Alternative Education Committee Minutes

March 28, 2005

John Stanford Center

4:00 – 6:00 PM

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

David Dockendorf, Michelle Euster, Holly Ferguson, Kevin Geloff, Jim LaRiviere, 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: Dan Landers (Summit K-12)

1. Approval of March 21 Minutes plus attachment, also approved was an addendum to March 14 minutes

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

• Several schools handed in their statements on consolidation/closure to the Chair. The schools reserved the right to change their positions if conditions in the district change. Some schools wanted their status quo; some needed more time to develop a position; some had already sent a statement to the School Board; some wanted to withhold until they knew more about the use of these statements.
• We agreed that school principals, not our committee, are the appropriate body to submit position statements from their schools. Our committee’s purpose is to define alternative education.
• The Chair reported on her conversation with a school board director who inquired about equity and whether our work will benefit the District as a whole. Committee members suggested that we need input from board directors on policy concerns such as this.
• It was noted that in School Board Director Lilly’s memo, “SPS Long-term Budget Problem and Possible Solutions: ‘Right sizing’”, he found numerous negative consequences with the “choice” system. However, this committee is in unanimous agreement that “choice” is one of the major defining characteristics of an alternative school. We also expressed concern that there might be an exodus of middle-class families from the District if his ideas were adopted, an event that could create major equity problems as seen in other urban school districts. It was noted that Seattle, with its 40% population of white students, is currently one of the most integrated urban school districts in the nation. His memo did not recognize that alternative schools are different from each other.
• To address the issue of equity of access to alternative schools, it might be more cost-effective to start new ones in other geographic areas, defined by the needs of the community, rather that to re-locate existing schools.
• The committee discussed the Chair’s interim report before the Executive Committee of the School Board scheduled for the following morning. She was directed to share the general direction that our committee has taken and to respond to issues or concerns. She will frame the context—how each school has its unique history, tradition, identity, purpose, mission and community. There is no “one-size fits all.” Our schools serve certain populations defined by their community of families and staff.
• It was suggested that alternative schools are like laboratories that refine “best practices” that traditional schools can or often do adopt and benefit from.
• Committee interns shared their research on authentic assessment, personalization and shared decision-making.
• Holly Ferguson arrived later in the meeting and requested a statement from each school regarding consolidation. She needs these statements and our operational definition of alternative school to help guide the district’s committee (of which she is also a member) on school closure/consolidation/co-location. We agreed not to submit anything in writing.

3. Discussion of Best Practice “Alternative Assessment”

• We viewed a segment from “Hear My Voice,” a video produced by intern Patrice De La Ossa. In it, students from several alternative high schools in the Seattle area speak positively about how assessment in their schools differs from assessment in the traditional schools, such as less emphasis on competition or comparison with others.
• This committee is a think-tank for Seattle’s alternative education community. We are not concentrating so much on current practices as on the ideal “Best Practices” that characterize alternative education.
• Some members expressed concerns that grades were necessary for athletic qualification, transfers back to a traditional school, college admissions and transition from middle school to high school. Each concern was countered with a strategy to meet those requirements without grades on a transcript.
• Some members believe that alternative assessment is non-competitive, self-evaluative and un-graded.
• Three alternative schools currently do not use a letter or number grading system.
• “No grades” does not mean “no assessment.”
• There was much discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of sorting and ranking students by grades or numbers.
• It is important to use an array of ways to evaluate learning. Models include portfolios; teacher/student/parent conferences; and individualized competencies that are in conjunction with the district’s competencies.
• The purpose of assessment is to serve the child not the district or other outside agencies (college, military).
• In a true alternative school, there should be more assessment, not less. Assessment is ongoing each day. It is embedded in the curriculum. The portfolio is the center of the assessment, based on work that clearly demonstrates what the child has learned, not on a teacher’s subjective opinion.
• Students have the responsibility of communicating what they have learned.
• Awareness of a student’s response to an evaluation can help him/her build confidence and competence. Careful follow-up involves asking the student for self-reflection and evaluation of the next steps. It is about capability not ability. It recognizes every student’s capacity for learning.
• Nova’s evaluation model was used as an example of alternative assessment. All evaluations are narrative and no grades are given. If absolutely required by an outside agency, a student may receive an addendum to his/her official transcript with letter grades, but only at the point of need not on a regular basis. This was seen as an example of personalizing and individualizing education. Students must complete 100% of the work at 80% or better mastery to earn credit. At a traditional high school, a student can earn the same amount of credit for handing in less work and at a lower mastery level. Nova students have an excellent record of college admissions.
• Assessments could be designed to work with EALRs, rubrics, checklists, journal entries, meta-cognitive reflections such as “This is what I learned about what I learned”. There are cognitive, social and affective ways of evaluating learning. Measuring from several perspectives assures an accurate evaluation.
• We need an unwavering front to prevent incursion into our community’s way of teaching and learning.
• We are not an aberration but pioneers in education. No grades make a distinction between alternative and traditional education. True assessment can’t come from a district model, it needs to come from within.
• The values of alternative schools drive our teaching and assessment. Assessment drives what happens in a school building and that is what you will end up teaching to.
• Report cards can actually create inequity. They can discourage students and undermine learning, especially in the case of achievement gaps. Discouraged students can become disengaged. Report cards serve a bureaucratic system need, not a student’s need to learn.
• Grades create winners and losers. Our alternative schools, for various reasons, currently have different policies concerning grades.
• Some want to re-examine the district’s report card and WASL requirements since they represent an incursion on many alternative schools’ goals and values and ask if policies can be adjusted or waivers granted.
• There is less comparison and competition in a multi-year classroom than in a single-grade classroom.
• Standardization amounts to social engineering based on the historical beginnings of public schools. It creates tracking of students.
• Our alternative schools are at risk of erosion—what we have worked so hard to build, grain by grain, drop by drop.
• Are we going to compromise with the characteristics of alternative education or take a stand for the integrity of our heritage?
• If this is just about transportation and other benefits, then the mission of this committee has been co-opted.
• We are not looking for overnight change but now is the time to begin the conversation.

4. Future Action Steps

• We will continue the discussion on “Alternative Assessment” at our next meeting. In the meantime, we are to speak with our constituencies, read related articles, correspond by email and formulate well-crafted questions. We are creating a vision of what we want to stand for.
• The Chair handed out a research-based survey, “Pseudo-Alternative School Checklist,” that is based on the “Best Practices” of alternative education. Each committee member was asked to use the survey at his/her school before the next committee meeting.
• The Chair was asked to meet individually with the School Board Directors before our next meeting.
• We agreed to schedule our next four meetings and meetings thereafter on a monthly basis.

5. Adjournment: 6:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Solvang-Angell, Committee Intern

Meeting Schedule: April 18, April 25, May 16, and May 23.