school configuration committee...tim mcnett, cv scc by position by name parents: j.r. fernandez,...
Post on 06-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
School Configuration Committee(SCC)
September 26, 2011
1
Agenda Agenda
Introductions Group Norms and Voting Meeting Dates Past Secondary School Configuration Review and History Purpose – School Configuration Committee 2011 Problem – School Configuration Committee 2011 Phases of the Work Timeline The Way Ahead
Next Agenda Communication
2
SCC By Position
4 Secondary parents 6 Elementary parents 5 Elementary certificated staff 2 Elementary classified staff 5 Secondary certificated staff 3 Secondary classified staff 2 High School, 2 Junior High, 2 Elementary School Administrators CKESP, CKCA, CKEA Presidents (non‐voting) 6 Central Office/Departments Administrators (non‐voting & voting)
3
Elementary Parents and Staff Secondary Parents and Staff
Parents:Michelle Johnson, PI Melanie Almeida, WOAngie Filipsic, CVAnne Sveen, GM *Anne Lunden, JPAnne Hoftiezer, SR
Classified Staff:Kari Clithero, CO Robin Schoenberg, SI
Certificated Staff:Denyse Hemmersbach, EMDebbie Allensworth, EHPhilip Weatherby, BR Sheri Shipe, CCTim McNett, CV
SCC By Position By Name
Parents:J.R. Fernandez, FVJHMary McGannon, OHSLaura Murray, RIJHLaurie Moore, CKHS
Classified Staff:Jo Conner, CKHSCarla Yenko, FVJH Linda Roberts, CKJH
Certificated Staff:Jeremy Faxon, FVJHEmily Fairall, KSSRandy Templeton, CKHSAndy Campbell, FVJHMatt Stanford, RIJH
4
SCC By Position By NameAssociation Presidents Cheri Mlodzik ,CKESP
(non‐voting) Kirstin Nicholson, CKEANate Andrews, CKCA
Junior High Administrators: Susan JungJodieWoolf
High School Administrators: Doyle ClouserSteve Coons
Elementary Administrators: Greg ClevenJulie McKean
Central Office Peggy Ellis /Departments: Franklyn MacKenzie
Jeanne Beckon (non voting)Sue Corey (non voting)Katie Coleman
Committee Leads: Director of Operations Patti Woolf (non voting)Executive Director of Business and Operations David McVicker (non voting)5
“Draft” Group Norms
Listening (to different voices/styles)
Respect Patience Mutual support Open – minded All participate and support process
Transparency Open/Honest Communication
Confidentiality
6
Decision Making Process Must attend 75% of meetings to vote Must be voting member to vote Use Thumbs for Consensus/Sufficient Consensus
Up, agree Sideways, can live with and may speak to their concerns Down, the individual must express their concern and the group must have time to review and discuss those issues further
Consensus = All thumbs up or sideways Sufficient Consensus = 75% agreement (thumbs up or sideways) to move forward, if unable to reach consensus
7
Meeting Dates for SY 2011‐12 Calendar Meetings Twice Monthly Decision
2nd and 4th Monday 5:00‐7:00 pm First Meeting
Monday, September 26, 2011 2011‐12 Schedule Included
8
Secondary ConfigurationSchool ClosureStudy Committee: History
Presentation to CKSD School BoardFebruary 27, 2008
2‐27‐20089
Finding Summary Throughout the study the committee found
No clear evidence that one configuration was better than any another
Research which supports minimizing transitions for children
The committee highly recommends a configuration where 9th grade students are housed with 10th, 11th and 12th grade students
2‐27‐200810
Configuration Options Option A – K‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12 Option B – K‐6, 7‐12 Option C – K‐5, 6‐8, 9‐12 Option D – K‐6, 7‐9, 10‐12 and 7‐12 Option E – K‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12 and 7‐12
2‐27‐200811
Superintendent’s Recommendation Option A – K‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12
Option D – K‐6, 7‐9, 10‐12, and 7‐12 (current, 2‐27‐08)
Option E – K‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12, and 7‐12
2‐27‐200812
Considered, but not selected… Option B ‐ K‐6, 7‐12
Option C – K‐5, 6‐8, 9‐12
2‐27‐200813
Secondary Configuration Committee: Summary
Completed study during school year 2007‐08 Recommendation: move 9th grade from CKJ, RJH, FJH to CKHS & OHS and maintain KSS 7‐12
Given resource constraints, space available at CKHS & OHS, and capital costs for CKHS & OHS expansion (lab space), reconfiguration was deferred (to be reviewed 24‐36 months out)
K‐8 configuration intentionally was not completely analyzed and remains unresolved
Board confirmed intent to move 9th graders up to HS at May 25, 2011, Board meeting
14
FacilitiesInfrastructure
Task Force Resource Steering Committee
SCHOOL BOARD
SUPERINTENDENT
Task Force Resource SY 11‐12
BudgetDevelopment
TechnologyAdvisory
School Configuration
Budget Development Team
Special EdPre School
K‐6 Literacy MAP
DISReorganization“New”
For SY 11‐12
Decision‐making Develops Options/Recommendations
6696Evaluations: Transition &
Training
Title IX
15 Grant Funded
*DoDEA Grant
* ADKProf. DevelopmentCEL PartnershipCommon Assessments
Vision StatementCentral Kitsap School District
will be an academically strong, fiscally sound,and safe learning community
Mission Statement
Central Kitsap School District’s missionis to equip our students
with the knowledge and skillsto succeed and prosper
in an ever‐changing global society
GoalsTo Have: Student achievement maximized for ALL students Awell developed, highly skilled and effective staff A community that supports and promotes its schools Fiscally responsible decisions align resources and goals
Problem Given our educational needs, declining enrollment, future facility needs and limited resources, we may not have the most effective K‐8 school configuration considering all factors for implementation of a revised K‐12 program.
19
So that … Vision, Mission, Goals…
School Configuration CommitteePurpose
Based upon educational research, and the needs of CKSD and our community, analyze K‐8 configuration
Provide options for a recommendation not later than school year 2012‐13
20
12,648
12,450
12,276
12,079
11,732
11,50811,458
11,18411,085
10,88210,780
10,641
10,529 10,49110,409
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000
02‐03 03‐04 04‐05 05‐06 06‐07 07‐08 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17
Enrollment (FTE) Feb…Note: High point District Enrollment (FTE) in 1998‐99 = 13,051
Enrollment Projection: 11‐12 and Beyond
Aging Infrastructure
150 Million
112 Million
75 Million
37 Million
5
Federal Impact Aid
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15
Total Federal Impact Aid(Basic + Heavy Impact Aid)
Loss of Heavy Impact Aid
23
95% State Average Tax Rate
Average Per Pupil Expenditure
50% Military Connected Students
Heavy Impact Qualification
School ConfigurationFour Phases
Phase I Configuration Options K‐8
Support PlansPhase II Cost of Options K‐12
Phase III Boundary Options K‐12
Phase IV Implementation Options K‐12
25
Group Activity (4 groups) What information might be needed in order to complete a
recommendation for this phase of the work?
What tasks should be completed and or analyzed prior to considering final options of this phase?
How much time might this take for our committee, meeting up to twice per month from September 2011 – March 2013?
Does this phase require additional resources or experts?
Sharing
26
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2011 2012
SY 11‐12
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun2012 2013
School Configuration
SY 12‐13
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2013 2014
SY 13‐14
Decision
SCC Meeting
SSL
SchoolConfiguration
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2014 2015 SY 14‐15
Implement New Evaluations
JP Opening 27
2012‐13 Budget Adoption
Priority Reduction ListToday
Group Activity Bring Draft Calendar with Tasks at Next Meeting
What other task/events might impact this calendar?
What else should be considered as this work is planned and completed?
28
The Way Ahead Next Meeting: Next Agenda Topics
Communication Highlights1.2.3.4.
Links to research
29
General Fund Budget Reductions (2007‐2012) Budget Reductions (2007‐2012)
2007 $3.0 million 2008 $0.6 million 2009 $3.3 million 2010 $3.5 million 2011 $4.2 million 2012 $6.5 million (estimated and very rough)
Totals = $21.1M
30
top related