|
 | | | As we did at the February meeting on vision and values statements, the broader Cory Merrill Campus Coalition, which includes stakeholders from throughout the feeder pattern, will weigh in with their thoughts and votes using audience reponse pads, or "clickers," to seek consensus on a model. While 100% consensus--meaning that everyone is willing to live with a given decision and not undermine it--will be sought, at least 80% consensus must be reached for a proposal to go forward. This high threshold ensures that every voice matters, and that the eventual proposal has strong community support. | |
|
|
| | | DPS has been very consistent in its message of empowering the community to outline its ideal plan and present it with sound arguments in the School Improvement/Beacon proposal on October 1, 2008. While its technically true that DPS will make the final decision to approve or reject the proposal, they have made it very clear that their top priority is schools that are well supported by the community. | |
|
|
|
| | While predicting patterns of enrollment is always an imprecise science, two things can be said. Given current enrollment patterns, there would be room for all interested students from UPark, Ellis, Cory, and Steele. However, if the innovation process proves successful and demand increases, it is true that there are fewer spots per grade level in the ECE-12 models than the ECE-8 model, so it is possible that interest in the middle school spots could exceed capacity at some point. This would need to be handled by either expanding grade size to fill building capacity, a lottery system for all middle and high school applicants, or both. | |
|
|
| | | At the June 12 meeting, 3 basic models will be up for discussion: ECE-8 (with ECE-2 likely at Cory and 3-8 likely at Merrill); and 2 ECE-12 models (ECE-5 at Cory, 6-12 at Merrill; and ECE-8 at Merrill and 9-12 at Cory). The pros and cons of each can be reviewed on the June 12 tab of the site or by clicking here. | |
|
|
|
| | There are no discussions about losing a neighborhood school. Some concern has been expressed about what to do with rising enrollment patterns in the Cory neighborhood, and what will happen if the number of neighborhood students exceeds the school's capacity. There are also concerns expressed about how UPark, Steele, and Ellis students will be admitted into Merrill if the spots become reduced in an ECE-12 model. Since all the elementary schools--including Cory--are feeders to Merrill, it is in effect a neighborhood school equally to all four. Should demand outstrip availability of spots at Merrill, a mechanism would indeed need to be put in place to allocate the limited spots. While this exact mechanism has not been discussed or finalized, one can presume that each model carries with it a likely mechanism:
- ECE-8: since one of the strongest values expressed by supporters of this model is that it preserves space for all feeder pattern students, the presumptive mechanism for allocating limited spots would be either a wait list or lottery process at the 6th grade in the (unlikely) event that demand among all 4 feeder pattern schools outstripped availability.
- ECE-8, 9-12: since one of the strongest values expressed by supporters of this model is the seamless connecton of grades from ECE-8, the presumptive mechanism would be to give Cory students preference to the 6-12 spots with additional available spaces allocated to other feeder pattern students through a wait list or lottery.
- ECE-5, 6-12: since one of the strongest values expressed by supporters of this model is the preservation of the current structure to the greatest degree, the presumptive mechanism would be the current enrollment policy to Merrill, which technically includes a wait list and lottery mechanism, though that mechanism is currently not needed given the underenrollment.
All of these mechanisms would need to be clarified and refined to factor in both the principals of fair inclusion and balancing it with reducing class size as well. Its is possible that any lottery system could be weighted to help achieve the overall diversity sought on the campus. Part of the decisions on June 12 will help sketch out the principles the community would want to see employed when creating a plan for how to allocate limited spots should that prove to be the case.
| |
|
|
|
| | | None of the current configuration plans call for remodeling that could not be conducted over a summer. | |
|
|
| | | While DPS has given the CMC Coalition wide latitude in its applicaition, and encouraged "out of the box" thinking, it is also true that the Southeast region is among the likliest areas in DPS to attract families back into the district. Therefore, not fully utilizing the building space available in this area is not in the districts best interest, and therefore could potentially weaken the CMC grant application. | |
|
|
| | | We are working with DPS to get cost estimates as best we can for each model, and hope to have at least comparison numbers from other district remodels by June 12. Of the 3 proposals, the ECE-5, 6-12 model could have potentially no or very limited remodel costs which could likely be covered by the grant itself; the ECE-2, 3-8 proposal will incur moderate costs, potentially covered by the grant but possibly slightly higher; and the ECE-8, 9-12 model will likely incur the greatest costs, given remodels needed in both buildings. As a point of comparison, the estimates for adding more ECE classrooms to Cory run approximately $250,00, while adding them to Merrill would be $450,000. That money would not have to come from the SIG grant, but would come instead from bond funds, but it gives a relative point of comparison for what remodeling costs in general to raise and lower sinks and counters, redesign rooms, etc. Lastly, it should be noted that there have been successful schools of all levels started in all ranges of buildings, so there is no "absolute" remodeling cost in any scenario--only costs associated with the outcomes the community says are important to the success of the school. DPS will make the final decision, of course, and must work within budget constraints, but has expressed a willingness to explore all options to make this work. | |
|
|
|
| | | The planning process is designed to reach the broadest stakeholder group possible, including staff, parents, DPS personnel, neighborhood groups, businesses, and community partners. While many of the most active participants come from Cory and Merrill specifically, we have had interest and engagement from the full feeder pattern (University Park, Steele, and Ellis as well as South High School) and from the surrounding neighborhoods. | |
|
|
| |
- The Coordinating Committee is a smaller subset of the CMC Coalition made up of members who reflect the broader Coalition. There are 24 members: 4 Administrators from Cory and Merrill (the principal and an administrator from both schools); 4 teachers from Cory; 4 teachers from Merrill; 4 parents from Cory; 2 parents from Merrill; 4 members from the feeder pattern schools (1 representative each from University Park, Steele, Ellis and South); and 2 community representatives. In addition, various experts from DPS will join us throughout the process to inform our work.
- The role of the Coordinating Committee is to provide coordination for the Coalition as it moves through the planning process, and to take the decisions of the broader Coalition and refine them into the details of the full proposal. It helps plan and organize the process, including:
- Developing agendas for Coalition meetings
- Determining information needs of stakeholders and coordinating the work of experts
- Overseeing the recording and communication of information and agreements made by the Coalition
- Maintaining regular communication with stakeholders within the Coalition
- Monitoring the "buzz" surrounding the process, incorporating feedback effectively, and making adjustments to the process as needed
- Interpreting the decisions of the Coalition as they apply to the grant proposal process
- Signing off on the final draft of the proposal
- While the Coordinating Committee will need to make important decisions in this process to interpret and narrow the focus of the Coalition's vision and values, it is important to note that the broad outlines of the proposal will need to be determined by the broader coalition to ensure their full buy in.
| |
|
|