Minutes of the April 7, 1999 Meeting of the SBM Strategy Team

ATTENDING:

NEW MEMBERS:

AGENDA:

• Team Operations
• Research Areas
• Key Questions
• Presenter: Vidal Perez

OPENING COMMENTS: G. Enos:

1. Frank Pallotta, PSD member of the PSC could not attend tonight's session as scheduled. (will meet on 4/26/99).
2. Greg also spoke by phone with PTU President Phyllis Tennian since our last meeting. She had been unaware of the Strategic Plan work groups.
3. Team Issues:
1. T. Arrison would like a PSD member who worked on the Strategic Planning Document to discuss the "parameters" in the Plan, one of which reads "In the adoption of any activity, we will always attempt to enhance site-based decision-making."
2. J. Howard: [We s]hould address our lack of visibility-no one knows we exists, which in turn undermines our likelihood of having an impact. Key players likely to resist us because they have not been informed.
3. J. Howard: Recommends that we make it a practice to go quickly around table at the beginning of each meeting for each member to report contacts, information or issues that have occurred during the week. Agreed.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF VARTAN GREGORIAN SBM EXPERIENCE

Spontaneous Q&A with our two new members from Vartan Gregorian Site-Based Team gave us a useful picture of SBM as it has actually been achieved. Some key observations:
1. Critical conditions that enabled successful SBM implementation at VG:
• Focus on student achievement/teaching and learning.
• Strong Site Improvement Team "family" committed to consensus decision making.
• Vision and leadership from two successive principals.
• Integration and use of each new initiative - OATS, SALT and own research-based initiative, such as ELLI.
• Finding strengths inside the building.
2. Problems and barriers:
• Not prepared for some issues - e.g. separate union for teacher assistants.
• Uncertainty about recertification process - SBM authorized for one year, ending June 99 - have not been informed what will happen.

RESEARCH AREAS:

• Six Questions - J Howard presented his idea for using six questions as framework for our work plan.
1. What is SBM?
2. What is the current state of SBM (theory, reality, research issues???)
3. What is the purpose of SBM?
4. How should SBM be "addressed"? (e.g. define, decide, process, promotion)
5. How does SBM relate to the other areas of the PSD Strategic Plan?
6. What are some of the feasible Action Steps we can propose to PSD?
Although there appeared to be agreement with this framework, no formal decision was made on using this framework or assigning members to parts of it.
• Research areas: Greg called for members to select research areas from list on the agenda. Members will post to the Listserv by April 12.

SBM Leadership Roles in other States/areas outside RI	Lou Schmitt
SBM's Educational History	Fran Gorman
SBM Working Definition/Mission, Grantwriting Resources	Tom Bacon
Contacting Phyllis Tennian and Joyce Stevos	Greg Enos
Comer Model	Tom Arrison
Parents and SBM in other districts	Jon Howard

VIDAL PEREZ,

Vidal works for the Federally-funded LAB (Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory) at Brown University and has supported SBM efforts in NYC and other areas. In Providence, he has been a consultant to individual schools applying for SBM as well as nuetral chair to District's team responsible for approving all SBM applications.

He provided his LAB report on SMB dated Mar. 9, 1998, which was copied and distributed to the team. It provides definitions, core principles and a general process for instituting SBM in Providence. He also had the starting document from the Leviton SBM experience, which Jon Howard will try to obtain for the group.

Where is SBM in Providence right now? In Limbo, since June 1998, when the two senior PSD reps (Supt. Zarella and Asst. Supt. Renzulli) announced their retirements. School Board left vacancies to Feb. 1999, and then its two nominees both left the system. This leaves PSD represented by one member, Geneva Johnson, a teaching assistant at Mt. Pleasant HS.

The idea of the Team is to have CEOs and senior executives from management and Union in the room so that decisions made can be final. The Union feels it is useless to meet until PSD has executive representation.

There are no pending school applications. The Committee approved two applications,Gregorian and Fortes, in June 1998 before it went into dormancy.

History of the process: There were six schools actively pursing SBM in Jan. 1998. Fortes and Lima were required by contract to apply. Windmill, Gregorian, Veazie Street, and ALP had teams.

Plan in early 98 was to do 6, double to 12 in 99 and set up network of approved schools to disseminate lessons. In March 1998, the LAB assessed the six and devised framework for progress toward SBM (see the March 1998 report). Keys to process:

• What is school now?
• What should it be?
• How does it need to change?
• What decisions ,now made centrally, do you need to control at your school?

Fox Pt. And ALP went forward (plus Fortes and Lima), other 2 deferred. Gregorian and Fortes approved. Lima and ALP denied. Notes that both denials were unanimous. Approvals were Union 3 in favor, PSD 2 opposed (Zarella and Renzulli) one not present. PSD later changed votes to make approvals unanimous.

The Union very promptly fulfilled commitment to waive 11 contract provisions (on issues such as hiring) to enable the two plans in June 1998. The PSD failed to provide the corresponding assurances until December, which led to considerable resistance from Central Office departments on specific deviations from SOP when school opened in fall. This should not have happened, since the Supt. Specifically approved all these deviations in the course of approving the plans.

Vidal assesses the Union's position as willing to waive provisions of the contract when it is clear that teachers want it and there are clear educational results. PSD is easy to convince of the educational merits, but lacks any will to change procedures to accommodate.

What is the review process: one-year report from each SBM school on achievement of stated goals. Each year, school resubmits new budget. Need big budget change in professional development. Should not be a punitive process. Vidal has responsibility for devising the process and will do so in May - June.

Why SBM? All trends favor or rely on school autonomy. "The School" not the district. (Article 31). Central Admin becomes a service provider. Dept of Ed. has said that Art.31-mandated site plans can be SBM applications.

Vidal's major concern is to locate the changes schools need control of to create schools people are banging on the doors to get into. Help avoid faddism and deal with fundamentals. Got to help teachers get over being told "no." Gets schools effectively thinking about teaching and learning.

What would Vidal change? The application process. Don't wait for applications, but make a decision that school "X" will become SBM, then work with them to achieve it. Look for willing schools, but also set targets by zone or level and cajole participants. Sees SITs bumping up against constraints, esp meeting Art. 31 requirements, which lead them to consider SBM as logical next step. At same time there are Principals and other who do not want to do SBM. Trick is to start where a particular school is right now, be flexible.

No new schools in pipeline. Veazie, Windmill and ALP could reactivate. Classical, Perry and one other might join the process in Sept. 1999. If all went well, we could have 6 new SBMs in spring of 2000. However, need central office to bring people along.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm.