are instructed/interacting with their teachers, and this is not helping students to achieve. Pressure has mounted on teachers and on students, and the end result can be an unhealthy environment without some appropriate discussion and perhaps modification.
The suggestion was made to survey parents at the high school level about how the four academy/one identity decision has worked to meet their needs now that those programs are reaching the first full, four-year cycle. Curriculum offerings, from band/orchestra to foreign language, were mentioned as a concern related to inconsistencies in offerings across the four programs. In addition, the students’ perspective should be considered. A similar survey idea was described by the Superintendent at the last board meeting.
Offering high school level courses at the Junior High was mentioned, in that the courses are not being taught in the same manner, and in some ways the younger students are being asked to complete more challenging tasks, yet the credit is not earned the same way as the high school students.
Gateway parents have concerns about the decrease in rigor of the program this year, particularly compared to previous years.
Finally, many parents in attendance represented Baldwin Road Junior High. The concerns at that building are many: changes to curriculum and schedules mid-stream, losing/replacing teachers (Spanish) and administrators (3 in 3 years), disciplinary challenges, etc. Their concerns will necessitate a building-specific meeting date.
Many times it was stated that the people participating in the CAC want to be part of positive change, climate improvement, and collaboration so that all decisions being made are done with educational and social value in mind, not just price tag or ease of scheduling. I particularly like the phrase one participant said: We want our children ‘challenged, but still children’, recognizing the need to remember the whole child, not rush our children to forgo arts and classroom experiences in the rush to become miniature adults.
Next meeting date to be determined. (Submitted by Beth Thompson)