1. Meeting was begun at 6:30 PM
2. A sign in sheet was circulated. Attendees introduced themselves and indicated their interest in/connection to the district’s gifted and talented programs. It was announced that seven individuals had contacted the chairs indicating they would have liked to attend, but had other obligations including: PTO meeting at Jackson Elementary school, professional development opportunities, and “Growth and Human Development” program at Bannach elementary. A total of 18 individuals attended all or part of the meeting.
3. A brief overview of the PTSA was given. Ginny shared that the PTSA website has been updated and includes more information about gifted and talented concerns. The PTSA has also provided a structure for people to be able to communicate with one another (via broadcast email messages). If individuals are interested in joining (and certainly they do not have to in order to be involved in GT discussions) they should contact Bill Hettler. Minutes from this meeting will be posted to the PTSA website.
4. Ginny and Kari shared their purposes for organizing the meeting:
   a) to give individuals a chance to voice their concerns. They felt that the administration had given the impression they “knew” what parents were thinking, (GTpull-out want more services, NOVA wants to protect current program). After reading survey comments from GT pull-out parents Ginny felt the GT pull-out parents had more issues than just acquiring additional services. Also, the “message” from the NOVA parents has been more than a “protect the program from phase-out” message.
   b) to help set the tone for positive future discussions regarding the district’s GT programs.
   c) to share information—e.g. resources available through UWSP library, and US Senate bill 1638 (Javits Act) which seeks to increase preservice training in the characteristics and needs of gifted learners and how to meet them. Main sponosor is Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. Senators Chochran and Lott from Mississippi and Sessions from Alabama have signed on as co-sponsors. For more information see WATG website at www.focol.org/watg

Note that despite the efforts of the committee chairs, the actual discussion during the meeting “hopped around”. Rather than recording a chronological record of points raised and discussed, the committee chairs have placed the points and concerns raised under what the committee chairs feel are the appropriate headings (thus the “DRAFT” heading for this document). Once attendees have reviewed this draft and made any comments for alterations, the minutes will be considered approved and posted to the PTSA website. 

5. Discussion of needs of those currently receiving GT Pull-out services
   a) Comments collected as part of the GT pull-out parent survey indicate that at least one first grade child is being sent to a second grade classroom for math. While this may be okay now, what will happen when the child is in sixth grade? Will the child be bussed to the junior high for math? Some children may be capable of work two to three grade levels beyond their actual grade level. Do we really want 4^th grade elementary children sitting in a 7^th grade junior high class for all or part of their day?
   
   If children are not receiving the level of services they can handle at the elementary level, then this may slow them down. There has been talk about the Youth Options program’s cost. Is slowing children down at the elementary level a means of reducing the number of individuals who will eventually participate in the Youth Options program?
   
   b) A parent indicated his/her child was not tested until third grade. The parent was told it was policy not to test and provide services until this time. Is this really the policy? If not, why was the parent told this? The child in question is now receiving math pull-out services with Jean Hayden. Apparently the child’s reading scores were higher than the math scores, but the child is not receiving pull-out services from Jean for reading. When the parent questioned this, the response was, “Jean doesn’t provide reading services at this school.”
   
   c) Pull-out programming works well for some children. For others who tend to be disorganized, it is an extra burden to try to keep track of what they are responsible for and to whom they are responsible for it.
   
   d) At one point in time, different pull-out models were used. For example, in the past Jean worked with a group of children for a three week period of time. This allowed for an intensive, in depth project.
   
   Today’s pull-out model calls for one session per every six days. Pull-out groups are either all the same grade level or at most two grade levels. Apparently no other models are allowed.
   
   Concern was raised that the pull-out groups will be altered so that they consist of all children (K-6 or even K-3, 4-6) who require services. Multiple attendees stated in their opinion it would be very difficult to effectively serve such a group of children.
   
    
6. Discuss needs of those with altered services (current K, 1^st graders)
   First graders currently enrolled in NOVA
   Many attendees believe: Board motion called for holding the NOVA students harmless and allowing them to complete the program. The program is an all day, every day, split class (2 grade levels) program. Restructuring the program to something other than this doesn’t really hold students harmless nor does it allow them to complete the program they began.
   
   a). One solution the group anticipated the administration may propose would be to move next year’s second grade NOVA students in with the 3^rd and 4^th grade NOVA students to create a  2,3,4 grade class for next year.
   
   Concern that NOVA program is set on a two grade model with a two year curriculum rotation. By combining grades, the curriculum no longer matches the children in the classroom. Would need to redo the curriculum for the next three years and the results of all this hard work would be utilized just for one year.
   
   Philosophical differences about split classrooms. Even more concerns about three grades together. There is a big difference between a 2^nd grader and a 4^th grader. Attendees seemed to be okay with a two grade split for NOVA.
   
   The district does have classes with less than a one to seven ratio (special education classrooms.) The children in special education programs represent the left end of the bell curve. The children in gifted and talented programs represent the right end of the bell curve.
   
   What will happen in year five when there are only seven sixth grade students?
   
   A 2,3,4 NOVA class is likely to be over the elementary staffing guidelines.
   
   Two NOVA classes (one 2-4, the other 4-6) would also be problematic. In addition to the above concerns, how would it be decided which 4^th grade students stayed with the lower group and which went with the higher?
   
   b) The second solution the group anticipated the administration may propose would be to have Mrs. Groboski work with the 2^nd grade students for just half a day. Most likely they would then go to “regular” second grade classrooms at Jackson.
   
   Do not have the exact numbers, but believe the current first grade class sizes at Jackson are right at the limit. There may not be room to add seven children without going over the elementary staffing guidelines. Would the NOVA students then be forced to return to their “home” schools for the other half of the day?
   
   Again, the NOVA program is all day, every day. Restructuring it to half a day is not really holding the kids harmless and allowing them to complete the program they began.
   
   May be difficult to find a teacher who would be willing to work under these conditions---knowing they would not have a class at all the following year. One attendee indicated discussions with Mrs. Grabowski led him to believe she would not be interested in a half time classroom/half time travel position.
   
   c) Solution proposed by attendee: Allow all current 1^st graders who have been identified to receive any type of GT service the option of attending NOVA. This would be a one year thing, while the task force comes up with plans to deal with future GT programming (although children would be able to stay in the program).
   
   Karen Halverson and others indicate the two groups (NOVA and pull-out) are essentially equivalent. So why not allow those currently receiving pull-out services into the NOVA program if they so desire?
   
   Estimate there are approximately 10 first graders receiving pull-out services. Ten plus the current 7 would still be under the 20 maximum set by the district.

d) Solution proposed by attendee: If do go with a 2, 3, 4 classroom allow Mrs. Grabowski to assist. Another attendee suggested at minimum hire a P/T aide to assist. 

e) Solution proposed by attendee: Keep a class of just 7 or 8 students. Another attendee felt this suggestion was not fiscally responsible and that if this was suggested by this sub-committee to the administration, it would just make the sub-committee look ridiculous. Other attendees felt that the board motion was to hold NOVA students harmless and allow them to finish the program and that the program is all day every day.
 

Current Kindergarteners

a)     Apparently district will not be sending out a letter to all kindergarten guardians indicating they can recommend their child be tested for GT services. Referrals for testing will be handled through the SST process.

Have been many stories from parents who feel there children “were missed”.

Concern that underachieving GT students may be missed.

Action Item: Bill Hettler to contact Christine Gould from UWSP’s Network for Gifted Education to ask if she would be interested in doing a feature article to be submitted to the Stevens Point Journal. Article would suggest specific things a parent could look for (behavioral as well as academic) that may serve as indicators that his/her child may be gifted.

 

7. Action Items and Assignments:
   A number of actions were suggested by attendees. They include:

a)     PTSA contacting UWSP Network for Gifted Education and WATG about jointly sponsoring one or more seminars. Topics may include:

                                                              i.      Best practices for identifying gifted and talented students at various ability levels and ages

                                                            ii.      Pros and cons of various program models designed to meet the needs of gifted and talented students
Bill Hettler responsible.

b)     Contacting the administration regarding the task force that will be created. Would like the following questions answered:

                                                              i.      How will members be chosen?

                                                            ii.      How will the chair be chosen/appointed?

                                                          iii.      How likely is it that the committee’s recommendations will be implemented?

1.      St. Thomas report recommendations not implemented

2.      GT Advisory committee recommendations not implemented

3.      CLSA recommendation to the Board not even considered, Board adopted another motion that “came from the floor”

                                                           iv.      The letter from Karen Halverson dated March 12, 2004 to NOVA parents described the committee make-up and did not include “outside expert”. Will they be included on the committee? If so how will the “expert(s)” be chosen?

Attendees felt the following individuals should be represented on the task force:

a.      NOVA Teacher

b.      Jean Hayden

c.      An expert or experts in G/T programming

d.      Parents of current NOVA students

e.      Parents of current Pull-out students

f.        Parents of student who experienced both pull-out and NOVA

g.      Parents of former NOVA students

h.      Parents of former Pull-out students

i.        Current and former NOVA students

j.         Current and former Pull-out students

k.      Some attendees felt no administration or board members should be involved, others thought since they “hold the power” they should be.

l.         Some attendees would like to see “regular” teachers included (they will have to make modifications in their classrooms)

Ginny Carlton responsible for drafting a letter that will be reviewed by all attendees via email prior to its submission.

 

Would like to see more than “A” (NOVA) and “B” (Pull-out) options considered

1.      3 week rotation described above

2.      half time program in maximum number of schools

3.      “open room”—all classes within a school have math at the same time so kids can move up or down as needed (placement based on skill level not grade level)

 

b)     Discuss with Carl Coffman and Dr. Schuler

a.      Keeping NOVA program means not reconfiguring multi-aged classroom to accommodate more ages. Messes up two-year rotation of curriculum. Therefore, not harmless to students.

b.      Is there a reason why we cannot wait for a month or two to make changes to the NOVA program for next year? The near future may lead to a different political climate. Waiting may ultimately save administrative time and parental concern.

c.       There is a need for both programs in any district because they service different types of learners with a variety of needs.

Ginny Carlton and Kari Prokop responsible.

 

c)      The chairs acknowledged people may still be feeling hurt, angry and/or frustrated and suggested individuals privately convey these feelings to respective “supervisors” (Dr. Schuler and President O’Meara).  Attendees were encouraged to avoid inflammatory language.

Attendees identified the following negative consequences of the action that was recently taken:

a.      Broke/damaged trust bond and attempts at communication (Ironically Chris Scott had questioned the G/T advisory committee meeting attendees about their level of trust.)

b.      Discounted the value of the work of the CLSA committee

c.      May result in it being more difficult to get people willing to serve on future committees-if they feel committee recommendations will not even be brought forward as motions to the full board

d.      While the action may have been legal, attendees questioned whether it was ethical

e.      May have implications if and when a referendum is introduced

f.        Reinforced some individuals’ perceptions that phasing out NOVA was a predetermined outcome

g.      Reinforced some individuals’ perceptions that Karen Halverson and Chris Scott had been working cooperatively and without others involvement to achieve a predetermined outcome

d)     Contact Board regarding precisely when during the March 8, 2004 meeting the Board approved the .4 FTE moving of Mrs. Arrowwood from NOVA to GT Pull-Out as described in the March 12^th letter from Karen Halverson to NOVA parents

8. Elect a spokes person. Group took no action
9. Set date for future meeting Group took no action
10. Other:

a)     Attendee reminded other attendees to not solely focus on what is happening at the elementary level.

b)     Need to push for continuous evaluation regarding placement (placement in NOVA/pull-out may need to change during child’s elementary years)

c)      Need to educate Board and principals regarding: cluster grouping, characteristics of gifted vs. good students

11. Adjourn at 8:50 PM

NOTE:  April 5^th is the next CLSA meeting. 6:00pm at the Bliss Center 

Additional Questions Raised Based on Meeting Discussions:

1. Who decides whether a child is served by their grade level classroom teacher, sent to a higher grade level classroom, or served by Jean? A lot of recent discussion focused on the criteria for NOVA, but what are the criteria for determining which type of service the other children receive?

2. Apparently Jean does not work with any students at Jefferson. Why not?

3. Why can’t the 3 week pull-out model be used?  Who decided this and when?

4. When Jean is working with students, are there times when she is working with less than a one to seven ratio? Since she is working with about 60 kids in 10 different schools, assume this is likely to be the case.