minutes from "access school" preliminary exploration/planning meeting,
NEXT MEETING: NOVEMBER 9 AT 4:00, BLANCHARD BUILDING
Dec. 7
Jan 4, 18,
Feb. 8, 22
Mar 8, 22
Apr 12, 26
May 10, 24
June 7
Meeting was called to order by Jennifer Jasaitis, facilitating,
at 10:20
Present: Jennifer Jasaitis, parent, DTAC member
Margaret DeLacy, parent, DTAC chair
Norm Cohen, parent
Amy Welch. PPS TAG administrator
Kerry Hampton: PPS property manager
Maxine Kilcrease: PPS Special Education
Lew Frederick: PPS Public Relations
Sue Hagmeier, PPS Board Member
Larry Marcy: PPS Research and Evaluation
Leila Roberts: PPS, principal, Brooklyn/WinterHaven School
Linda Harris, PPS Asst. Superintendent
Mary Michael, PPS TAG psychologist
Deborah Dameron: PPS Facilities dept.
Introductions were made.
Copies of the agenda, the mission statement, the vision statement and the goals were distributed. The mission statement, the vision statement and the goals were preliminary drafts intended as a starting place for discussion/revision.
Jennifer discussed the background that led to the convening of this meeting and distributed copies of a report on the need for an "accelerated progress program" that was commissioned by PPS in 1993 and had been written by Jennifer.
She briefly reviewed the reasons that we felt PPS should consider establishing such a program.
In order to allow him to leave for another meeting, Kerrey Hampton asked if he could share information on facilities/siting issues at the begining of the meetign. He stated that the best use of facilities committee had completed most of its public hearings and was reconvening on Nov 9 (Wednesday) at 6:00 at Tubman Middle School to evaluate and summarize the information obtained from these hearings. He recommended that any new program plan to start with a small number of students and to grow gradually into a building with other uses being phased out. He gave the example of DaVinci which began with about 100 students and grew to about 350. He stated that in his view most schools were full or close to full. Although not every room is being used as a classroom, schools have been using their space in ways that support student achievement--for example, for SMART tutoring, Title 1 programs etc. He said it was important to create a list of anticipated facilities needs such as science labs, computer labs/wiring, media centers etc, to be used for reference if a building was visited so the best choices could be made for a location.
There is likely to be more free spece in MS and HS buildings than in grade schools. The meeting participants also agreed that it would be very helpful to prepare a projected budget for any new school/schools/programs as well as a list of rooms/equipment/ needed.
Jennifer then explained that a small group of people had met earlier to discuss the agenda for this meeting and to create discussion drafts. That group had discussed some working assumptions to be presented to the group for further discussion/evaluation/recommendations. The assumptions were:
--the most likely workable type of school would be a "special focus" school. The Oregon Charter School law requires selection of students by lottery which would greatly complicate a school of this sort.
Establishing a "contract school" presented logistical problems and might weaken the district as a whole by taking students "off the books." [At this point, it was pointed out that when PPS students attend contract/alternative programs they do remain on the list of students enrolled in PPS and the district charges an "overhead" for them. The option of creating a contract alternative school should not be dismissed without further discussions.]
--Jenny's original report envisioned two kindergarten or grades 1-6 programs and one 6-12 program. The initial idea is that a 6-12 program would seek to share a facility with another educational institution such as a high school, a college or a community college.
--the programs would be "full service" programs, offering all the typical programs including PE, Art, Music etc.
--students selected for the schools would be "highly gifted" i.e. in approximately the top one percent of the district's population, with the potential of working several years ahead of grade level, and able to show that they were not likely to have their needs met in existing programs. The actual admissions process/criteria would be discussed by a subcommittee
--there would be a significant counselling component
The draft mission statement was then discussed. It was suggested that the statement be changed to include language from the district's mission statement about instilling a lifelong love of learning. The consensus of the meeting was strongly in favor of the change.
Aside from this, none of the participants expressed serious reservations about the substance of the mission statement. Various editorial changes were suggested. Norm Cohen pointed out that the first letters of the "goals' were an acronym for "Access".
Margaret stated that she would make sure that all participants in the process were included on an e-mail list and would have a further opportunity to discuss these documents online. Following the discussion, a second draft would be presented at the next meeting.
A discussion of the timeline, logistics and the committee process followed.
Margaret said that at the meeting to plan an agenda we had decided to suggest a meeting structure with general meetings for everyone to share information and seven subcommittees to gather informaiton on specific issues. She volunteered to serve as a coordinator to ensure that everyone knew what else was going on. There was an extensive discussion of the seven proposed subcommittees, particularly the communications issues. It will be very important to make sure that communications are coordinated to make sure that information about the meetings is consistent and to work with community groups to make sure that their needs, views, and suggestions are taken into consideration in the discussions. On the other hand, we don't want to give these groups the imporession that decisions have been made before they ARE made, or to inform the public about discussions before PPS personnel have the information they will need to answer questions.
Margaret emphasized that not everyone who is needed for the discussions/planning has been contacted and that some of those who have been contacted were not able to attend the meeting. Each subcommittee will be encouraged to consult with and/or add any individuals it feels should be included.
The need for representation from the minority community/ESL was raised and it was agreed that suggestions for additional committee members would be sought to make the committee more reflective of minority/ESL issues and concerns. It was also noted that people would be encouraged to join as many subcommittees as they wished and that not all committees would be working on the same timelines--some of the comittees would not be able to make decisions until other comittees had completed certain tasks.
The discussion that followed did not raise any significant objections or additions to the suggested process or list of committees, but this discussion could also continue by e-mail.
The timeline issues were discussed. The deadline for a special focus application would be October 1, 2001 for a school to open in September 2002. Additional information would be needed in time for the School Fair in late October 2001 and for the transfer deadline in January, 2002. The winter/spring of 2002 could be used for more detailed planning and curriculum development.
An initial discussion was planned with the PPS School Board Instructional Improvement Committee meeting on October 31st. A short notice should be prepared for the EducatedEd newsletter that goes out to district staff to inform them that this idea is under discussion and invite participation.
A meeting with principals on November 2nd to inform them that we are discussing the idea. [this probably will be postponed to permit prior discussions with DOSAs--Margaret]
A meeting with the best use of facilities task force should be scheduled.
The best schedule for group meetings was discussed. In order to enable teachers to participate, the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at 4:00 were suggested. Meetings will take place at BESC. The next meeting was set for November 9th. at 4:00.
Subcommittees were discussed and the following participants volunteered to join specific committees:
Project Manager: Margaret DeLacy, mdelacy@pacifier.com
Committee Assignments - subject to change in scope and
members
[1] Internal Communication
Members: Lew Frederick, Jennifer Jasaitis, Maxine Kilcrease, Amy
Welch
Initial Communication:
Fri, Oct 27 Administrators' Bulletin Amy
Tues, Oct 31 Instructional Improvement Committee of the Board --
Margaret
Thurs, Nov 2 Principals' Meeting Margaret and Lew
Tasks:
Meet with Principals
Board
Instructional Improvement Committee
of Board
Parent Groups
PAT and other Special Interests
Directors of Student Instruction
[2] External Communications
Members: Lew Frederick, Jennifer Jasaitis, Lela Roberts, Julie
Winder
Tasks:
Prepared Initial Statement
Talking Points
Write Student Transfer/Special Focus Application - Jan
17(approx.), 2002
Meet with Metro-Area Districts - ie Lake Oswego,
Beaverton
Meet with State-Wide Districts
Meet with SW Washington area Districts
Meet with Metro-Area Superintendents
Meet with Metro-Area TAG Parent Groups
Meet with Community Groups - City Club Education Committee, City
of
Portland, University Groups (Reed, LC, UP, PCC)
Meet with Business and Investment and Development Groups
Meet with Home School groups
Media
Crisis Team and other Special Interest Groups
[3] Entry Requirements and Retention
Members: Evelyn Brzezinski (Larry Marcy), Norm Cohen, Lew
Frederick, Maxine Kilcrease, Mary Michael, Amy Welch, Julie
Winder
Eventual: 2 schools Gr 1-8
1 school (located in a HS) Gr 6-12
Year 1: 90-100 students Gr 1-3 gr 6-7
Year 2:
Year 3:
Issues to Discuss:
Counseling
Design Portfolio criteria
Entrance Testing for out-of-district
Entrance Testing for in-district
Saturday School
In-house tutoring
Equity Entrance Issues - ESL, Crisis Team
Typical Characteristic of Entrant
[4] Location
Members: Deb Damron, Margaret DeLacy, Kerry Hampton, Amy
Welch
Issues to Discuss:
Student number projections
Year 1 - 90-100 students
Year 2
Year 3
Room Needs - ie Science Labs, Gym
Distance to partners (ie University partnerships, PNCA, Art
Museum,
OMSI)
Freeway and major road access; Light Rail
Underserved Areas
School within a School?
Stand alone Building?
Eventual Make-up of school(s)
2 schools: Gr 1-8 200 students
1 school: Gr 6-12 (located within a HS)
200 students
[5] Curriculum and Instruction
* Members: Norm Cohen, Alice DeWittie, Pam Grignon, Lela Roberts,
Amy Spangler, Amy Welch, Julie Winder
Issues to Discuss:
Thematic Units
Focus
Counseling - strong component
Co-Op with universities and unique programs
Connect with athletics, arts, drama - present a complete
program
After School programs, athletics, drama, MESA, PNCA,
Saturday Academy etc.
Saturday School for struggling students
[6] Staffing and governance
Members: Norm Cohen, Alice DeWittie, Pam Grignon, Amy Spangler,
Julie Winder
Issues to Discuss:
Job Description
Governance Structure
Hiring Criteria
Staff Hire Dates
Teachers
Counselors
Staff Training
Administrative Staff Hiring Dates
[7] Write Special Focus Application to the Board - due to
Superintendent before Oct 1, 2001
Members: Margaret DeLacy, Amy Welch
Issues to Discuss:
Mission
Budget
Focus
Site(s)
Staff
Curriculum and Instruction
Submitted by Margaret DeLacy, 11/2/00
,
November 9, 2000
Present: Margaret DeLacy
Amy Welch
Norm Cohen
Larry Marcy
Jennifer Jasaitis
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
MISSION STATEMENT:
The mission statement and vision/goals statement for the school
were discussed. Some editorial changes have been sent by e-mail;
there was a recommendation that the verbs be altered so that the
clauses were parallel. Larry had volunteered at the last meeting
to bring editorial suggestions, and he provided a printout with
his changes. Jenny will incorporate the changes and a new mission
statement will be circulated by e-mail. Given the small turnout
for the meeting, it seemed best to postpone ratification until
interested people have had a chance to see a version on e-mail;
if there are no substantive objections we will consider the
mission statement adopted.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret gave a communication report. She was able to attend the
School Board Instructional Improvement Committee meeting on
October 31st. and to share "packets" containing the
mission statement/vision/goals and some additional information
about the need for a highly gifted program. This contains a
single cover sheet (on yellow paper) that can be used separately,
and a more extended version (about 4 pp) with notes and
supporting documents.
Margaret also attended the Best Use of Facilities task force
meeting on November 7th and shared copies of the
"yellow" cover sheet with the entire attendance of the
meeting (approximately 60 people). Copies of the longer
"packets" and a second handout on grouping options were
also available at that meeting. Margaret concentrated on
explaining to the Task Force that a highly gifted program might
add a number of students to the school district. It appears that
the Task Force is not planning to issue a report that would be
specific enough to suggest possible locations for a new program
but instead will focus on policy issues such as how the school
district should decide whether to close a school.
Amy decided it would be best not to place information concerning
the committee in the administrator's bulletin until the DOSAs
have had time to discuss the proposal and become better informed.
Margaret has had difficulty in communicating with the DOSAs. She
said she is now on the agenda for their next meeting on November
22 at 8:30 AM. She will have just a few minutes. Her plan is to
distribute the same "packets" that were shared with the
school board and ask the DOSAs to share any concerns they may
have about the plans for the school. She will invite any DOSAs
who are interested to attend the meetings.
Amy said that the principals have also now been informed that a
committee is being put together and she has already heard from a
couple of principals either asking questions or expressing
interest.
Margaret said she has also put together a large packet (about 200
pp) of materials that should be helpful to committee members in
planning for a school. It includes information about programs
elsewhere in the country, relevant school district documents, and
research on educating highly gifted students. She will e-mail a
list of the documents to committee members. It includes the
smaller "packet" that was handed out to School Board
members and Jenny's report on an Accelerated Progress Program
that was distributed last week.
Amy is having the documents copied and put together in notebooks
that will be available to committee members or other interested
people. Margaret said that she is still seeking people to join
the committee and suggestions were welcome. Committee members
were encouraged to "recruit" other people for the
committee.
ARGUMENTS FOR/AGAINST PROGRAM
We discussed the concerns that we had or that were likely to come
up in creating a separate program for highly gifted students.
--There was considerable discussion of the rationale for setting
admissions at approximately the top one percentile or defining
the school as focused on "highly gifted" students.
--the rationale was that the goal of the program is to serve
students who are in the greatest need of a special program. Many
TAG students are doing well in their neighborhood schools or in
existing special focus programs.
Margaret gave a long and involved report on IQ testing and the
interpretation of IQ scores. She said that the idea was not to
rely on IQ test scores to select students, but to make use of the
research that has been done. Often researchers use IQ scores to
identify certain groups of students to see if the characteristics
of the students change as IQ scores change or to measure the
effects of different interventions on different groups of
students. The traditional IQ tests are rarely used any more
except in research.
IQ scores are supposed to represent a relationship between
"mental age" as shown by vocabulary and logical
thinking skills and "chronological age"--that is, how
old the student is when s/he takes a test. However, there are
many complications to this. Highly gifted students are uncommon
in the general population which makes it difficult to
"norm" the tests correctly. Students with IQ scores
over 160 are more common than they should be according to the
predictions of the test creators. There should be about 5 in a
district of 50,000 (one in ten thousand) but if we actually gave
IQ tests to the whole district we would probably find a few more
than that. However, in any one school "highly gifted"
students are rare. Many teachers will see just one such student
during their entire teaching careers. About one student in 1,000
should have an IQ of 145, about 2 in 100 will have an IQ of 132.
Highly gifted students usually test at several years (3-5 or
more) above grade level. This can be seen on the table for
IQ/Age/Grade in the packets. The fact that these students are
both relatively unusual in the schools and multiple years ahead
of grade level makes it unlikely that a regular school will be
able to modify its curriculum enough to provide appropriate
instruction. "Skipping" these students requires
skipping so many grades that the students end up in completely
inappropriate settings -- for example an elementary school
student might have to go to high school. Moreover, skipping
adjusts the level of the curriculum but does not address the much
faster rate at which these students learn, even when compared to
other TAG students. Skipping also deprives these students of the
opportunity to find friends in school at the same stage of
emotional and personal development as they are. On the other
hand, these students also find it very difficult to build
relationships with "normal" age mates because they
differ in interests, in vocabulary, and in patterns of thought.
"Highly gifted" students seem to have emotional,
psychological and social problems which are less common among
other TAG students. There is a great deal of research that shows
that attempting to "mainstream" these students in
regular classes places them at serious risk.
Margaret referred to a page in the "packets" that
compared gifted students to special education students. Not all
special education students are simply "mainstreamed."
As students become more severely affected, more intensive
interventions take place, such as IEPs involving curriculum
modifications, resource rooms, part-time or full-time aides,
self-contained classes, or even special facilities and
individualized instruction. Gifted students also need more
intensive interventions as they depart further from the norm. In
terms of the difference from the "norm" (an IQ between
85 and 115) a student with an IQ score of 145 would be similar to
a student with an IQ of 55, and a student with an IQ of 40 would
correspond to a student with an IQ of 160. We do not simply place
students with IQ scores of 40 or 55 in regular classrooms and
expect them to succeed without significant assessment and
modifications.
Jenny emphasized that there were always problems with
establishing any "boundary" or "cut-off." The
decision to focus on "higly gifted" students (about the
top 1 percent) was made to find enough students to provide an
adequate program while including only students who clearly needed
a greatly modified curriculum. The goal of the program was not to
create academic "whiz kids" but to enable these
students to make it through school without being severely damaged
by academic frustration and social isolation. She referred to
research that shows that highly gifted students have distinctive
psychological as well as academic needs.
Portland is the only district in the state that is large enough
to have enough highly gifted students for a program. At the one
percent level, the program would have just enough students (500)
to be viable and would be serving students who are extremely
expensive and difficult for other schools to serve. The small
number of these students (about 300 at the elementary/middle
school level) also meant that there were very few at any given
school now, so no school would suffer a significant loss of
enrollment to this program. Jenny recalled that when her son was
young she was told by his school that no one planned for students
like him because he was so unusual.
Amy stated that we have requested that the Research and
Evaluation dept. prepare a printout of the incidence of very high
scoring students across the district but that the information has
not yet been compiled. She plans to share it with the committee
as soon as it is ready.
Margaret pointed out that we do not have much information
specifically about the achievement scores of TAG students.
However she indicated a page in the packet that shows district
figures for the achievement gains of "very high achieving
students." (about 6% of all students.) These students are
faring very poorly in the district and are making much smaller
achievement gains than normal students. For example, in
1999/2000, fifth grade students overall gained 7.2 points on math
tests; the average student gained 7.1 points, and the very high
student gained 1.7 points. She said she would be pleased if
gifted students simply made gains that were comparable to those
of average students. The PPS mission statement says that ALL
students should achieve their highest potential but these
students are just drifting. Studies have shown that when gifted
students are grouped together and given accelerated instruction
they gain about a year above matched students in regular
classrooms. Researchers have found that highly gifted children
waste most of their time in school.
Norm asked where he could find a copy of the PPS achievement test
information--it will be included in the packets.
There was a discussion of whether creating a "cluster"
program would be a workable alternative. Margaret said that she
has advocated both clustering gifted students together
within/between classrooms and grouping students within regions
for many years and was still enthusiastic about this idea.
However, because of the small number of HIGHLY gifted students,
there were simply too few throughout the district for multiple
programs to be practical for this group of students. Clusters
designed for "ordinary" TAG students would still be
several years below the instructional level of highly gifted
students.
Amy said that there had been a district experiment with a
regional "cluster" several years ago, but it had not
succeeded because there had been no program or curriculum planned
for the students at the cluster site. Seattle has experienced
some problems with its "cluster" program. She said she
also thought that such a program could be successful for many TAG
students, but not for "highly gifted" students because
there were so few.
SELECTION PROCESS
There was a long discussion about the selection process. It was
agreed that the selection process would have to involve multiple
methods of learning about a student--probably through some sort
of "portfolio." There is no testing process that gives
a definitive answer, and in any case we are looking for students
who may not be successful in their existing schools. Problems
related to possible biases in the available tests and
identification methods were also discussed. It was agreed that
special efforts to identify non-English speaking students would
be neccessary. There was some discussion about whether it might
be possible to offer a summer or Saturday school program to help
non-majority students succeed in the program--for example, to
help non English speaking students keep up as they learned
English, or perhaps to help students coming in to the program in
higher grades "catch up" to the curriculum. Students
should be selected very carefully because we don't want to take
students out of schools where they are succeeding and put them in
a program where they may be struggling, damaging their
self-esteem. Margaret said that she hoped that there could be
"empty chairs" in the program--that students would be
chosen only because they needed to be in the program and not
because it was necessary to "fill up" a classroom.
SPECIAL FOCUS VS. OTHER SORTS OF SCHOOL
Margaret requested that a subcommittee be created to look into
whether we should consider creating a charter school or a
contract school in place of a special focus school. There was a
discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these
alternatives.
--charter schools had to select students by lot
--charter schools could make use of uncertified teachers to some
extent.
--charter schools did not have any guarantee that the district
would provide space or support services. The charter
administrator would be responsible for many "business"
issues such as issuing paychecks.
--a contract school would involve setting up a corporation,
either for-profit or non-profit. Districts including PPS would
"buy seats" in the school
--there would be no guarantee that the district would provide
space or support services. Usable space for a school in Portland
is very difficult to find.
--there was no guarantee that any district would "buy"
a certain number of seats.
--running a "contract" school would require many
"business" activities such as finding insurance,
fundraising, issuing paychecks and tax information, etc. No one
present was interested in taking on the burden of such
activities--we were more interested in focusing on the students
and their needs.
It was agreed that there was no point in forming a subcommittee
to discuss these issues since the arguments against these
alternative arrangements were overwhelming.
There was a discussion of the idea of having two programs, a 1-8
and a 6-12. There was agreement that this seems to be a good
plan, as opposed to a single 1-12 in its own building. A 1-12
could probably not provide the gyms and playing fields, media
center, science labs, art and music studios that high school
students would need.
There was a brief discussion of the difference between a
"special focus SCHOOL" and a "special focus
PROGRAM". A special focus PROGRAM means that a program
shares space with another facility and is funded just for the
number of teachers needed for a given number of students. For
example, if the district class size was 30 and a special focus
program had 90 students it would be allocated three FTE. A
special focus SCHOOL is funded and run as a whole separate
school, with its own budget, principal, secretary, etc. The
additional cost makes it harder to get a school funded than a
program but a school has more control over its own affairs. It
was possible that if there were two separate programs, a 1-8 and
a 6-12, the 1-8 might be a school whereas the 6-12, which was
sharing space with a high school, might be a program. It was
suggested that committee members get in touch with Pat Burk for
more information about this.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00.
Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, the next meeting will be
DECEMBER 7TH. AT 4:00, BLANCHARD BUILDING
Highly Gifted School Planning Meeting
Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
In attendance:
Margaret DeLacy- chair
Jennifer Jasaitis- moderator
Linda Bley-
Norm Cohen-
Laurel Dukehart- daVinci parent
Julie Winder- TAG Elementary coordinator
Amy Welch- PPS TAG
Guest: Carrie Baker, NW Regional Lab
Carrie Grether Baker http://www.teleport.com/~cgrether/ from the NW Regional Lab, and founder of 3 schools: WinterHaven, Sage Hill and Pacific Northwest Academy - spoke to the group about curriculum design, assessment and planning. Carrie suggested that project-based work with clear goals and assessment appears the best method to meet gifted students' needs. Scottish Story Line is a similar method of investigation.
Carrie suggested that by grade level, or throughout the school, students can work with global concepts in large blocks of time (from 4-8 weeks). Sample thematic instruction for a year could comprise 3 main topics: Water, Energy and Food. Within those global topics, such information can transpire concerning transportation, recreation, science experiments, books and literature, math, and research projects. Generally this block of time is for a half-day while the remainder of the day is concentrated on writing and mathematics.
Clear student outcome with pre-assessment, final assessment outcomes, scoring guide and self-reflection are a part of every lesson during the block.
Mixed age classrooms vs straight grades was discussed. Carrie's feeling is that students should be with mixed age during the block and with flexible ability groups for math and writing instruction.
Junior Great Books http://www.greatbooks.org/junior/ was also discussed as a worthwhile stand alone curriculum to enable students to undergo a method of understanding and questioning strategies.
Teaching Centers as a method for engaging young students in math, science and reading was discussed.
Ideally, 20 students in a classroom is the correct balance to use with Teaching Centers. 25-30 students in a classroom would be difficult with younger students.
International Baccalaureate and the Middle Years and the Primary Years Program
http://www.ibo.org/ The pros and cons of going with a prescribed curriculum vs an open-ended curriculum which allows for more exploration was discussed.
The discussion also revolved around the equity of offering an IB program at a school for highly gifted when such a program should be available to the general population. Jennifer suggested that perhaps there be a caveat which stipulates that the highly gifted school will only participate in this program if other schools in the district also participate.
Admissions Criteria: Drafts 5 and 6 (and 7?) of the Admissions Criteria will be reviewed at the Friday, Feb 16 meeting.
Carrie Taylor, from the proposed International School - new special focus MS - will attend the Friday, February 23 meeting. Amy Welch
Highly Gifted School Planning Meeting
Minutes -Friday, February 16, 2001
Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
In attendance:
Margaret DeLacy- chair
Jennifer Jasaitis- moderator
Norm Cohen
Mary Michael
Amy Welch
Cindy Dulcich- Atkinson teacher & TAG Coordinator
The February 9 minutes were corrected to reflect: A discussion ensued concerning the need for Public Hearings and an appropriate time to hold these meetings. Who is the target audience and how do we draw the appropriate families as well as make the information available to the general TAG population and the community at large?
Communications: The PPS TAG web page will add a section on the Highly Gifted school proposal. Included will be minutes of the meetings, along with links to other schools, programs and ideas. As Jackie Buisman is currently out for knee replacement, we will hopefully have these minutes up on the PPS TAG site by the middle of March. Margaret will also have these minutes available on her personal web page: www.teleport.com/~margaret
Margaret and Amy met with Lew Frederick regarding the possible press regarding the school. A copy of the Portland Tribune article was submitted to the committee. There do not appear to be any conflicts in the article - Portland Tribune, Friday, February 16, 2001, "Portland Schools Consider Program for TAG Students." If anyone knows of potential students or families who would not mind being interviewed about the possibility of attending a school for highly gifted, please contact Margaret, Amy or Lew. Lew will also attempt to secure a videotape(s) from other schools for highly gifted.
Lew will arrange with the HS SuperSac committee, to have Margaret and Amy meet with representative members of the high school students to discuss the Highly Gifted school proposal. Other committee members are invited to attend: 6:30 AM at Tubman MS.
It was decided that the committee needs a consistent policy of communication to the public.
If contacted by parents: ask them to see the web site for more information or to call parent Margaret DeLacy, 503 774 7017. margaret@teleport.com
If a committee member is contacted by a school: ask them to call PPS TAG administrator Amy Welch, 503 916 3358. awelch@pps.k12.or.us
If a committee member is contacted by the press: ask them to call PPS communications director Lew Frederick, 503 916 3560. lfred@pps.k12.or.us
TimeLine: Before Spring Vacation (March 25-April 1) we should have a tentative proposal to submit to Pat Burk and the Board regarding the school. If possible, we would like to speak to community groups before the proposal is submitted, but we may need to wait until later this Spring. The final proposal will be presented to the Board in October 2001 for a 2002-03 opening.
International Baccalaureate (IB) and the Middle Years and the Primary Years Program
http://www.ibo.org/ The pros and cons continued of going with a prescribed curriculum vs an open-ended curriculum which allows for more exploration was discussed.
Norm introduced "Notes on ACCESS math/science curriculum." The topics covered included principles, guiding philosophy and learning goals. As Norm conducted such a thorough study of math and science - he was given the unenviable task of sifting through the IB folder to glean like topics for a language arts curriculum.
Admissions Criteria: Drafts 5 and 6 and 7 of the Admissions Criteria were reviewed at the Friday, Feb 16 meeting. Draft 8 was reviewed and tentatively accepted. A final copy will be adopted at the Friday, February 23 meeting.
Draft 8:
ACCESS School Admissions Policy
In accord with its Mission Statement, the ACCESS school "allows highly gifted children to thrive socially, emotionally, and academically; helps them develop a lifelong love of learning; and encourages them to become full and productive participants in a rapidly changing global community."
The ACCESS School offers a highly accelerated and conceptually challenging curriculum for highly gifted students. The program serves students whose exceptional academic needs cannot be accommodated in a neighborhood school. The School will support acceleration of more than two years above grade level while allowing students to be instructed with age peers.
The Admissions Committee will take into account both abilities and needs of the applicant. Applicants are expected to have test scores in the 99th percentile in either general intellectual ability, mathematics, or reading. However, test scores will not be the sole criterion for admission. Alternatively, the Committee will consider other evidence of giftedness that demonstrates the applicants potential to perform at this level; including, but not limited to: early reading, teacher observations, advanced mathematical skills, sophisticated work, depth of thought, or unusual creativity. The admissions process will comply with all federal and state statutes and regulations.
The application package must include:
evidence that the student meets the criterion for TAG identification (OAR Chapter 581, Division 22: 581-022-1310; 581-022-1320; 581-022-1330);
evidence of accelerated performance;
a statement of student and family commitment to the program;
teacher recommendations;
work samples or portfolios;
school transcripts or evaluations.
The Admissions Committee may also consider and/or request:
tests or assessments administered by licensed professionals;
interviews of both applicant and family;
observations of applicant;
a classroom visit.
In the event the number of qualified applications exceeds the number of available spaces other factors may be taken into account:
preference for applicants currently residing in the Portland Public Schools district;
need of the classrooms for population diversity to the extent allowed by law;
other alternatives or support available to the applicant.
The Admissions Committee will establish a waiting list consistent with Portland Public School District policy and procedures.
If an application is not accepted, the family may appeal the decision in accord with Portland Public School District and State policy and procedures.
February 23, 2001 agenda topics:
Guest: Carrie Taylor, from the proposed International School - new special focus MS.
Review Admissions Policy - one more time
Curriculum: Language Arts
Location
Governance Issues
Head Teacher
Public Forums
SuperSac
Minutes -Friday, February 23, 2001
Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
In attendance:
Margaret DeLacy- chair
Norm Cohen
Lynette Doht, PPS Elementary Teacher on Special Assignment - curriculum
Sharon Meek (Beaverton)
Carrie Taylor, guest - co-chair for the proposed International Middle School
Amy Welch
Julie Winder
The February 16 minutes were corrected to reflect:
Draft 9:
ACCESS School Admissions Policy
The ACCESS School allows highly gifted children to thrive socially, emotionally, and academically; helps them develop a lifelong love of learning; and encourages them to become full and productive participants in a rapidly changing global community.
The ACCESS School offers a highly accelerated and conceptually challenging curriculum for highly gifted students. The program serves students whose exceptional academic needs cannot be accommodated in a neighborhood school. The School will support acceleration of more than two years above grade level while allowing students to be instructed with age peers.
The Admissions Committee will take into account both abilities and needs of the applicant. Applicants are expected to have test scores in the 99th percentile in either general intellectual ability, mathematics, or reading. Test scores will not be the sole criterion for admission. The Committee will consider other evidence of giftedness that demonstrates the applicant's potential to perform at this level; including, but not limited to: early reading, teacher observations, advanced mathematical skills, sophisticated work, depth of thought, or unusual creativity. The admissions process will comply with all federal and state statutes and regulations.
The application package must include:
evidence that the student meets the criterion for TAG identification (Oregon Administrative Rules 581-022-1310);
evidence of accelerated performance;
a statement of student and family commitment to the program;
teacher recommendations;
work samples or portfolios;
school transcripts or evaluations.
The Admissions Committee may also consider and/or request:
tests or assessments administered by licensed professionals;
interviews of both applicant and family;
observations of applicant;
a classroom visit.
In the event the number of qualified applications exceeds the number of available spaces other factors may be taken into account:
preference for applicants currently residing in the Portland Public Schools district;
need of the classrooms for population diversity to the extent allowed by law;
other alternatives or support available to the applicant.
The Admissions Committee will establish a waiting list consistent with Portland Public School District policy and procedures.
If an application is not accepted, the family may appeal the decision in accord with Portland Public School District and State policy and procedures (Oregon Administrative Rules 581-22-805)
Reconsider the name of the school: A short amount of time was spent on discussing an alternative name for the school - for now ACCESS will suffice.
International Middle School (IMS)- Carrie Taylor, co-chair and Cynthia Cosgrave, PPS distict liaison http://www.portlandims.org/
IMS has listed minutes, contacts, hot links, and a $250,000 draft proposal to the district which includes an 18-month planning budget, request for extended responsibility pay for a principal and teacher(s), and $16,000 for site visits.
The intent of IMS is to provide a central site for the different elementary magnet/special focus programs to come together for grades 6-8, gr 6-10, or gr 6-12.
· Ainsworth: Spanish
· Atkinson: Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese
· Beach: Spanish
· International School:
· Richmond: Japanese
· Woodstock: Mandarin
The plan is that this school will have its own building with 400 students anticipated for start-up and 500 students maximum.
Discussion ensued for a proposal to place IMS and ACCESS together at one site, and for students to share teachers and classes from one school to the other. Carrie's concern is that the ACCESS school has an elitist imprimatur which may be unappealing to members of her school.
ACCESS - Year 1: Discussion ensued about starting with grades 2 through 6 and then the second year adding grades 1 and 7 and 8.
Communications: The process of communications and holding meetings with the outside community was discussed. The general feeling was that we need to have more information from PPS Communications Director Lew Fredericks about the appropriate way to further the idea to the community.
March 2: Lew Fredericks will be invited to the next meeting; 3:30-5:00 PM in the Mezzanine Conference Rm.
ACCESS School Budget Proposal to the Board? The question arose about submitting a budget proposal to the board. No decision was made.
Highly Gifted School Planning Meeting
Minutes -Friday, March 2, 2001
Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
In attendance:
Jennifer Jasaitis, moderator
Lew Frederick, PPS Communications Director
Larry Marcy
Amy Welch
Julie Winder
Lew and how to announce the idea of a school: A discussion ensued about a possible site and the protocol for meeting with public groups to discuss the proposed school.
The question was considered about waiting until Fall 2003 to open the school, the main reason being that we need broad community support and the realization of a need.
Lew felt that there needs to be a discussion with special interest groups of no more than 20 people present - groups to be polled should be:
LSAC cluster meetings
small groups of science teachers (likewise meetings with social studies teachers, etc)
college representatives
members of the business community
members of city and county government
neighborhood associations
elementary (middle school and high school) principals association
meet with former principals and teachers
meet with graduated highly gifted students
The idea is to get feedback from these groups as to the best way to meet highly gifted students' needs - which may or may not imply a school for highly gifted. The main idea is for these groups of people to recognize a need for differentiated instruction.
Friday, March 9: Tentative Agenda - Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
Lew Frederick - further discussion about appropriate protocol
Space needs
Table of Contents for Special Focus Application
Rubric for Nomination and Entrance Selection Process
Highly Gifted School Planning Meeting
Minutes -Friday, March 9, 2001
Mezzanine Conference Room 3:30-5:00 PM
In attendance:
Jennifer Jasaitis, moderator
Norm Cohen
Margaret DeLacy
Hugh Ellis
Larry Marcy
Mary Michael
Shava Nerad - VP of Market/Business Development at emerchandise.com
Amy Welch
Julie Winder
LEW FREDERICK: District business called Lew away from the meeting. We will seek to have him included the March 16, 2001 meeting.
ACCESS School Admissions Policy: "Final" draft adopted 3/9/01
The ACCESS School allows highly gifted children to thrive socially, emotionally, and academically; helps them develop a lifelong love of learning; and encourages them to become full and productive participants in a rapidly changing global community.
The ACCESS School offers a highly accelerated and conceptually challenging curriculum for highly gifted students. The program serves students whose exceptional academic needs cannot be accommodated in a neighborhood school. The School will support acceleration of more than two years above grade level while allowing students to be instructed with age peers.
The Admissions Committee will take into account both abilities and needs of the applicant. Test scores will not be the sole criterion for admission, although applicants are expected to have test scores in the 99th percentile in either: general intellectual ability, mathematics, or reading. The Committee will consider other evidence of giftedness that demonstrates the applicant's potential to perform at this level; including, but not limited to: early reading, teacher observations, advanced mathematical skills, sophisticated work, depth of thought, or unusual creativity. The admissions process will comply with all federal and state statutes and regulations.
The application package must include:
evidence that the student meets the criterion for TAG identification (Oregon Administrative Rules 581-022-1310);
evidence of accelerated performance;
a statement of student and family commitment to the program;
teacher recommendations;
work samples or portfolios;
school transcripts or evaluations.
The Admissions Committee may also consider and/or request:
tests or assessments administered by licensed professionals;
interviews of both applicant and family;
observations of applicant;
a classroom visit.
In the event the number of qualified applications exceeds the number of available spaces other factors may be taken into account:
preference for applicants currently residing in the Portland Public Schools district;
need of the classrooms for population diversity to the extent allowed by law;
other alternatives or support available to the applicant.
The Admissions Committee will establish a waiting list consistent with Portland Public School District policy and procedures.
If an application is not accepted, the family may appeal the decision in accord with Portland Public School District and State policy and procedures (Oregon Administrative Rules 581-22-805)
Admissions Rubric (Jennifer Jasaitis, Larry Marcie, Mary Michael, Julie Winder): This committee shared some ideas they have been working on, but nothing is formed to date. The school needs to consider that Special Ed., ESL, and other special populations will apply and be accepted as students.
Communication: Discussion took place concerning the need to reach out to special interest groups in the community to get their ideas about gifted students and ideas for their education - which may or may not include a school for gifted students.
These meetings should begin shortly after spring vacation (break is Mar 24-Apr 1). Meetings should be small groups of 20, to encourage active discussion among the participants. Shava suggested that perhaps the meetings be structured to include the following components: (2 wks before meeting) 3 questions for consideration before the meeting, (1 week before meeting) send the agenda, (day before the meeting) call participants to remind them of meeting. After leading 5-8 such meetings, the committee should have an idea about the possible recommendations.
Mary volunteered to lead a parent group; Julie volunteered to lead a teacher group.
School Proposal to Board (Space needs & Table of Contents): Margaret DeLacy distributed information about the proposed space needs and Table of Contents for the ACCESS school proposal to the Board. Margaret will share a draft at the March 16 meeting. One question is how many classrooms (and at what grades) does the school project in 5 years?