HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-11 Restructuring Committee Minutestr-T)
- =Middle School Restructuring Committee
Minutes for July 11, 1996
lg
Present: Jack Delaney, John Doherty, Donna Selger, Joan Clifford, Marie
Tomasello, Tom Zaya, Bill Cowles, Cathy Carroll, Chris Fenniman, Betsy Nielson,
Louise Di Carlo, Kate McLaren and Anne Natale.
* The first three hours of this meeting were devoted to group work on block
scheduling. Each group tried to make the program suggestions of the previous day
become some sort of workable schedule. The exercise gave everyone a good
understanding of the challenges team block scheduling presents at two fairly small
middle schools.
* At eleven o'clock we reconvened as a whole and tried to understand the sample
eighth grade schedule devised by one of the groups. It might fit Parker, which will
have two full 8th grade teams, but it would not fit Coolidge where there are three teams
split between grades 7-8, and where math has 2-3 ability levels. Frustrated, we
decided to recollect why were going to all the trouble of changing the schedule in the
first place:
Reasons for Changing the Schedule and Program
• to give teams more control over time and more flexibility, in
hopes that they will use the opportunity for more true interdisciplinary work,
more hands-on activities in the academic classes, more contact with "their own"
students.
to resolve the problems of the Band/Chorus/Team Time periods
in the current schedule. These problems are perceived to be overcrowding of
some music offerings and the lack of an interesting, educational alternative for
the so-called "Team Time " students.
• to offer more tech ed and world languages to all students, as the
curriculum frameworks suggest.
* Reassured that those reasons are worth working for, we considered the major
problems we have to deal with:
-split grade teams (7-8)
• ability grouping in math
- the tie between math and reading levels
• shared staff ( world languages, tech ed and music)
In the afternoon Jack Delaney suggested that we draw up a list of ideas we liked and
ideas we did not like from all that had been proposed in the last day and a half.
1
Ideas that we I` {ed
- more options during the "Band/ Chorus /Other" periods
- tech ed and graphic art for everyone in grade 8
- - world languag:~-s for everyone in grade 7 and 8
- world IanguagES and algebra offered over 2 year span
- elimination of tf,..e current 5-period and 2-period electives in grade 8
- a 3 period elect: /e for all in grades 7&8 ( Chorus and Band are electives)
- a bit of everythirg for 6th graders
- flexible block tim 3 for teams
- more interdiscipi.nary opportunities
- team ownership of study hall/tutorial periods
- plenty of team common planning time
- having the whole of grades 7&8 in Band Time at once frees up all their teams to
meet
- more opportunities for health topics
- more connectedne:Zs in learning
- more awareness of homeroom and assignment load J.C.)
- opportunities for tea-n teachers to see their students outside of subject class time
- Improved Ways in w rich Instruction is Delivered to witl
hands-on activi Jes
problem solving
community oriented
real life applications
melting/merging of disciplines
higher standards nor all students
* Jack then suggested that we prioritize the list, but it was decided that we liked all the
ideas, and therefore did not want to assign a low priority to any. The group then
decided that we would prefer to list obstacles to reaching our goals rather than search
for ideas we did not like.
Obstacles/Challenges
- different staffing patterns 3t the two schools
- question of by-in by facult es to our ideas
- lack of space at Coolidge
- grouping/leveling issues
- competing needs for time by many school initiatives
* We discussed the sample E h grade schedule that one group was working on in the
morning. The major difficulty i the schedule was getting all the non-team teachers'
scheduled in. This brought us back to the Program of Studies.
* We struggled to draw up a to native Program of Studies. Jack warned us of the
implications to staffing, and the uncertainty of future staffing additions. Trying to work
within present staffing numberz and constraints we came up with the following:
2
Proposed Program of Studies
6 7
8
English
Reading
Math
Science
Social Studies
Physical Education
2 3 3
Art
2 2/sem 3/sem
Music
2 2/sem -
Tech Ed
2/sem - 3/sem
Computer
2/sem - -
World Languages
- 6 6
Band/Chorus/Elective*
2 3 3
Health/Guidance
2 4 3
totals
42 42 42
* We could easily see there are still many problems with this schedule, not the least of
them many equity issues
and changes to the existing program. We pondered what
should be our next step; take our ideas back to the faculties or continue to refine th
ideas ? We debated how
ese
best to get input from teams and specialists without riling
them up.
What about Coolidge ? Today we really didn't address the challenges of their split
teams. Focusing on simple schedules may have helped toward a Parker solution.
Also, the opportunities the new school will bring for equipment and courses may not
be available to Coolidge. We agreed that our committee needs to spend more time on
a Coolidge solution, and it might be best if we split by schools at the next meeting to
work on those solutions. It was agreed that the separate schools should have equal
programs.
Next meeting August 7, 1996, 8 a.m. at Parker and Coolidge, plenary
session at 1 p.m. in Parker Conference Room.
submitted by Joan Clifford
3