Alternative Education Committee Minutes

March 14, 2005

John Stanford Center

4:00 pm

Members present: Elaine Packard (Chair), Lynn Beebe, Rachel Bishop, David Dockendorf, Michelle Euster, Kevin Geloff, Jim LaRiviere, David Marshak, John Miner, Barbara Moore, Elaine Schmidt, Doug Selwyn, Cynthia Spencer, Sheri Touissant,

Mikala Woodward

Interns: Patrice DeLaOssa, J.P. Geyer, Liz Savage, Diane Solvang-Angell

Observers: Andy McCool (teacher, South Lake)

1. Approval of Minutes

• Minutes from 3/07/05 approved with corrections.

2. Check-in and Reports from Members/Interns (committee as a whole)

• Concerns about School Board decisions on transportation, cluster draws, and school closure are paramount.
• Alternative schools are not interchangeable. They have commonalities but also individual variations.
• Words that describe common characteristics might have different meanings in different schools—for instance, the practice of “shared decision-making.”
• In defining alternative education, a specific question to ask about commonalities is “What do they look like at our school?”
• To be considered an alternative school, how much standard deviation should there be from the common definitions/characteristics?
• Recommended handouts: “Challenging Students and How to Have More of Them,” Phi Delta Kappan, 11/04, by Alfie Kohn; video, “’Hear My Voice!’ Alternative High School Students: Perceptions and Implications for School

Change,” by committee intern, Patrice De La Ossa.

3. Definition of Alternative Education (committee as a whole)

• The District has some good definitions of alternative education from previous District studies and committees. However, in most of its current reports, directories, and documents, the District is not consistent in the way it identifies and categorizes its alternative schools.

4. Discussion on Characteristics (committee as a whole)

• A matrix of characteristics of alternative education could be used to see if a school “fits” the definition of alternative education.
• We will develop one definition for the two types of alternative schools (see Raywid’s Type I and Type II schools in the handouts)—unlike the district’s study of alternative education in 1985.
• The current fear is losing the benefits of extended transportation or cluster draws if a school loses its designation as alternative.
• Are alternative schools interested in retaining the benefits we currently have or asking for more? This is not an easy time to ask for more in the district.
• Each alternative school has different goals and needs. Parent involvement may also differ among the schools.
• Some alternative schools require a tour of the school before the student is assigned to the school so that students and their families can see the school, experience its climate and culture, meet students and staff, and learn about its philosophy and practices. Other alternative schools have students assigned to them even before families see the school. Many of these students and families enter the school with little understanding of the school’s “alternative” nature.
• What are the expectations of graduates from a regular high school vs. an alternative high school? The requirements to graduate are the same but there are different ways of getting there. Some of these differences are based on the

alternative school’s structure, climate and pedagogy.

• How can we better market alternative schools?
• Elaine read from a handout that has well-defined terminology concerning alternative schools: “Understanding the Pseudo-Alternative School Checklist.”
• An overarching statement about alternative education in the Seattle School District, along with the key elements of an alternative education might be the way to go.
• With so many things now required of schools by the District, there was a concern with the possible erosion of a school’s ability to define itself as different.
• How broad or narrow should the definition be? We don’t want to lower the bar.

What’s the threshold above and below the bar to be an alternative school?

• It is not up to this committee to determine if a school is alternative.
• There is some confusion about whether schools that are “intentional” schools (e.g., thematic schools) are alternative schools.
• This committee is basing its work on the scholarly and historical body of literature on alternative education, as well as on the experiences of committee members and their constituencies.

5. Characteristics of Alternative education (committee as whole)

At this point, the committee broke into three groups to identify key elements of alternative education.

· Some key categories to consider: choice; different learning styles; educate each student individually; self-determination; holistic education.

· Think about how these elements will be relevant in the future, not just for now (i.e., we are not simply describing the status quo).

· Reports from each group were handed in. We will discuss and a vote on them at the next meeting, 3/21/05.

6. Adjournment: 6:00 pm.

7. Future Meeting Dates: March 21, 28, 4-6pm, School Board Office

Respectfully submitted, Diane Solvang-Angell, Committee Intern