Alternative Education Committee Minutes

March 21, 2005

John Stanford Center

4:00 – 6:00 PM

Members present: Elaine Packard (Chair), Lynn Beebe, Rachel Bishop,

David Dockendorf, Michelle Euster, Kevin Geloff, David Marshak, Barbara Moore,

Elaine Schmidt, Doug Selwyn, Cynthia Spencer, Sheri Touissant, Mikala Woodward

Interns: Patrice DeLaOssa, Liz Savage, Adam Sher, Diane Solvang-Angell

Observers: Vince Marx (teacher, Interagency), Pam Suiaunoa (DOTS, Community, AS#1)

1. Approval of Minutes

• The chair clarified that bulleted statements in the minutes are comments from individual committee members and do not represent decisions.

• Minutes from March 14, 2005, were approved.

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

• One school keeps our committee minutes in an official notebook in the school office and mentions them in its parent newsletter.
• Holly Ferguson reported that she is a member of the District’s committee that is conducting the analysis of school closure/consolidation/co-location, student assignment, and transportation. That committee would like to differentiate alternative schools from traditional schools: Where are alternative schools on the continuum? She reports that the district appears to have a positive interest in alternative education. She will be a conduit between our committee and the District’s committee.
• We discussed the recent School Board decision to defer the vote on closure criteria. Holly answered questions concerning the details of that decision. Members were given a copy of the Board’s decision and of the proposed closure criteria.
• There was a brief discussion of the Alternative Schools Coalition position on student assignment and transportation. Questions were raised about whether every alternative school wanted all-city draw.

3. Adoption of a voting process for the committee

Four voting processes were proposed: consensus (i.e., 1 “no” vote), 2, 3 or 4 “no” votes to defeat a proposal. By consensus, we decided that 2 “no” votes would defeat a position, that the chair would have a vote, and that a member who was not present for a discussion could not vote on the issue.

4. Discussion of the Key Elements of Alternative Education (committee as a whole)

What follows is based on a summary of last week’s small group discussions of key characteristics of alternative education (sent to members earlier via email—see attached). One of the groups had chosen to base their framework for discussion on “The Best Practices of Authentic Alternative Schools,” found in the article “Understanding the Pseudo-Alternative School Checklist.” To summarize, Elaine decided to take comments from the other two discussion groups and match them to the first group’s defined “Best Practices” categories. (The category “OTHER” represents comments that didn’t seem to match any of the “Best Practices” categories.) Ideally, an alternative school will practice all of the “Best Practices” on a school-wide basis. It was noted that there is not a strict dichotomy between alternative schools and traditional schools.

a. Best Practice: “Choice”

· Every school considered itself one of choice; however, there was “choice” with a capital C, and choice with a lower-case C. Re-entry school students had a mandatory assignment but had a choice as to which re-entry program to attend. The behavior modification program for students who had been suspended or expelled for serious offenses was pointed out to be a “program,” not an alternative “school,” because it was a short-term mandatory assignment.

· In some cases, the District will assign a student to an alternative school because there are no other options/openings. In this case, the student does not “choose” the school. This type of assignment often has a disruptive effect for both the student and the school because there is no “buy-in” of the school’s philosophy.

· Students with special needs (e.g., Asperger’s) may have a limited number of alternative schools from which to choose.

· It was suggested that a true alternative school choice is a family decision with various levels of parental guidance since family input is an important part of the alternative school structure.

· There was concern that many students who were assigned to an alternative school did not select it as their first choice.

· Because alternative schools are not interchangeable, choosing an alternative school should be an informed choice.

· Some schools require a student tour before the student is assigned and others don’t, casting some doubt as to whether the family that has not visited the school has made an informed choice.

· Choice—not where a family resides—should be the basis of assignment to an alternative school.

· The staff, including the principal, also chooses to be in an alternative school and is chosen by the school community.

Decision: By consensus, the committee agreed that “Choice” is a necessary best practice of alternative education.

2. Best Practice: “Open to Any Student”

· There was concern that “any” is too broad a statement. Students with special needs (e.g., bilingual) need to be assigned to a school that can provide the support needed to meet their needs.

· Alternative schools do not have entrance requirements.

· This practice makes better sense when combined with the “Best Practice” Clear Mission and Objectives.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed that “Alternative schools are open

to any and all students when the student and family clearly choose the school based on its mission and objectives, except when it is not an appropriate choice for the student’s special needs (i.e., program unavailability).”

c. Best Practice: “Continuousness” (the option to stay at a school)

After some discussion, by consensus we agreed not to include this practice in the definition.

4. Best Practice: “There is No Best Way to Learn”

· It was decided to re-word this to: “There Are Many Ways to Learn.”

· Alternative schools have a personalized and student-centered approach to curriculum and instruction.

· There is not a lot of direct instruction in an alternative school.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to include this practice in the definition.

5. Best Practice: “Small”

· There was much discussion about whether the District supported the concept of small schools and the various definitions of “small.”

· Multi-year relationships and looping are more important than school size. In any alternative school this will go on, regardless of school size.

· A school needs more than 150 students to generate adequate staffing.

· One parent commented that an increase of 100 students in her child’s school has had a drastic effect on the climate of the school.

· School size could depend on grade levels served, program goals, class size, and facility. While there might not be a magic number, there may be an optimal number that is driven by the requirements of the individual program.

· “Small” is necessary to maintain highly personal and authentic relationships.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to “Maintain small schools, by design, to preserve personalized environments.”

6. Best Practice: “Shared Decision-Making”

· Shared decision-making is about freedom, authority and power sharing. It is a value that alternative communities foster in their students.

· Our goal is to create a truly democratic environment within our alternative schools and community

· It’s a goal for everyone to have ownership—adults and students both.

· Shared decision-making is happening to a large extent in some alternative schools and to a much lesser degree in others.

· Most of those at the table thought their schools had shared decision-making in some form; although, it is practiced in different ways by the schools.

· Shared decision-making is important to model for students.

· The alternative schools need to have power over hiring their staff.

· In traditional public schools, power tends to be from the teacher down, not from the student up.

· A true alternative education environment is about tremendous choice and shared decision-making.

· Shared decision-making is a value we’ve fought hard to keep.

Decision: By consensus, we agreed to include this practice in our definition.

7. Best Practice: “Service Learning”

We agreed by consensus not to include this practice in our definition.

8. Best Practice: “Alternative Scheduling and Attendance Policies”

· No “seat time” policies.

· Scheduling should be student-driven: flexible, individualized, personalized and adjusted to the individual.

· Scheduling should be continually evaluated and adjusted.

· This is part of “caring.”

Decision: By consensus, the group agreed that “In serving the mission of the school, scheduling and attendance policies should be designed to meet the needs of students.”

9. Best Practice: “Alternative Assessment”

· Our curriculum is hampered by NCLB and WASL. We seem locked into required learning patterns and it is causing problems.

· Assessment is a huge issue. We fought about report cards. The District arbitrarily inserts and applies policies not normative to our environment.

We did not complete discussion on this best practice and will continue the discussion in our next meeting.

5. Homework for next meeting:

· Review all the handouts and think about the criteria, curriculum, learning, pedagogy, personalization, school climate/culture, and the remaining “Best Practices.”

· Bring in your school’s recommendation on closure/consolidation and transportation.

6. Decision regarding future meeting schedule:

· We decided to continue to meet weekly until we complete our work

7. Adjournment: 6:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Solvang-Angell, Committee Intern