Focus Group Meeting Minutes
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Educational Specialists present: Cathy Anema, Rolff Christensen, Randy Hodges, Marcia Irwin, Julie Lackie, Lecia Liege, David Pinasco, Shahnaz Shah, Carol Smith-Dupree, and Tammy Tagge
Parent member: Randy Hodges
Student Member: Adrielle Christensen
1. Rolff briefly reviewed the demographic information compiled by Gary Clark.
2. Group divided in three groups to discuss different sections of the demographic data and what it says about our school.
3. After discussion, focus group rejoined and discussed the following:
a. Chart 1/Enrollment Data: Twice as many 9-12 new enrolled students compared to K-8 last year Ð a disproportionate increase. Are the Educational Specialists properly trained to deal with the issues, such as truancy, law trouble, & discipline difficulties, which many of these students may bring with them? Perhaps we need a breakout survey of new high schoolers and why they have transferred to CWCS.
b. Chart 2/Student Mobility: Chart indicates a high mobility rate overall. Might be interesting to compare mobility for San Joaquin and Stanislaus from last year to this year, since we assume that most of our new growth is in Stanislaus County and therefore skews the picture. Mobility in these two areas might be very different and affected by different factors.
c. Chart 3/County Population: See Mobility comments above. Mobility for each county might be related to different factors.
d. Chart 4/Ethnicity: We seem to have a very high "declined to stateÓ portion. Is this because we have many families of mixed heritage (i.e. parents of different ethnic groups) or is it because we have families who do not like to be categorized? If it is the former, perhaps we can have a separate category or definition for mixed heritage.
a. Charts 5 & 6/CST-ELA Proficiency: See some "peer group effect with the fourth graders of 2003 who become fifth graders in 2004. This seemed interesting, as these "peers do not have very much personal interaction. Overall, many of our scores for ELA are better than or similar to WUSD but there is certainly room for improvement.
b. Charts 7, 8, & 9/CST-Math Proficiency:
1. Need more tutoring for 8th grade & high school. Proper placement may be an issue, especially if students are transferring into our school.
2. Another issue regarding placement, especially with Saxon Math, which is common for many homeschoolers, is that the CST requires different grade level placement in order for students to properly prepare for the exams. Overall, CST expectations are that most students should be ready for Algebra 1 in 8th grade. Therefore, in 3rd grade, students should take Saxon 54, not Saxon 3, to meet the CST requirements. If this information is properly communicated to the parents, those that are able may accelerate their students in math.
3. Overall, we are not satisfied with these scores and would like to work to improve them. Some schools set "growth expectationsÓ for each level to attain proficiency.
c. Chart 10/Percentage of Students Testing: Must improve percentage of students taking the state tests Ð especially in high school.
a. Charts 11, 12 & 13/CAHSEE Data: Only half of the 2006 class has taken the CAHSEE. This could indicate some serious problems if these students are not able to pass. Of the students who have taken the CAHSEE in this class, a good proportion has passed. More students seem to struggle in math than in English.
We may want to break out high school data for students who have been in independent study charter schools for more than 3 years vs. those who have transferred to our school in 8th grade and above. Those who transfer to our school in high school may be entering our school with serious deficiencies, which will skew all of our reports. The ESs perceive that there are differences, but we need to know if the data support our perceptions.
b. Chart 14/Transcript Analysis: This chart hints at the deficiencies mentioned above.
c. Chart 15/Algebra by Grade Level: Surprised and impressed by how many students taking Algebra 2!!! Very promising.
d. Chart 16 & 17/English Learners & Special Education: No comments
e. Chart 18/Post Graduate Survey: Would be interesting to compare this data to a regular public high school and how it reflects the character of our school.
f. Chart 19/Experience with CWCS: Overall Ð students seem happy with preparation CWCS provided them.
g. Chart 20/Where Do Our Students Come From: Would like to see a "break outÓ of how many students, from traditional public school, are high schoolers.
h. Chart 21/Reason for Choosing CWCS: Again, we wondered how many of the "more involvement/individualized curriculumÓ respondents were high school or not.
i. Chart 22/Access to Internet or computer: Seems very high Ð wondering if we can use this fact to help our students use technology more effectively.
Overall, we were very impressed by the data & graphs. Wonderful job Ð much helpful information.
Meeting concluded at 6:45PM