Secondary Schools Task Force
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
4:00
– 7:00 p.m.
· Mary Jo discussed how L Team discussed article on “Disruptive Change” which
focused on business going through disruptive change. Group identified PPS’
disruptive change throughout the district (ELOB, East End School). Tonight will
be a good opportunity to hear what high schools have and how that fits into
disruptive change work with the L-Team.
· Two action teams formed:
1. Personalization – how to know each and every student as a learner.
2. Diverse Learning Pathways – what do we do when students aren’t learning/achieving.
· Ken read email from parent. Parent indicated there was very little mentoring
guidance at DHS. No guidance support built into system – students need to know
to go to guidance. Also referenced math courses and decisions that
need to be made by students one year in advance. Bottom line – students with
positive and supportive adults are more successful students.
· What does a plan have to measure up to – expectations and beliefs-where are we
in the process
· Sheryl Dominic: Personalization: Faculty identified critical issues. Referenced
“D” plan that went into effect about 10 years ago.
· Teri Blouin: Read coaching expectations and beliefs; work on student character.
· Ken: We want students to be engaged. Looking to enhance graduation
requirements. Deering continues to develop and revise grade level outline. Other
schools around the state (Poland) and even some Boston schools are already doing this.
· How to make large school feel personal will be difficult task (1,334 students).
Will do rotating meetings with staff. Student leader to put together student focus
groups and Ken working to get parent group together. Not a question WHETHER
we personalize, but HOW we do it. Ken feels staff have the message - even those
who are skeptics. Currently, connection with students is by chance.
1. Is this new concept?
answer: No – not nationally. Advisor Advisee –named group “DHS Coaching”
for language to feel natural. DHS had 4
yr homeroom up until D-Plan. There have
been many teams discussing this in past.
2.
Are relationships or curriculum more important?
answer: Relationship in service of making
academic process.
3.
Is curriculum proposal going to be mandated or
suggested activities with personalization?
answer: Will try best to structure. Maybe start out twice week and move up. Comes down to this is what freshman really
need. Accountability needs to have
completion.
4.
When faculty votes in Spring, will they vote on
structure and time or larger concept of plan?
answer: Full package. There is integration with the PATHWAYS group
which will tie into this work.
5.
Have you thought of evaluation component?
answer: Absolutely. There is basic – do more students
successfully complete, do they move to higher education, or are there markers
showing they are able to do more? Need
to look at disciplines - too many suspensions now are being given out.
6.
Is there a family component to this to connect with
parents and families?
answer: Yes, but the process has not yet
been developed. This would happen through
the personalization plan. One thought
is there will be an intake interview with parents.
7.
Would you use structure as the format for
parent-student conferencing?
answer: Have looked at other schools
doing this. Possibly. This is a big change and there is hope that
this would occur.
8.
How would you assign students to adults?
answer: Random stratification. One thought is doing it through intake, but
not sure if do-able.
9.
What would you do with ESL and limited language
students? Will there be supports?
answer: There is support now and there
will be groups. This would involve
EVERYBODY.
10.
Would there be extensive motivators for attending and
not attending (credit wise)?
answer: Would have to be above and beyond
the 41 required. Either as a credit or
endorsement. Hopefully, over time, there will individual motivators.
11.
What happens if faculty says no?
answer: Will continue to meet and discuss
until there is a yes. Ken made it very
clear at the first staff day of this goal.
This has been communicated often through “Deering Notes”.
1. Needing to go back and make CLEAR connection with parents. DHS has not yet laid this out and needs to include this.
2. Doing the business of the school. School gets over inundated with surveys and
such.
3. Faculty
must be made aware of the actual work that would be required.
4. Should be certain that at least 1 administrator is free and shouldn’t have
advisor/advisory in charge.
5. Misconception about outward bound. Sheryl spoke to previous middle school
teachers who are involved in advisor/advisee. They were adamantly opposed to
advisor/advisee program. When asked why, they indicated there were too many
touchy feely activities, lack of
accountability, lack of meaningful work, and too much time devoted to this
plan. They feel sick to their stomach’s
when advisory group is meeting. (maybe not include this??)
6. Work on staff training needs to be done.
7. Grade level handout does not make clear activities.
8. There is a good balance (organic and flexible).
9. Excited about the concept of high school teachers working with the whole child.
Would need professional develop to help teachers do this. Ken: teachers can do
this now, they just need help BELIEVING they can do this.
10. Need to bring in a core group of teachers to work through this.
11. Phase-in recommendation – would cause confusion with upper grade
implementation.
12. This is just the beginning plan. This is a long-term research project.
13. Deering may have an overly ambitious list. Feedback from teachers indicated
there was a lot of
spare time and not knowing what to do with this.
· Team Freshman Class for Fall, 2006
- Many Conversations had about whether to do this or not.
- 2002 Portland High forms a relationship with the Great Maine Schools Project
and the Mitchell Institute.
- Work began with a summer retreat at Bowdoin College, where teachers plan for
increased personalization at Portland High.
- During the Fall 2003, 11 PHS teachers attended the Coalition Euphoria(?)
Schools Forum in Columbus, Ohio. They returned with information regarding
smaller Learning Communities that causes considerable debate within the
faculty.
- During 04-05 much research and debate and educate faculty
- December, 2005 Johnson, Crocker, and Wilson decide that teaming Freshmen
will LIKELY address following issues (student achievement):
a. Increased opportunities for teachers to know students well
b. Common teacher talking about comm. Kids
c. Opportunities for common planning of interdisciplinary units of study
d. Increased opportunity for communication with the ELL and special
education teachers
e. Increased opportunity for teams to communicate with middle school
teachers and guidance
f. Bottom line: when more teachers know more students well:
They can’t run
They can’t hid
They can’t sleep
They can’t skip
They can only give in to work to improve the team
- All electives offered outside team (ask Mike about ‘what’s going on now)
- CHALLENGES
a. Complexity of the overall schedule
b. Providing special education services
c. Common planning time: how often and when?
d. Predicting numbers: Today’s won’t be tomorrow’s
e. 5th class: What? How? For Who?
f. Equity: Being mindful not to divide the faculty
- One dilemma we are faced with is declining enrollment and how it affects the
planning.
- PHS would like to become heterogeneously grouped. But due to politics and
this being a new thinking may be difficult to implement – each team will have
honors class in it.
- PHS talking about math. This is a big challenge. Would like to see this cross
over. Students could be on three different teams.
1. Do you have an evaluation component built into plan? Have you looked at
attendance over time?
answer: Have discussed it but not in play.
2. Do you have a timeline?
answer: September
3. 8th – 9th grade transition. Is this something you will phase in by grade?
answer: Only 9th grade at this point. Have relayed to staff that this could be a
phase-in program using 8th-9th grade transition difficulties.
4. How will this mesh with advisor/advisee program?
answer: Will stay as in
5. Do you have 9th grade volunteers?
answer: Have 3 teams in place, not necessarily by volunteer.
6. Given present staffing, do you intend to have teachers just teach 9th grade or will
there be a mix?
answer: Science is the only one. In other subjects there was diversity.
7. Did the 8th graders know about teaming when they signed up?
answer: Yes – letters went out to 8th graders.
8. Is it feasible to say that freshmen going into 10th grade will be able to transition
easily?
answer: This is the hope. PHS feels if they can come into high school
successfully then they should become successful.
9. Would one of the additional 5th classes be a remedial course. Will there be an
impact?
answer: Yes
10. Regarding administration making decisions, four of the five points spoke to “opportunity.” Was this intentional instead of using “expectation”?
answer: Interdisciplinary units would be strongly encouraged, but all
others are expectations.
11. Is the common planning in addition to regular planning?
answer: Yes. In addition to prep.
12. Would ed techs need to be hired?
answer: Yes – this has been discussed.
1. Idea of teaming would eliminate shock for 9th graders.
2. It is positive to have teams of teachers come together.
3. Leadership saw a vision and put forth that teaming will happen positively.
4. Fifth class to help teachers is positive.
5. Many schools in state of Maine are already doing this, can we use them as a resource?
6. Able to reinforce basic skills across all curriculum.
7. Integrate curriculum.
8. Talk about same message to students when talking about rules/discipline/protocols is consistent across the board.
9. Teachers learning from each other.
10. How to get teachers to talk about good teaching? Need to have team leaders.
11. Chance to have parent contact and be able to share information about parents and students and issues they bring from home to class.
12. 50% on team and 50% out in elective is positive as it is a little transition for kids as safety net and experience as high school students.
13. 5th class teacher rejuvenator.
14. Small school structure seen through teaming and can be built upon.
15. Public relations management - what does the community understand to be true and not true. Need to be cognizant.
16. CONCERNS
a. Math issue: would be a strong team where math could go outside. Would take away from the feeling of community.
b. Be clear on why Portland is doing this
c. Be clear on evaluation process
d. Be clear with a plan for parent involvement
e. What is the feeling of elective teachers
f. What about professional development
g. Will this limit choice of students?
h. Elected teachers being jealous about not being part of team
i. Due to history of going to a team concept not well received, we need make sure there is an equity issue. 9th grade teachers and students are not being treated “special.”
j. Imbalance of class sizes
k. How does structured study halls play out and how will it impact students over next 3 years?
l. Integrating curriculum
m. Improving communication between teachers
n. Criteria for freshman training
o. Careful not to talk about problems only – make sure conversations around better teaching, etc are being done.
p. 5th class – would it be elective or remediation
q. Ed Tech’s for additional common planning as opposed to study halls. Will this impact budget
r. Shift to teaming – concern of eliminating general level and how may this impact college
s. Is there staff buy-in or top down?
t. Ability for staff to work in teams
u. Presentation focused on. How does this affect rigor – will students have time?
· Thanks to those who provided feedback.
· Homework assignment: Chapter 3 of “Whatever It Takes”
· Next Meeting March 14th to hear more about high school plans