Minutes of the December Joint Meeting of the Dean’s Faculty/Parent/Administrative Advisory Councils

St. Louis Bread Company at National and Elm

December 18, 2001, 8:30-9:30

Participants: David Hough, Chris Craig, Sue Bryde, Chuck Barke, Barbara Martin, JB Petty, Jane Doelling, David Brown, Chuck Facer, Scott Marrs, Janice Reynolds, Emily Carlile, Sarah Muegge, Mark Fisher, Julie Masterson, Jerry Masterson, Debbie Yocum, Mary Byrne, David Meinert, Mark Hopkins, Nancy Goth, Art Spivak, Linda Azeez, Trish Goddard, Doris Grevillius, D’Arcy Simmons, Stephanie Grevillius, Kathi Beasley, Maryanne HDoubler

Introductions: Dean Hough asked each member to introduce him/herself and identify the council of which he/she is a member. He explained that Dr. William Agnew, Chair of the Educational Administration Dept. was scheduled to lead the group in a discussion of the strategic planning process, but was not available due to a conflict with a technology grant activity jointly sponsored by the College of Education (COE) and DESE (Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). Dr. Agnew was represented by Dr. Barbara Martin of the Ed. Admin. Dept.

Greenwood Laboratory School’s (GLS) Strategic Planning Process: A memo prepared by Dr. Agnew was distributed to participants. The memo contained the full text of information provided by the recorders in the small group strategic planning sessions that met Monday, November 26. Comments from this and two additional meetings (January 28 and February 26 7:30-9:00 in the Student Union Theater) will be used to form goals and specific action plans for the development of GLS that are linked back to the Missouri State document Countdown to the Missouri State Centennial: A Long-Range Vision and Six-Year Plan (2000-2006). Dr. Hough indicated that most of the participants at the first meeting were parents. He would like to see an increase in GLS faculty representation.

One participant asked why the question, “What is a lab school?” is asked. Apparent unrest among parents is attributable to the feeling that school is being run as a “ship without a captain.”

One participant commented that different people conceptualize the function of a lab school different ways, and that GLS stakeholders must define GLS as a laboratory school in a way that is meaningful to its context in this geographic area.

Dr. Hough reported that he is going to Louisiana, and Drs. Agnew and Brown are going to Illinois to observe the characteristic activities of laboratory schools in other states. Others may be sponsored to attend. Information gathered from these site visits will help provide a reference for the kinds of activities that could be instituted at GLS. For example, in Illinois, the laboratory school is populated by as many undergraduate students as enrollees on any given day. The school has no tuition. The University pays 12% of the laboratory school budget; the state pays the remainder.

Maintaining and Expanding Positive Practices: Dr. Hough asked participants to identify practices that are ongoing at GLS and ought to be maintained. Participants offered the following in responses:

Strong GLS/Missouri State Relationships. Several faculty members indicated that existing strong relationships among several GLS and Missouri State departments should be maintained. For example, many Missouri State students are mentored within the music and physical education departments at GLS each year. Other faculty members indicated that many other Missouri State students are mentored throughout the school. Dr. Hough asked whether data exist that document the relationships and number of Missouri State students at GLS each year. Faculty indicated that a “stockholders” report is available and contains such data. PTA President, Emily Carlile suggested that data could also be gathered through a survey. She suggested that teachers submit 3-4 questions on a simple form that could be disseminated by the PTA to gather information regarding activities at the school. The survey would inform stakeholders of what has been done in the past, and is being done currently regarding GLS/University relations, community interaction, and other projects pertinent to the mission of a laboratory school.

Dr. Hough requested that all pertinent data be submitted to him in the form of an annual report that can be used to disseminate information regarding the ongoing activities at GLS. He offered to fund the production of the annual report which would be disseminated to Missouri State administration and funding sources. He asked that the report be published by May of 2002.

Increasing Use of Computer Technology in the Classrooms. The use of computer technology in the classrooms was affirmed as a positive practice. Expansion of the eMINTS equipment to more classrooms is desirable. Increased connection between the GLS faculty using computer technology in their classrooms and Missouri State faculty specializing in instructional technology is desired. Creative means of identifying additional funding sources for increasing technology in the classrooms is also desirable. Dr. Hough assured the group that one of his targets for GLS activities is to create a comprehensive technology program at GLS that includes provision of cutting edge technology. Dr. Craig informed the group that fulfillment of this goal is currently underway, and that various means are tapped to provide the computers needed. For example, donations of computers have been acquired from Gateway. Work study student from the COE will install the student classroom computers during the winter break, grant sources are being sought.

Graduation Exhibitions. Participants suggested that the Graduation Exhibition (GE), particularly the gamma section should be better publicized and marketed to public schools as a model graduation activity. The GE is a culminating activity for GLS seniors that requires writing, presentation, and media management skills for this performance based assessment. It strengthens GLS/Missouri State ties because students often work with Missouri State professors during the development of their exhibitions, and many Missouri State students observe the final presentations. It was suggested that a set of guidelines for public speaking be developed and distributed with exhibition scoring guides.

Presentation of GLS Student Work in Authentic Settings. Teachers promote student work in authentic settings by requiring students to submit editorials to newspapers, enter science projects in science fairs, etc. Promotion of student work in these types of settings should be expanded.

Emphasis on High Academic Standards. Academic emphasis of curriculum should be maintained.

Reporting the Post Graduation Placement of Missouri State Students Mentored at GLS. It was suggested that data indicate where Missouri State students mentored at GLS are placed after graduation.

Tuition. Tuition should remain below the cost of a private school (See Miscellaneous, below).

Research. Action research is already being conducted at GLS, and collaborative research is being conducted at the Educational Administration Dept. GLS faculty members want to conduct more research, but time constraints do not permit this. Collaborative research projects among GLS and COE faculty would alleviate this constraint. Increased collaborative research must come in stages based on a sense of community among GLS and COE faculty members.

A problem often mentioned when discussing the design of research projects at GLS is that of population selection. That is, the student population at GLS is not representative of the general population, hindering generalizability of research based on experimental designs. Research designs could be expanded to include ethnographic designs that are more descriptive (and can be quasi-experimental). Research could be developed to investigate solutions to problems pertinent to K-12 schools in the region and state. COE faculty could identify local and state problems suitable for investigation, then, engage GLS faculty in the research planning and implementation so that research activities are relevant to Missouri school programs. This approach would help control a “shot gun” approach to research and validate GLS’s role as Missouri’s only laboratory school.

Expansion of research activities at GLS requires better administrative organization and information dissemination. A central committee should be organized to review and approve proposals for research projects at GLS. A special issue of an Missouri State publication such as the Public Affairs Journal might be dedicated to disseminating information about research activity at GLS.

Funding Issues. The following questions were posed by Dr. Hough and responded to by participants.

(1) Should be part of the GLS strategic planning process, and if so, how should they be addressed. For example, in the Illinois model, the state views the laboratory school as a state school and pays for programs including the special education program.

Participants suggested that the adequacy of the GLS building for program needs must be considered under funding issues. Given Dr. Keiser’s direction to become the best laboratory school in the country, remodeling of the facility may not be adequate. The building is at maximum capacity. Room availability and current utilities of the building are inadequate for imminent additions such as the e-high school. The current structure imposes limitations to feeding larger numbers of students or accommodating students with special needs. Opportunities for growth are at the high school level. Further, an ideal situation would house the College of Education within Greenwood to promote interaction of the faculties.

(2) If new facilities are not an option, how do GLS students get the educational opportunities they need?

If expanding GLS numbers to bring in more diverse learners (perhaps rooms from R12 schools) requires more classroom space, then, possibly holding GLS classes elsewhere on campus would address the need. For example, perhaps classes could be held in Hill Hall or another location.

External funding may be acquired through grants supporting research. GLS may be eligible for Federal grant money if innovative activities are instituted. However, funding sources require applicants to have a programmatic, strategic plan which is still under development at GLS. It was suggested that the secondary level be targeted for creativity and innovations.

Internally, Missouri State Funding for Results grants are available to both faculties that could provide immediate funding without the strategic plan in place. In addition, the most recent initiative of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE), a result of a K-16 Coalition Task Force recommends that and Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs) work more with universities and schools in a collaborative manner. The Southwest RPDC and GLS could jointly develop and sponsor professional development offerings for teachers throughout the area (and other school professionals, e.g., counselors, administrators).

Collaborative research projects between/among GLS faculty and other Missouri State faculty (both within and outside of the COE) would be beneficial.

GLS qualification for state funding is inconsistent. That is, DESE does not appear to maintain a strict policy regarding funding for GLS. GLS is officially categorized as an “anomaly.” Although it does not typically qualify for money allocated to school districts, the e-MINTS project is partially funded through DESE.

It has been suggested that GLS might consider a model in which it functions as a district within a public school system, or contract with the public school to take some of the students with tuition being based on the cost of educating enrollees in the local public school. However, it is difficult to calculate the cost of educating a public school student because state contribution is sometimes federal “flow through” dollars. Further, “opportunity costs,” that is, the cost of providing opportunities to students who might pay tuition, but require additional services, is difficult to calculate and determine who will pay them (see Results of Recent Parent Survey, below).

GLS may tap into funds allocated for students with special needs by developing special programs such as the program for students who are blind, implemented last summer.

Changing the school calendar to a year round calendar may double the capacity of the school. Investigation of the impact of the year-round design from student, family, and administrator perspectives would contribute much needed information to school policy makers. However, changing to the year round calendar may “discriminate” against working parents whose child care arrangements are based on the traditional school calendar. It was suggested that changes inn the school calendar be done in small increments. A summer school program should be implemented first, offering “summer camps” of courses similar to an existing model, the “Kids Kollege.”

Results of Recent Parent Survey: Copies of survey results were available for distribution to parents present at the meeting. Copies will also be placed in the faculty mailboxes and made available to the wider Greenwood community. Parents must understand the State/Missouri State/GLS relationship to understand the impact of state budget actions on GLS. Approximately 57% of the direct budget for Greenwood is covered by tuition. When one factors in “overhead” (e.g., administrative, maintenance, etc.) this 57% is overstating the amount covered by tuition. Forty to 60% of GLS budget comes from the state through the Missouri State/COE budget. Calculating the Missouri State overhead is difficult because planners must decide what costs that includes.

Miscellaneous: Currently, parents pay a premium and buy into established expectations for homework completion and school involvement. It was suggested that whatever tuition schedule is developed in the future, every student’s family must pay something toward the cost of education to vest in the program, similar to the arrangement in the Missouri State Speech and Hearing Clinic. Also, student selection may be based on teacher recommendation and a contractual agreement with parents to support school attendance and homework completion. A contractual agreement, however, requires that GLS make explicit what it is offering in terms of its alignment with DESE standards, curriculum, and expected outcomes. Changes at GLS must move slowly until all program documents are in place.

Drafted December 26, 2001

Submitted by Mary Byrne January 4, 2002