Hi all,

Many thanks for the huge participation at our Gratitude Dinner; the event highlighted our wonderful community of families and staff. A big thank you to the PTC for organizing, renting the equipment, and taking care of set-up/clean-up – great job. A big thanks as well to Jenna Shropshire, her father, and Katie Pruski for finishing the tile project. I hope all of you had a chance to see the wonderful artwork our community created to honor our first year in operation and the SIERRA norm of Adventure.

We are assessing interest in a school chorus – two actually: K-2 and 3-6. The program will run on Tuesdays for grades 3-6, Thursdays for grades K-2 – for an hour right after school. There is no cost and the program will run until late May/early June. If interested, please contact Jenny Fellows at jennynastc@gmail.com. This program will start up the second week of January, if enough interest.

Events / Announcements:

  • Wed, Dec 14 is a Minimum Day. K-5 released at 1 pm with busing for all; 6th graders released at 11:45 with busing.

  • Thurs, Dec 15 is Celebration of Learning from 6-7:30 pm. For those families in the Brisbin Crew, they will be performing a musical on their Gold Rush Expedition from 5:30-6:30 pm that same night; only those families connected with the Brisbin Crew are invited (must have a child in that classroom, though all family members are welcome at the performance).

  • On Friday, Dec 16 at 9:45 am, the Brisbin Crew will perform their musical for the entire school community. All performances are in M-1. This is in place of a Community Meeting, though we will still have Coffee House and a very short/modified Meeting.

  • Winter Break from Dec 19 to Jan 2 : No School during this time. We will resume on Jan 3, 2012. Mon, Jan 2 is a holiday – NO SCHOOL.

  • The Lottery Committee is meeting Tues, Jan 3 at 2:15 pm in the Office. All are welcome to come. I have copied below the notes from the previous meeting.

  • A meeting on school configuration was held last week. Based on that meeting, the staff will be submitting a recommendation to the Board at the next meeting on Jan 9, 2012. The recommendation is pasted below. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, please come to the January Board meeting and share your thoughts.

Thanks and have a nice Break.

David

** Notes on Committee Meetings and Recommendations:

Lottery Committee Mtg 11-1-11

Attendance: Hardy Bullock, Elkie Silver, Rachel Davis, Jenny Fellows, Kim Bradley, David Manahan

Consensus:

  • Siblings have preference over larger lottery, general and F/R

  • Siblings have their own lotteries (General and F/R) if needed

  • Adjustments to meeting CBEDS % for F/R will happen at lottery only; no adjustments mid-year when openings occur

  • Mid-year openings are filled according to the lottery positions by students in the same category as those who left; if no students in the particular category, the opening defaults to the other category

  • Before main lottery, open slots can be adjusted +/- 2 to better achieve targeted CBEDS % for each grade level

  • Non-sibling lottery positions do not carry over from year to year; every non-enrolled, non-sibling student must enter the lottery each year

No consensus:

  • Should siblings retain their lottery number year to year or should they have a weighted lottery each year? (the weighted lottery would give one “ticket” for each year the sibling has tried but not been admitted, so those families who have been in SELS longer would have a greater chance of their sibling getting in when compared with a newer family’s sibling)

Needs discussion:

  • If older siblings leave school (graduate) before younger siblings get in, would younger siblings still have sibling preference?

  • What to do if no students in waiting list for a particular category? Do we immediately move to the other category or do we hold off for a certain amount of time? If hold off, for how long?

  • If opening declined, those students are off the wait list or are moved to the bottom? With siblings, at what point do they get a second chance if openings occur again?

General idea: Only adjust for CBEDS % in main lottery; keep things simple during mid-year openings. Make concerted recruitment effort before lottery so no gaps in wait lists.

Configuration Meeting and Staff Recommendation 12-6-11

Below is outline the configuration recommendation by SELS staff. This recommendation is the product of two school community meetings, discussion with other professionals, staff teaching experience, and the configuration programs at nearly all other Expeditionary Learning schools in the Northwest region.

Attendance: all full-time staff, several Board members, approx. 20 parents

Based on the discussion and feedback at the meeting, I will outline below the staff recommendation for school configuration. I will add as much reasoning as I can, and some of the drawbacks.

Overall configuration: one K classroom

two 1-2 classrooms

two 3-4 classrooms

two 5-6 classrooms

two 7-8 classrooms

Next year: one K classroom add 20 Kinders

two 1-2 classrooms

one 3-4 classroom

two 5-6 classrooms add 12 5th and 12 6th graders

one 7 classroom

Following year: one K classroom add Kinders

two 1-2 classrooms

1st year of full two 3-4 classrooms add 12 3rd and 12 4th graders

school two 5-6 classrooms

two 7-8 classrooms

Reasoning: nearly all K-8 Expeditionary Learning schools in the Northwest Region use the configuration above. Some have tried other configurations and then changed to (or back to) the one above. The professionals who have been consulted, including those from the other EL schools, all agreed the most important mixes are 1-2 and 3-4. The 7-8 combo – staff recommends this for the same reasons we believe in multi-age at other levels: increased teaching and learning among peers – helps less advanced students progress faster and more advanced students deepen their understanding through teaching/helping; older students gain confidence and skills in their role modeling while younger students have peer role models (academic and social); increases cooperative learning and associated skills. Math will always be separated by grade as experience and other professionals indicate the need to keep it focused by grade level.

At issue: (most at meeting felt this configuration would be great if not for competing schedule)

  • the 5th graders would be put on the earlier middle school schedule. This concerned many: earlier start time, busing with older kids, social issues, growing up faster. Response: research and experienced educators agree that the 5th don’t tend to “get older”, but the 6th graders “remain younger” one more year; social issues are somewhat Truckee centered – schools all over mix 5th and 6th (even Truckee did before they built ACMS, and they still do at the Lake, which is going fine); same is true with busing – already happening at the Lake and in much of the state/country. We had similar concerns with our current 6th graders riding the High School bus this year, and to this point have had no issues (they sit up front, as would the 5th graders); start times were discussed – ideas included alternating times for 5th and 6th (teachers did not like this as it interferes with crew/culture building and some academics); starting 6th at elementary time: difficult due to 1) required instructional minutes/year – possible to make it, but very little wiggle room and reduced academic time – 2) access to 6th grade sports and 3) logistics of our resources (intervention staff, lunch and recess areas). Not impossible, but not recommended. While all research shows later start times are better, this District controls this and we follow it due to busing and issues listed above.

  • 7-8 combo: staff recommends this for the same reasons we believe in multi-age at other levels (see above).

Other ideas discussed or were talked about:

  • Same configuration discussed above but adding a second 3rd/4th classroom next year instead of a second 5th/6th grade classroom. The rationale centers around recruitment potential (more difficult to get 5th/6th graders to commit to 1st year multi-age classroom) and the development of younger students – growing more from within. Counter-argument: this would mean bringing in 12 6th and 12 7th graders the following year, which seems problematic to staff (especially the 7th graders).

  • Having 7 and 8 as stand alone classrooms and not two 7/8 combo classes. The rationale argues that as the academic material becomes increasingly difficult, the combo classes have more difficulty reaching all students and making sure both ends (high and low) are having their academic needs met. Counter-argument: the multi-age philosophy (supported by research and professional experience) do not believe this is the case (for which the reasons are, again, listed above). Another rationale for stand alone 7 and 8 is the need for topic specialization in the teachers. Counter-argument: with integrated curriculum this becomes more difficult, though may still be an option in certain disciplines (math, writing for example).