Focus Group Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 19, 2004
1. Rolff Christensen brought the meeting to order at 6:10 PM.
b. Rolff asked that the meeting minutes include a notation indicating that our parent and student team members were not present for the first focus group meeting. Reasons were discussed as to why this happened.
c. Julie Lackie had contacted IEM with the names of 3 parents and their students for possible selection as team members for the focus group. These parents were:
-Regina Pinasco and her daughter,
-Cynthia Sym and her daughter,
-Deanna Keskeys and her daughter Devin.
(None of these parents were contacted by the office as to whether or not they should attend the first focus meeting on February 19.)
c. Julie Lackie stated that she would contact the district office and follow-up. The parent and student will wait for a phone call from Sherrie Nelson confirming their attendance at the March 18th meeting.
2. Rolff outlined the focus group structure, as was covered at last month's meeting. He restated that the self-study process would end early next spring and culminate in a visitation by the Committee Team.
a. Rolff had all teachers present number the pages in our Suggested Structure of the First Focus/
Home Group meeting packet so that the each ES would be able to turn to corresponding pages
easily. Rolff clarified, for the group, that the terms Focus groups and Home groups are one and the same.
b. Before the team discussion began, Rolff encouraged all group members participate fully in focus team discussions. Full participation would lead to more productivity and positive outcomes.
c. Rolff had all teachers:
1. Turn to Page 6 in their packets. He highlighted briefly the 3 sections on Page 6: *Expected outcomes of self-study
*The focus on the learning process
*Recommendation of accreditation terms.
2. Understand that our Focus Group task would be to:
-Analyze student data and achievement according to section C8 Ð9 in WASC/ CDE
Focus on Learning Schoolwide Criteria. We all turned to Page 3 in our packets and
re-read sections C8-9.
d. Rolff noted that ESLR's would be available at the March meeting and that they would focus on effective communication both oral and written, technology, character values etc. He also stated that ESLRÕs are intentionally vague and broad.
e. Rolff indicated that he would send a copy to Sherrie Nelson for her to review.
f. Everyone then turned their attention to Page 3 and began to paraphrase in their own words each of the terms and phrases in section C8 - 9.
1. Terms needing clarification in C8: ÒsuccessÓ and ÒappropriateÓ:
2. Carol and Lecia both felt that the term ÒstandardsÓ be used instead of the term
ÒsuccessÓ at the end of C8. They reasoned that the term ÒstandardsÓ was more easily defined in light of Òstate standardsÓ. They felt that ÒsuccessÓ was too broad of a term that could be interpreted to mean many different things.
3. Marcia and Randy disagreed, stating that the term ÒsuccessÓ is an appropriate term to use within the context of our charter school simply because the main focus of our school is to provide our students with individualized learning programs. Marcia elaborated further; saying that the ability to pass a mandated ÒstandardsÓ based test is not necessarily a sign of success. Her reasoning went on to include, that it is the job of ESÕs and parents, to help students develop a genuine love of learning, and that this should be the true measure of their success. She restated that the term ÒsuccessÓ is an adequate description of studentsÕ ability to reach their potential. Deanna and Randy agreed.
4. Lecia added that another term needed additional definition. The term ÒappropriateÓ in section C8 is too broad. She indicated that some students need varying levels of support. For some, intensive support was necessary while others, needed practically none. Appropriate support by whom, teachers or parents?
5. The discussion refocused on section C8 and that one way we could identify whether or not students have received appropriate support in their academic success at CWCS was to conduct a survey and gather data from students and parents currently enrolled.
6. A brief conversation ensued about how a survey could be carried out.
g. The team then went on to paraphrase and discuss section C9.
1. Terms and phrases needing clarification in C9: ÒschoolÓ, Òwithin the communityÓ, Òactivities and opportunitiesÓ and Ò personal supportÓ.
2. It was noted that the term ÒschoolÓ(entire community) could refer to the learning center opportunities that students have. For example, taking science classes at the Manteca learning center as well as, other small group classes.
3. The phrase Òwithin the communityÓ also could indicate opportunities students have taking classes, going on school field trips, accessing school service vendors etc., and the term ÒpersonalÓ was decided to mean a one-on-one relationship between student and parents; parents and ESÕs and students and ESÕs.
4. Our school is unique, in that students (along with their parents) have Òpersonal supportÓ in their unlimited access to their ESÕs via email, telephone or during face-to-face LR meetings. Our school also provides support for special Ed students. Families can locate pertinent information about the school and its programs on the web site; as well as current information delivered to them through the parent list-serve via the Internet.
5. Continued discussion of the term ÒactivitiesÓ resumed. It was agreed that that school field trips, involvement in sports or leagues within the community at large and various services provided by CWCS vendors etc. could be contained within the term ÒactivitiesÓ.
6. The term ÒopportunitiesÓ was discussed and clarified to mean activities or opportunities such as, science fair or science camp; trips Washington D.C. for political government studies etc. It was noticed that all of the opportunities students CHOOSE to participate in are driven by a studentÕs personal interest. This confirms one of our charter school goals to provide Òinterest based opportunities and activitiesÓ for individualized learning programs.
h. Our next order of business was to discuss the WASC criteria on Page 1 of the meeting packet.
1. Our group discussed the question: What data might we need to examine our school with respect to these criteria statements?
2. Our group came up with following areas where data could be gathered. We need to:
-List which activities, support services and opportunities are available for our
students.
-What percentage of CWCS students actually participate in these activities?
-Do all students have equal access to the opportunities to participate in these programs? (It was noted that many ES's do not communicate valuable information about these activities to parents who are not on e-mail, Internet service etc.)
-Who participates in GEA activities?
-Lecia indicated the need to refocus on data and that gathering data
from graduates of CWCS might be helpful. We could ask them whether or not they received Òappropriate supportÓ from our school.
-Carol discuss that some ESÕs might be willing to call former students who are
still living in the area.
(post graduate survey)
8. Questions our group generated are as follows:
*We feel it is critical that we have a definition of this phrase in order to proceed in making valid evaluations of the criteria. Could this definition be defined Òin a number of ways so that we are not locked into a box?Ó said Rolff.
9. At the end of the meeting, it was discussed that the parent/student participants will need to attend the March 18th focus group meeting. The parent will be notified by Sherrie Nelson inviting them to attend the next meeting on March 18.
10. The meeting concluded at 7:05 PM.