Focus Group Meeting Minutes

Thursday, May 14, 2004

 

A.    Rolff Christensen brought the meeting to order after a wonderful end-of-the-year BBQ at 6:10 PM.

 

ES’s present: Julie Lackie, Lecia Leige, Marsha Irwin, Randy Hodges, Deanna Keskeys, Rolff Christiansen, David Pinasco, and Shahnaz Shah.

 

Student member & parent: Devin Keskeys and her mom, Deanna Keskeys were present.

1.     Rolff welcomed our student participant, Devin Keskeys and her mom, Deanna.

 

2.     Rolff then read items 1-3 on the Focus Group Agenda.

 

3.     Rolff encouraged each ES to visit the CWCS website and click on the new accreditation link. He informed the group that they now have access to the meeting minutes from all focus groups involved in the accreditation process.

 

4.     Rolff reminded ES’s that it was very important that each family receive a copy of the ESLR’s. Those that hadn’t already done so were encouraged to get these to their families before year’s end.

 

5.     Rolff then asked which ES’s had brought with them copies of student work samples for Math. Many ES’s had brought several samples. Rolff briefly explained the Rubric process for rating work samples. After all samples were labeled with grade levels and identifying numbers, all personal info pertaining to the students were crossed off. ES’s broke into several groups of two and spent the remaining focus group meeting time evaluating work samples.

 

6.     Our student member, Devin, joined in one of the teams to evaluate work samples too.

 

7.     After the evaluations were complete, Rolff collected all work samples and rubrics.

 

A.    Lecia Leige voiced her concern that the rubrics do not indicate any improvement the student may have made since enrolling with CWCS.

1.     For example, a student might have been working in the 4^th grade level in math at the beginning of the year, but improved over the year and may now be working at the 6^th grade level. The rubric does not address this critical component earmarking growth. The rubric only notes student work as below/at/above grade level. Several ES’s agreed with her.

2.     Another ES asked whether the rubrics could include an ES observation note so that the rubric denotes progression of student achievement? Marsha Irwin and Randy Hodges agreed.

3.     Rolff stated that this exercise is used only to determine the needs of our school in Math, not individual student achievement.

 

B.    Questions:

 

1.     Did the Leadership committee consider previously recommended changes of ESLR’s from the Stockton Groups March meeting (see meeting minutes)? It was noted that our recommendations to change some aspects of current ESLR’s were not addressed. Namely:

a.      de-emphasize technology, by putting it under lifeskills;

b.     correct the grammatical errors;

c.      change or delete the ‘speaking clearly’ ESLR, as we do not teach Speech

C.    Needs:

1.     It was unanimous that the Lodi/Stockton areas need vendors for Math Tutoring. Living 30 minutes from Manteca make it difficult for our families to access small group instruction.

 

E. Rolff dismissed the group at 7:15 p.m.