Minutes of the November Meeting of the Dean’s Parent Advisory Council
St. Louis Bread Company at National and Elm
November 20, 2001, 8:30-9:30
Participants: David Hough, Emily Carlile, Jane Doelling, Mary Byrne, Vanessa Montileone, Nancy Goth, Art Spisak, MaryAnne H’Doubler, Kim Chaffin, David Meinert, Sarah Muegge, Mark Hopkins, Stephanie Grevillius, Liz Godwin
School Climate. Dr. Hough asked for reactions to the PTA meeting held in the Greenwood cafetorium the previous night. One parent used an analogy of the Springfield Public Schools to describe a gulf that exists between the Missouri State administration and Greenwood parents. That is, just as Dr. Ernst, as leader in the Springfield school system is responsible for overseeing the business of the school system, but does not directly provide emotional support to parents, so too, Dr. Hough is perceived as being involved with the logistics of running the program, but not affect of the school community. Classroom teachers are providing emotional support to parents during this time of transition. Specifically, parents are concerned about teachers leaving the school, and are seeking outreach from Missouri State administrators for keeping them. Dr. Hough responded that no teachers have approached him directly to discuss concerns that might motivate them to leave the school. A few that have talked to him indicated that they were discouraged from approaching him directly. Unfortunately, because of the lack of direct communication rumors had developed. For example, one teacher reported that he/she was informed that his/her position would be eliminated, however, that was not true. Dr. Hough does not encourage teachers to leave, and referred to Dr. Steve Hinch’s submission to the Dean’s discussion web site, “Greenwood Vision of Excellence” (11/16/2001) (http://education.missouristate.edu/_AskTheDean). If, however, teachers are planning to leave before the next school year, professionalism dictates that they give adequate notice so as not to disrupt the education of the Greenwood and Missouri State students.
Missouri State’s Commitment to GLS. Dr. Hough indicated that the special November issue of the “Missouri StateFocus” is an official position paper on the Greenwood Laboratory School. He confirmed Dr. Keiser’s support of Greenwood, and the commitment of the University to including all stakeholders in the development of Greenwood’s strategic plan, including formation of goals and evaluation criteria. He acknowledged the lack of communication among University personnel, GLS personnel and parents, and reiterated that frequent turnover in leadership in the College of Education contributed to the problem in the past. In the present, however, stakeholders have the opportunity to define “what a lab school is.” He described the balance of purposes at GLS as (1) education of children, and (2) preparation of pre-service teachers. In fulfilling the later purpose, faculty and parents are asked to be patient with trial-and-error situations inherent in laboratory school settings.
Parents expressed concern that changes in commitment will result as changes in COE leadership continue. That is, they expressed concern that when Dr. Hough leaves the position of acting dean, the plans developed during his tenure will not be implemented.
Guidelines for Appropriate Parent Involvement. Dr. Hough reported that teachers are concerned about parent involvement. They feel that some parents “rule the day.” This problem has been ongoing. For example, in the past, observation rooms that are a part of every classroom had been available to parents. They became unavailable, however, because parents acted inappropriately (invasively) in issues of classroom management. He supported teacher-control of classrooms, but supports appropriate parent involvement in the classroom. That is, parents should follow the lead of the academic instructor. In addition, he invites parent involvement in policy formation activities, such as strategic planning. A parent suggested that parent involvement is good, but it needs guidance from the University. The University provides the “What & Why, ” and then asks for parent input on the “When & How.” The University bears the responsibility for setting the direction of change and informing parents of its needs for the future design of Greenwood’s educational program.
Joint Strategic Planning. Another parent expressed the need for outcomes and suggested that when Dr. Agnew visits Greenwood to gather input for the strategic plan that the parent advisory group and the teacher advisory group meet together. Representatives from the joint team would meet to write a joint document. In addition, everyone who could potentially take advantage of Greenwood, including Missouri State faculty at large and members of the Springfield community, should be invited to provide input.
Communication with Parents. Parents expressed concern that they learned about Dr. Moseman’s resignation through “the grapevine,” before getting official communication. They requested that official information be released to everyone the minute important decisions are made. Dr. Hough, assured participants that official information was released immediately upon receipt of appropriate documentation. Dr. Hough expressed regret that unofficial conversations cannot be controlled. He asked that parents contact him directly if there is question about the credibility of information they hear.
Participants emphasized that direct communication to parents from the College of Education is critical. Mailings should include those families whose children are on the wait list. The information disseminated by local television and newspaper articles have not been flattering of GLS, and may cause prospective families to withdraw their application. Recommended strategies for increasing direct communication to parents include: establishing a “Parent to Parent” newsletter (separate from the minutes included in the Greenwood Review); establishing an information tree (i.e., identify parent representatives from each class responsible for answering questions); disseminating a press release from the College of Education describing Dr. Brown’s qualifications and anticipated positive changes.
Results of Parent Survey Re: Tuition Increase. A verbal report of the findings from the Greenwood Parent Advisory Council survey regarding tuition increases at GLS was presented. The survey was disseminated to ensure that the GPAC’s recommendation to Dr. Hough reflects the opinions of all Greenwood parents. A summary of results of the 138 returned surveys are as follows:
Sec. 1 Motivation for Selecting Greenwood (Ranking of responses on a 5-pt. scale):
Factor Average Standard Deviation
Emphasis on academics 4.9 .39
Quality of Teachers 4.8 .45
Class Size 4.6 .91
Safety 4.5 1.28
School Size 4.1 1.06
Parent Involvement 4.0 .99
Reputation/Tradition 4.0 1.13
Cost 3.7 1.06
Lab School Environment 3.5 1.23
Activities 3.4 1.18
Affiliation with Missouri State 3.3 1.3
Location 2.8 1.46
Athletics 2.8 .76
Considered to be a reasonable annual inflationary increase:
5.25% or $199.00
Support for increasing Greenwood’s tuition at the same % rate as that of the University:
87 or 63% YES 43 or 31% NO 8 or 6% blank
Would reenroll child/children if tuition increased by $500 for 2002-2003:
86 or 62% YES 36 or 26% NO 16 or 12% blank
Less likely to withdraw if tuition increased $100 each year for 5 years:
119 or 86% YES 8 or 6% NO 11 or 8% blank
$3,000 to $3250 a critical breaking point at which uncertainty of not reenrolling increases dramatically. Only 14 families were likely to reenroll at $3500, and 8 families at $4,000.
Support for tuition increase to fund scholarships to promote diversity in the student body:
28 or 20% YES 105 or 76% NO 5 or 4% bland
If yes, how much increase for scholarship would you support
8.6% or $60 (NOTE: these are not equivalent figures. 8.6%= $208)
In favor of basing tuition on income:
26 or 19% YES 102 or 74% NO 10 or 7% blank
Include a provision where the University, in the event of a financial crisis, could increase tuition midyear:
22 or 16% YES 113 or 82% NO 3 or 2% blank
Midyear increase if contractual limit were put on extent to which tuition could increase (beyond limit, parent obligation would be voided):
59 or 43% YES 70 or 51% NO 9 or 6% blank
If contractual limit allowed, acceptable % of increase: 5.3%
Would support Missouri State employee tuition waiver:
63 or 46% YES 70 or 51% NO 5 or 3% blank
Number of Children at Greenwood: 71 had 1 child; 50 had 2 children; 11 had 3 children
Grades represented:
K-6 92 7-8 32 9-12 50
Expenses for books, extracurricular activities (excluding tuition/fees):
K-6 $788 7-8 $696 9-12 $1,187
Have been reconsidering decision to have child(ren) attend Greenwood:
89 or 65% YES 43 or 31% NO 6 or 4% blank
A copy of written comments was distributed to each participant. Dr. Hough will present all survey results to the Missouri State Board of Governors and the Greenwood Evaluation Task Force.
Incoming Interim Director of GLS. Dr. Hough introduced Dr. David Brown, incoming interim Director of GLS. Dr. Brown is certified as a K-8 school administrator and has had 6 years of experience in that capacity in Tulsa before engaging in teacher preparation.
National Search for Permanent Director. Dr. Hough will begin the process of searching for a new permanent director of GLS. Although the process will follow University procedure for hiring, it will include input from parents and GLS faculty.
Update Re: Air Quality Testing. Dr. Jane Doelling, Assistant to the Dean, contacted Bob Eckels, Missouri State’s Director of Physical Plant, regarding air quality testing at Greenwood. He reported that the MO Dept. of Health had not tested the air quality in the school, and that it must be contracted with a private company. He will write an action plan. Dr. Doelling will follow up.
Respectfully submitted,
Nov. 27, 2001
Mary Byrne