Closer but no clearer to new schools by Brian Williams VALPARAISO | For a school board that bandies the buzzwords “21st century learning” about so blithely, Thursday’s board discussion meeting (March 6, 2014) was grindingly 20th century. The priorities seemed misplaced and the boredom factor was off the charts. Not until 82 minutes into the meeting did the board broach the topic of facilities – whether to renovate existing school buildings, build new ones or mix the two approaches. But first, about three quarters of an hour went to English curriculum and textbook adoption. The next 30 minutes included reading from the district accreditation self-study report. Facilities When facilities finally came up, the first 23 minutes consisted of a report by James Thompson, president of consultant group Gibraltar Design, that very closely matched the one he had presented at December’s board discussion meeting (valpo.k12.in.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=1548). The options Thompson presented for the city’s elementary schools highlighted additions to the existing buildings. Renovation would also take place in each building, Thompson said, but despite emphasizing the need for “agile” learning spaces, he did not present a single option showing what that new flexibility might actually look like in an existing school. Thompson repeated that Central Elementary remained the most challenging for potential renovation because its masonry, load-bearing walls limited classroom size and flexibility, and its 1.5-acre footprint could not be enlarged. He compared Central’s average classroom size of 660 square feet to Flint Lake Elementary’s industry standard 960. To build a new elementary, Gibraltar recommended a minimum 15-acre site and an 84,000 square foot building designed for a student population up to 550 in grades K through 5. One option could be to build a new high school, create a single middle school in the current high school building and turn the two existing middle schools into intermediate schools for grades 4 and 5, with elementaries serving K-3. Another option could be to update Valparaiso High School, leave the two middle schools where they are and decide on building or renovating elementaries, Thompson said. The report did not include renovation/reconfiguration options for the high school or middle schools or any cost estimates. In response to audience questions on 1) what would become of the buildings if existing schools were closed, 2) where a new high school might be built, and 3) whether new athletic facilities would be built if the high school moved to a new location, board President Mark Maassel said he didn’t know or those were things the board needed to work through. An audience question asked whether input from the recent Valpo Next workshops to envision the city’s future would be considered. Maassel said the board wanted direct input and dialogue. Valpo Next input would be considered, but the board would not limit itself to that, he said. A related question asked whether the board would host similar idea-generation gatherings on what 21st century learning should entail. Maassel said that board hadn’t thought about holding such gatherings. A follow-up question asked, wouldn’t those produce useful information in considering what facilities were needed and what went on inside them? Maassel said the board would first consider the buildings. After the meeting, a district teacher said teachers have not been asked for their ideas on 21st century learning. Also after the meeting, one district employee said, concerning the facilities issue, that s/he couldn’t tell if the fix was already in, or if the board members truly had no idea what they were doing. K-8 language arts curriculum report School administrators reported on the work of the English and language arts curriculum committee. A main theme was that as the district attempted to clarify and solidify its curriculum, it was hindered by the state’s back and forth on accepting Common Core standards. District accreditation District administrators outlined strengths and weaknesses identified in the accreditation process. Strengths included a commitment to student achievement, while weaknesses involved implementation of the strategic plan, professional development of teachers and meeting the social, emotional and other needs of students. Technology was identified as the key factor in 21st century learning. Others were building and classroom design allowing flexible space and collaboration; staffing and scheduling; and safe buildings with a gym, cafeteria, adequate storage and efficiency of services. For 16 minutes, a teacher read from the accreditation self-study while the corresponding document was displayed on a screen. Editorial comment Yes, school board meetings are designed for the board and its business, not for the public. But READING ALOUD from an accreditation self-study report? Maybe it is time to “flip” school board meetings, in much the same way that today’s 21st century classrooms are being “flipped.” In the past, teachers lectured in class and then students worked on problems for homework. Current trends have students listening to or reading that lecture online for homework before the class. Then valuable class time – or in this case, meeting time – can be used for discussion and exploration of the issues raised. Thursday’s was a “discussion meeting,” but since their start in the fall of 2012, these have devolved into being no different in content or approach from the “regular” monthly meetings. The only difference seems to be that at discussion meetings some board members dispense with their neckties. They were originally designed to last a maximum of 90 minutes; Thursday’s went on for two and a half hours. Has no one on the board ever chaired a tight, focused business meeting? Superintendent search Regarding the superintendent search, Maassel said the application period closed at the end of February. The board was taking a hands-off approach and relying on a five-person “community resource committee” to sort applicants into categories of recommended, maybe and not recommended. The board hoped to review the group’s findings by mid-March and would then make its decision, Maassel said. Board member James Jorgensen said the district needed someone who would embrace the findings of the accreditation team and it would make no sense to bring in someone who would not. The numbers Thursday’s attendance was down from the stratospheric triple digits seen at the previous two meetings. The 35-40 in attendance included VCS staff and those making presentations.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 21:39:56 +0000