Meeting Minutes of S.I.T. Workshops (April 11th - May 9th, 2013)

414 views
318 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
414
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
71
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Meeting Minutes of S.I.T. Workshops (April 11th - May 9th, 2013)

  1. 1.            APENDIX  B    Meeting  Minutes  of  SIT  Workshops    April  11  –  May  9,  2013      
  2. 2. Meeting  Notes  Roosevelt  Education  Facilities  Subcommittee  Thursday,  April  11,  2013    Participants    Angela  Johnson  (former  Roosevelt  STAY  parent)  Jane  Batista,  alumni  (concerned  about  adequate  space  and  facilities  for  the  arts)  Maurice  Edwards,  alumni  (wants  to  see  science  education)  Mary  Fillardo,  Public  school  advocate  Don  Gregory,  Architect  Barbara  Haymer,  Roosevelt  STAY  Student  Kedeska  (dont  have  last  name),  GSA  Staff,  Education  Specifications    Chuck  Simmons,  alumni  Jerome  Patterson,  Current  employee  (LEAP  program,  special  ed  emphasis)  Cynthia  Prather,  alumni    Agenda  included  selecting  roles,  reviewing  the  education  specifications  document,  discussing  topics,  and  deciding  topics  to  be  discussed  during  the  next  meeting.    Role  Selection    Roles  were  agreed  as  follows:    Moderator:  Jerome  Patterson  Scribes:    Cynthia  Prather  and  Mary  Fillardo  as  backup  Liaison:    Chuck  Simmons  Role?:    Maurice  Edwards    Reviewing  the  Education  Specifications  Document    Subcommittee  members  received  the  contents  page  of  the  Education  Specifications.  the  contents  page  included  Introduction,  Proposed  Capacity,  Overview  of  Planning  Concepts,  Summary  of  Space  Requirements,  Academic  Requirements,  Special  Education  Space  Requirements,  Media  Center  Space  Requirements,  Visual  Arts  Space  Requirements,  Performing  Arts  Space  Requirements,  ROTC  Space  Requirements,  Family  Support  Center,  Physical  Education  Requirements,  Administration  Space  Requirements,  Student  Dining  Space  Requirements,  STAY  Space  Requirements,  and  Maintenance  and  Custodial  Space  Requirements.    Since  there  were  not  copies  of  the  entire  document  available,  subcommittee  members  were  asked  to  download  and  review  the  entire  document  before  the  next  meeting.          M.  Fillardo,  who  already  had  a  copy  of  the  document  and  had  reviewed  it  carefully,  expressed  concern  about  the  lack  of  specifics  in  the  overall  plan.    She  distributed  questions  that  she  had  concerning  various  aspects  of  the  plan  (see  Attachment  A).    For  example,  she  was  concerned  about  how  the  special  education  spaces  could  be  designed  without  knowing  what  the  autusim  program  is  and  what  is  done.    She  distributed  an  education  specifications  document  from  School  Without  Walls  as  a  sample  (See  Attachment  b).    There  was  not  time  to  review  either  of  those  documents.    
  3. 3. C.  Prather  expressed  a  need  to  allocate  a  certain  amount  of  time  for  each  topic  on  the  Table  of  Contents  in  order  to  discuss  all  of  the  topics.    Don  Gregory  suggested  that  the  subcommittee  discuss  the  ones  for  which  there  was  little  discussion  and  then  discuss  the  others.    The  group  decided  to  discuss  special  education  as  the  first  topic.    Special  Education    Ideas  that  were  shared  are  as  follows:    1/3  of  the  schools  current  population  is  special  education  the  schools  goal  is  to  diminish  the  labelling  and  separation  of  special  ed  and  support  OT  and  PT  would  like  to  see  some  open  spaces  with  breakout  areas  generally  would  like  to  remove  the  stigma  of  separation  between  special  ed  and  non  special  ed  students  do  not  want  a  separate  wing  for  special  ed  need  areas  where  teachers  can  collaborate  RISE  children  go  to  art,  music,  and  gym  special  ed  and  non-­‐special  ed  eat  lunch  together  special  ed  students  need  access  to  various  school  amenities  the  school  also  will  need  some  self-­‐contained  classrooms  for  low  functioning  special  ed  students  some  quiet  spaces  will  be  needed    Kedaska  from  GSA  indicated  that  the  specifications  plan  does  address  some  of  the  issues.    P.  9  supports  concepts  of  inclusion  and  integrated  programming.      Starting  on  p.  62,    there  is  information  about  spaces,  flooring,  class  size,  etc.    Individuals  can  get  drafts  of  the  document  on  internet.    Subcommittee  members  should  review  and  be  prepared  to  discuss  next  week  what  they  think  needs  to  be  changed      Discussion  Topic  for  Next  Week    Arts  Education    Prepared  by  Cynthia  Prather,  Scribe        
  4. 4. Meeting  Notes1  Roosevelt  Education  Facilities  Subcommittee  Thursday,  April  18,  2013    Participants    Jane  Batista  (alumni),  Maurice  Edwards  (alumni),  Mary  Filardo  (Public  school  advocate),  Don  Gregory,  Architect,  Kidest  Albaari,  (educational  facility  planning  consultant  to  DGS)  ,  Chuck  Simmons  (alumni),  Jerome  Patterson  (current  employee,  LEAP  program,  special  ed  emphasis),  Cynthia  Prather  (alumni),  Ron  Hampton  (RHS  staff),  others    Agenda    Discussion  topics  included  Special  Education,  Arts,  and  Academics.    Time  for  the  meeting  is  6:00  -­‐  8:00  pm    • Ms.  Eichelberger  passed  out  notes  that  the  Roosevelt  staff  prepared  describing  the  educational  program     and  curriculum  at  Roosevelt,  to  be  included  in  the  educational  specification  document  to  guide  the  architects.    • Mary  Filardo  passed  out  the  table  of  contents  of  an  educational  specification  to  use  as  a  model  for  input  into     the  draft  educational  specifications  for  Roosevelt.    • Cynthia  Prather  provided  copies  of  the  notes  from  the  April  11th,  2013  SIT  meeting,  educational  specifications     committee.    Special  Education    The  group  continued  the  conversation  started  last  week.    In  response  to  a  concern  that  there  is  a  lot  of  emphasis  on  meeting  the  needs  of  special  ed  students,  Mr.  Patterson  commented  that  even  general  education  students  benefit  from  accommodations  for  disabled  children.    Facilities  for  the  Arts    Visual  Arts    Jane  Batista  presented  her  concerns  for  the  visual  arts  facilities.    The  presentation  and  discussion  surfaced  the  following  ideas:      • art  teachers  should  belong  to  a  professional  organization  • teachers  should  be  involved  in  getting  the  room  up  • room  should  have  large  sink  and  natural  light  (not  a  ground  floor  room)  • committee  should  visit  schools  that  have  been  renovated  (visits  can  be  actual  and/or     virtual     tour,  i.e.,  on     line,  as  suggested  by  Kidest  Albaari).    Committee  said  that  virtual  tours  should  be  in  addition  to  actual     visits.  • seating  tables  with  chairs  (as  opposed  to  stools,  where  they  have  no  back  support)  • video  equipment  • 3D/2D                                                                                                                            1Note that Cynthia Prather arrived at 6:30 pm.
  5. 5. • doesnt  have  to  have  access  to  the  outside,  since  the  class  could  go  outside  even  from  an  upper  level  floor,     when  needed  • space  for  ceramics  • kiln,  water,  plumbing,  ventilation,  tile  flooring,  stainless  steel?  • storage  -­‐  store  room  • place  to  dry  and  display  art    Other  issues/comments  included:    Is  one  art  room  for  800  students  enough?    Kidest  responded  that  this  is  the  recommended  amount  for  a  student  body  of  this  size  where  each  student  is  only  required  to  take  one  9-­‐week  art  course.        The  group  had  a  long  discussion  about  art  space  for  disabled  children.    Emotionally  disturbed,  autistic  children  can  benefit  from  art  therapy.    Art  is  a  great  way  to  involve  special  ed  students,  and  some  are  great  artists.    The  school  might  need  a  second  room  for  severely  handicapped  children  -­‐-­‐  a  room  with  plenty  of  space  where  children  can  get  messy.    GSA  commented  that  there  are  already  other  special  education  resource  rooms  in  the  plan  where  sinks  could  be  added.    These  could  be  multi-­‐functional  spaces.    One  commented  on  rooms  in  other  schools  (e.g.,  CSAC  and  Capitol  CARE),  where  they  have  motion-­‐sensitive  walls,  interactive  boards,  and  other  sensory  stimulants.    Maybe  the  OT/PT  classroom  could  be  enlarged.    GSA  will  consider  these  ideas.    Performing  Arts    The  draft  specifications  for  the  performing  arts  space  requirements  include  the  auditorium,  1  instructional  room,  1  choir  room,  1  storage  space  for  instruments,  and  4  individual,  sound-­‐proof  practice  rooms.        Mr.  Dickerson,  Roosevelts  current  music  teacher,  presented  his  vision  for  the  music  space,  which  is  based  on  the  current  program  and  his  plans  for  the  future.    His  program  now  includes  general  music,  beginning  band,  advance  band/jazz  band,  and  various  after-­‐school  activities:    auxiliary  band,  drum  line,  flag  girls,  majorettes,  and  dancers.    I  also  heard  concert  band/orchestra,  big  band,  interim  band,  jazz  band?  He  estimated  that  there  were  50/60  in  the  marching  band  before  homecoming.    He  noted  that  DCPS  now  has  no  funding  for  elementary  or  middle  school  music,  so  many  of  his  students  are  starting  at  the  beginning.        Dickerson  stated  that  he  was  told  to  ask  for  the  world  so  he  did.    His  wish  list  included  the  following:      • the  auditorium,    • band/orchestra  practice  room  (now  sized  for  60,  but  he  wants  it  to  hold  100-­‐150  people  (about  60     musicians,  40  percussion,  and  auxiliary  groups).    (Dickerson  actually  wants  to  the  program  to  grow  to  200     members)    The  music  program  will  follow  the  4-­‐year  model,  with  9-­‐   12th  grade.    Dickerson  also  mentioned     that  Davey  Yarlboro  at  Duke  Ellington  suggested  that    students  who  dont  get  into  Ellington  might     consider  Roosevelt  as  a  fallback.    Eastern  High  School  has  that  kind  of  room  • percussion  ensemble  room,where  drums,  e.g.,  timpani,  snare  drums,  bass  drums,  etc,  could  be  stored  and     where  they  can  practice  • 4-­‐6  modules,  with  space  for  3  students,  or  marinda,  an  upright  piano,  and  a  set  of  drums  (60-­‐   80  ft  each)  • practice  studio,  with  dance  studio  next  to  it.  • stage  production,  lighting,  sound,  noise  control  • digital  studio,  where  students  can  learn  recording  and  production  • adaptive  technology  • small  theaters  where  children  can  perform  
  6. 6.  Planners  noted  that  the  current  plan  is  for  the  dance  studio  to  be  in  the  PE  wing.    Architect  Don  Gregory  asked  about  how  many  students  are  scheduled  for  the  advanced  band?    Dickerson  estimated  100-­‐150  for  this  current  year  and    hopes  to  grow  the  program  to  200  members.    He  needs  guidance,  human  capital,  facilities,  and  counseling  to  keep  all  of  these  components  running.    Gregory  wants  facilities  to  be  there  for  the  program  to  grow.    They  do  already  have  some  of  this  in  the  specifications.        Academics    Science    Alumni  Maurice  Edwards  would  like  to  see  modern  equipment,  interactive  boards  for  biology  and  space  for  biology,  chemistry,  physics,  and  biotechnology.    Kidest  noted  that    current  specification  call  for  3  wet  labs,  physics,  and  lab    Davia  Walker,  the  Academic  Pathways  Coordinator,  reported  that  the  science  team  is  the  newest  team  at  Roosevelt.    They  are  starting  at  "ground  0"  and  designing  based  on  the  Chancellors  goals  to  improve  student  achievement,  increase  the  graduation  rate,  help  struggling  students,  increase  parental  satisfaction,  and  increase  enrollment.    The  approach  is  project-­‐based  learning,  with  different  guideways  in  science,  beginning  at  9th  grade.    The  overall  mission  is  project-­‐based  learning,  with  about  15  minutes  of  lecture  and  lots  of  hands  on  activities.    She  agreed  to  send  a  powerpoint  of  her  presentation.    Each  teacher  needs  dual  certification  so    teachers  can  teach  biology  and  chemistry  for  example.    The  teams  proposed  schedule  for  developing  the  program  is  as  follows:    Years  1-­‐2     build  up  the  science  program,  including  get  students  access  to  higher  level             science  classes  at  Howard  University    Year  3     include  honors  courses  offered  for  each  science  Year  5     include  AP  course  for  each  science  course    Roosevelt  will  start  the  improvements    next  year.    Thus,  they  will  need  sufficient  lab  space  at  McFarland  while  Roosevelt  renovation  is  underway.    They  can  cover  the  content  without  the  labs,  however,  if  necessary.    Most  students  access  textbooks  electronically  now.    School  plans  to  use  digital  textbooks.    Science  and  English  are  the  two  most  expensive  sets  of  texts.        The  school  wants  all  parents  to  use  the  online  communication  hub,      Now  only  55%  of  parents  are  connected  to  the  school  online.    Want  to  make  sure  its  feasible  to  have  Roosevelt  is  a  Title  1  school,  so  some  funds  will  be  available.    They  hope  that  funds  can  go  to  electronic  and  computers.    Each  teacher  in  the  science  department  will  be  required  to  write  grants,  which  should  help  to  bring  funds  to  expand.      Last  piece:    partnerships  with  Howard  University  (for  AP  course  on  Howards  campus  in  Biology,  wants  it  to  ramp  up  in  3  years)  and  GW  (social  Studies  component)  Right  now  they  teach  French  and  Spanish,  Levels  1  and  2  Plan  is  to  partner  with  Howard  U  for  Levels  3  and  4  of  each  language.    Miscellaneous  Comments    • Would  like  display  spaces  • Classes  may  need  to  be  larger  
  7. 7.  Areas  for  Potential  Problems  with  Current  PE  Design    Athletics:    11,000  sq  ft  as  is.    Not  now  competition  size  Community  access  to  facilities  Weight  room  Day  care  center    Roosevelt  may  have  three  special  ed  autism  classes  next  year.    They  would  like  all  ot  roomsants  all  near  kitchen.    If  that  many,  the  school  will  need  a  rich  program.        Next  Steps    Open  meeting  next  week,  to  be  held  in  the  main  library,  6-­‐8  pm  Will  open  the  floor  for  questions.    1  hour  for  the  groups.    Discussion  should  include  implications  of  academic  requirements,  science  facilities,  and  media  rooms  for  facilities  and  also  the  PE  space.    The  plan  is  to  meet  weekly  until  this  is  done.Tthe  committee  wants  a  cohesive  draft  of  everything  by  May  10  (not  a  drop  dead  date,  but  a  deadline)    Week  of  May  13-­‐17  -­‐-­‐  want  to  organize  tours    -­‐-­‐  to  Wilson,  maybe  Eastern    Need  to  discuss  School  Safety  and  Security    Meeting  planners  noted  that  both  of  the  subcommittees  seem  to  be  discussing  similar  things.    We  might  consider  meeting  together.    Prepared  by  Cynthia  Prather,  Scribe                    
  8. 8. FUNDING  AND  PLANNING  FOR  ROOSEVELT      Ms.  Eichelberger  welcomed  the  group  and  asked  Ms.  Reilly  to  report  on  the  DC  Council  hearings  earlier  in  the  day.    Ms.  Reilly  testified  for  Roosevelt  among  other  high  schools,  explaining  that  the  school’s  modernization  is  in  step  with  the  Master  Facilities  Plan,  guidelines  and  principles  recently  released  by  the  office  of  the  Deputy  Mayor  for  Education.    Roosevelt  is  in  Cluster  18,  which  has  been  identified  as  one  of  those  most  in  need  of  more  and  better  school  facilities.    The  MFP  further  prioritizes  facilities  at  the  middle  school  level  which  would  be  in  keeping  with  re-­‐opening  and  modernizing  MacFarland.      She  urged  people  to  contact  council  members,  especially  Ms.  Bowser,  Mr.  Catania,  and  Mr.  Barry  as  well  as  Chancellor  Henderson.            At  the  hearing,  council  member  Barry  referred  to  the  International  High  School,  a  proposed  consortium  of  four  dual-­‐language  charters  as  being  in  discussion  for  location  at  Roosevelt.      Evidently  these  charter  supporters  have  approached  the  Chancellor  as  well.    They  are  elementary  schools  searching  for  a  middle  school  and  high  school  continuity  for  their  programs  and  they  would  like  to  move  forward  very  soon  as  they  are  limited  at  5th  grade  currently.          Ms.  Bowser  is  understood  to  be  in  favor  of  restoring  Roosevelt’s  original  funding;  Coolidge  High  School  has  had  funding  restored;  Garrison  Elementary  and  the  Montessori  Elementary  at  Logan  have  been  moved  up  on  the  facilities  schedule  with  funding  increased.    Mr.  Hampton  will  make  sure  the  Roosevelt  PTA  is  aware  of  the  situation.    Roosevelt  could  use  support  from  the  feeder  schools:  Barnard  Elementary  and  Truesdell  and  West  PS-­‐8th  grade  schools.    A  draft  of  the  revised  justification  and  demographic  section  for  the  educational  specification  was  handed  out.      This  had  been  prepared  by  the  21st  Century  School  Fund.    It  outlined  how  Roosevelt’s  feeder  schools  were  not  nearly  sufficient  to  build  enrollment  without  a  healthy  middle  school  at  MacFarland  as  the  Truesdell    and  West  PS-­‐8  schools  only  had  about  50-­‐60  students  in  8th  grade  between  them.        With  MacFarland  closing,  Ward  4  now  has  no  DCPS  middle  schools  but  it  has  a  rapidly  growing  school  population  at  the  early  childhood  levels.      Consequently  the  document  proposed  the  re-­‐opening  of  MacFarland  as  well  as  expansion  of  Roosevelt’s  program  capacity.    Discussion  continued  with  some  expressing  concern  that  Roosevelt’s  modernization  not  be  confused  with  any  move  to  re-­‐open  MacFarland  -­‐  -­‐  they  thought  that  focusing  on  strengthening  Roosevelt’s  program  would  be  the  best  strategy.    They  thought  discussion  of  re-­‐opening  of  MacFarland  would  best  wait  until  DCPS  goes  into  discussion  of  feeder  patterns.      Others  were  not  opposed  to  having  another  school  take  the  place  of  the  co-­‐location  with  Hospitality  but  not  if  the  idea  were  to  supplant  Roosevelt  itself  rather  than  merely  sharing  space.      People  who  are  interested  in  coordinating  discussions  with  the  council  should  contact  Ms.  Reilly.      The  educational  specification  group  and  the  facilities  group  then  divided  to  discuss  department  areas  in  depth  with  the  former  taking  CTE  programs,  foreign  language  programs,  and  ELL  and  the  latter  Jr.  ROTC,  Security  and  safety,  and  core  classrooms.      REPORT  OUT  FROM  THE  FACILITIES  DISCUSSION  GROUP  Mr.  Edwards  reported  that  Jr.  ROTC  wanted  to  keep  the  drill  area  in  the  armory  so  there  is  a  large  open  space  available  -­‐  -­‐  ROTC  functions  need  to  be  in  the  same  area  rather  than  scattered  through  the  building.      The  weight  room  should  move  from  the  armory  back  to  the  gym  area  as  should  fitness.        
  9. 9. Elevators  -­‐  There  is  need  for  at  least  one  large  freight-­‐type  elevator  in  addition  to  a  second  elevator  to  get  people  up  to  the  fourth  floor;  elevator  access  to  the  pool  is  another  necessity.    Nurse  and  Health  Suite  –  This  area  needs  further  clarification.    The  nurse  was  concerned  that  a  reception  area  be  available  and  visible  from  the  health  office.        Security  -­‐  Front  door  access  is  required;  metal  detectors  built  into  the  door  frames  seems  appropriate  and  preferable  than  a  scanning  x-­‐ray  machine.    Security  officers  in  the  lobby  could  want  and  monitor  any  people  who  might  set  off  an  alarm.    The  intrusion  of  security  should  be  minimized.    Cameras  should  be  utilized  well  and  possibly  a  turn-­‐style  as  well.    Attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  eliminating  “dead”  spaces.    Two  separate  entrances  are  needed:  one  for  students  and  one  for  visitors  to  avoid  log-­‐jams  at  the  main  door.    Core  Academic  Classrooms  –  In  addition  to  a  full  complement  of  required  academic  courses  students  should  have  art,  music,  athletics  and  other  electives  available.    There  seem  to  be  only  four  classrooms  available  for  ELL  but  what  is  the  projection  of  students  who  will  need  ELL?    Cubicles  for  individual  study  (learning  pods)  might  be  considered;  reading  labs  for  9th  graders  may  be  good  to  have.    Vocational  programs  such  as  drafting,  electronics,  computer  IT  training.      Career  and  College  Pathway  -­‐  Either  Ms.  Eichelberger  or  Mr.  Flynn  will  make  a  presentation  on  this  very  robust  and  important  program  at  the  next  meeting.    REPORT  OUT  FROM  THE  EDUCATIONAL  PROGRAM  GROUP    CTE  –  The  group  recommended  that  Roosevelt  retain  and  strengthen  the  Culinary  Arts  program  as  well  as  Business  and  Finance.    They  asked  that  the  current  space  allowed  for  Culinary,  with  the  Chef’s  workroom/library  and  serving  area  be  compared  to  what  is  proposed  to  ensure  that  there    is  enough  space  available;  bringing  in  daylight  would  be  a  huge  plus  here.    Business  and  Finance  (and  entrepreneurship)  might  be  supported  with  some  project  space  designed  with  workspace,  storage,  possibly  a  sink  and  workstations  for  students.        Since  STAY  is  expected  to  continue  with  barbering  and  cosmetology  in  the  evenings,  the  idea  was  to  allow  Roosevelt  students  to  use  the  labs  during  the  day,  making  it  possible  for  them  to  finish  certification  with  only  one  or  two  more  classes  after  graduation  from  Roosevelt.          Roosevelt  might  consider  eliminating  Hospitality  as  not  sustainable.    Hospitality  had  been  dropped  because  there  was  not  enough  interest  in  it  and  the  feeling  was  that  the  hotel  industry  preferred  to  specifically  train  employees  on  their  own  systems  and  procedures.      However,  DCPS  central  office  has  indicated  the  possibility  of  a  substantial  hospitality  partnership  with  Marriot  that  would  be  expected  to  involve  internships  for  students.      Roosevelt  would  not  want  to  give  up  electives,  but  determining  what  size  student  body  the  program  is  being  built  for  is  important  in  trading  off  CTE  for  the  possibility  of  more  varied  electives.    Cafeteria  and  Kitchen–  The  group  asked  that  special  attention  be  paid  to  acoustics  here  as  modernizations  at  Woodson  and  Wilson  have  resulted  in  cafeterias  that  are  too  noisy  to  be  used  as  additional  meeting  space.    Re-­‐opening  the  cafeteria  to  natural  light  and  the  courtyard  was  considered  a  given.        
  10. 10. Kitchen  space  in  the  ed  spec  calls  for  400  square  feet  whereas  the  current  space  is  very  much  larger  and  prepares  meals  for  the  surrounding  elementary  and  PS-­‐8  schools.    This  is  definitely  a  production  kitchen,  cooking  a  large  number  of  meals  from  scratch.    Whether  that  is  planned  to  continue  in  the  future  is  something  that  has  to  be  verified  as  well  as  how  that  function  will  be  carried  on  during  Roosevelt’s  construction.    Foreign  Language  -­‐  It  was  not  clear  whether  the  four  classrooms  designated  for  foreign  were  also  those  provided  for  the  ELL  classes.    If  students  were  to  be  able  to  take  four  years  of  world  language,  or  more  languages  beyond  Spanish  and  French,  as  a  more  ambitious  program  would  expect,  then  more  classrooms  would  be  required.    Core  Classrooms  –  Classrooms  may  be  considered  at  several  different  sizes  including  the  possibility  of  having  some  like  the  new  classrooms  at  Woodson  which  have  a  retractable  wall  making  it  possible  to  sometimes  use  the  space  as  one  very  large  classroom.        Special  Education  –  Both  a  quiet  room  and  a  sensory  room  would  be  required.      NEXT  STEPS    The  SIT  is  expected  to  meet  again  next  Thursday,  May  9  at  6:00  to  finalize  recommendations  for  the  education  specification.      In  addition  to  information  on  the  College  and  Career  Pathway,  it  would  be  good  to  cover  the  auditorium,  the  day  care  center  and  the  family  support  center.        Ms.  Eichelberger  will  request  a  copy  of  the  SIT  participant  list  from  Mr.  Pressley  as  the  group  needs  to  move  quickly  and  share  draft  documents  before  the  next  formal  meeting.    People  did  not  object  to  the  idea  of  sharing  their  e-­‐mail  addresses  with  the  other  participants.    The  draft  of  the  proposed  justification  and  demographics  should  be  shared  electronically;  Ms.  Reilly  is  preparing  a  short  list  of  recommendations  which  the  group  may  want  to  be  able  to  consider  before  the  next  meeting  as  well.      The  SIT  is  still  planning  a  site  visit  to  Wilson  sometime  the  week  of  May  13th  but  arrangements  have  not  been  finalized.                                  Participants    Kidest   Albaari   Ed  Spec  Contractor  for  DGS  Renard   Alexander   DCPS  -­‐  Office  of  Chief  Operating  Officer  Kamili   Anderson   State  Board  of  Ed,  Ward  4  David     Bennett   Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Jane     Bettistea   Alum  
  11. 11. Ray  Michael   Bridgewater   Assembly  of  Petworth    Kelly   Coble   DCPS  Kenneth,  Dr.       Dickerson   Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Maurice     Edwards   Alum  Tracy   Eichelberger   Roosevelt  Chief  of  Transformation  Robin   Gerber   Temple  Sinai  -­‐  WIN,  Wash.  Interfaith  Network  Christoffer     Graae   Cox  Graae  and  Spack,  Architects  Don     Gregory   Cox,  Graae  and  Spack,  Architects  Ron     Hampton   Roosevelt  FCR  center  Nancy     Huvendick   21CSF  Mike   Ivey   Neighbor,  Ward  4  Council  on  Education  Jalila     Miller   Roosevelt  Student  Cheryl   Miller2   DCPS,  Roosevelt  Parent    Jerome     Patterson   Roosevelt  Special  Ed  Dept.  Chair  Cynthia     Prather   Alum  Cathy     Reilly   SHAPPE  Chuck     Simmons   Alum  Millison     Toye   Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Kyle     Whitley   DGS  -­‐  DCPEP              
  12. 12. Ms.  Eichelberger  welcomed  the  group  and  thanked  them  for  their  participation.    There  were  questions  on  how  the  SIT  discussions  would  come  together  to  make  changes  to  the  Ed  Spec.    Ms.  Eichelberger  indicated  that  they  would  send  out  the  notes  compiled  by  the  faculty  on  the  educational  specification  as  well  as  the  materials  distributed  last  week  on  the  justification  and  demographic  information  and  the  section  provided  covering  the  STAY  program.    This  information  would  go  through  Kyle  Whitley,  project  manager  for  DGS,  to  Deanne  Newman  the  DGS  contractor  responsible  for  the  Education  Specification.    Her  point  of  contact  at  DCPS  would  be  Anthony  de  Guzman,  Chief  Operating  Officer.    Ms.  Newman  expected  to  revise  the  document  and  return  it  to  the  SIT  Team  in  two  weeks  to  be  available  in  advance  of  the  SIT  meeting  on  Thursday,  May  23rd.      (Note  that  this  meeting  date  has  been  changed  to  the  23rd  from  the  regular  last  Thursday  of  the  month.)    Mr.  Alexander  noted  that  he  had  shared  the  justification  and  demographic  statement  with  higher  administration  at  DCPS  with  its  proposed  increase  for  the  capacity  of  the  building.    They  removed  the  stipulation  that  certain  parts  of  the  building  would  be  demolished  and  other  parts  not  modernized.  This  will  give  the  architects  an  opportunity  to  design  to  the  revised  educational  specification.    Thus  the  expectation  expressed  by  the  group  that  the  square  footage  providing  for  Roosevelt’s  complex  and  ambitious  program  will  remain  flexible  until  the  architects  have  a  chance  to  work  with  the  more  complete,  revised  Ed  Spec  anticipated  later  in  May.    Mr.  Graae  of  Cox  Graae  and  Spack  indicated  that  the  architects  will  follow  through  with  their  due  diligence  on  Ed.  Spec.  changes;  they  have  not  been  directed  to  remove  any  portion  of  the  building.    The  1970’s  infill  and  the  windowless  addition  is  a  substantial  portion  of  the  building’s  square  footage  now.    The  concern  was  that  the  architects  not  be  hampered  in  their  determination  of  what  would  function  best  for  Roosevelt’s  current  complicated  program  requirements  and  allow  for  future  growth.    Ms.  Eichelberger  reminded  people  to  return  feed-­‐back  quickly  to  herself  or  to  the  21st  Century  School  Fund.    The  group  split  in  two  for  discussion  with  the  educational  program  group  to  cover  Day  Care  and  Family  Support  Space,  and  the  Media  Center,  and  with  the  facilities  group  to  cover  Career  and  College  Preparation,  and  the  Auditorium.    The  entire  group  toured  the  auditorium  before  coming  back  together  to  share  their  separate  discussions.  Discussion Group ReportsMs.  Prather  reported  first  on  discussion  of  the  Auditorium.    Community  access  was  very  important  as  it  is  now  used  for  meetings,  Black  History  Month  presentations  and  festivals  as  well  as  graduation  for  Roosevelt  and  the  nearby  middle  schools  and  elementary  schools.    They  were  concerned  that  the  phrase  “As  Is”  on  page  96  of  the  Ed  Spec  would  be  too  limiting.  They  would  like  it  to  be  available  to  theater  groups  for  performances  with  a  full  complement  of  up-­‐to-­‐date  sound  and  lighting  properties.    Retaining  as  much  as  possible  of  the  historic  fabric  of  the  space  was  important  including  the  lobby  and  ticket  booth.    It  was  not  clear  whether  an  orchestra  pit  space  is  available,  but  that  might  be  an  important  feature.    It  would  also  be  good  to  investigate  the  projection  booth  to  determine  if  it  could  be  used,  updating  in  some  way  its  original  purpose  or  put  to  a  different  purpose.  Acoustics  are  very  important.    The  original  wooden  seats  were  renovated  a  few  years  ago.        They  discussed  the  possibility  of  finding  another  space  in  the  building  for  a  college  lecture  hall  space  possibly  to  accommodate  distance  learning.      Similarly  they  discussed  finding  a  way  to  incorporate  a  black  box  type  theater  in  addition  to  the  auditorium  to  accommodate  smaller,  more  informal  performances.    
  13. 13.  Roosevelt  faculty  and  staff  still  have  a  vision  for  teaching  drama  and  dance  even  though  they  are  offered  currently  through  afterschool  programs  (by  the  LAYC  -­‐  Latin  American  Youth  Center).    Facilities  to  accommodate  dance  and  drama  might  better  be  located  near  each  other  rather  than  have  dance  as  part  of  athletics.    Ms.  Reilly  reported  the  discussion  about  the  Day  Care  and  Family  Support  space.      Eastern  High  School  might  provide  a  model.    A  parent  center  for  the  larger  school  requires  a  location  near  the  main  administration  so  parents  can  find  it  easily;  it  should  not  be  paired  with  the  Day  Care  as  that  necessarily  needs  to  have  its  own  separate  entrance  with  immediate  access  to  outdoor  play  space  which  isn’t  likely  possible  near  the  main  administration.        New  Heights  offers  services  to  students  who  are  pregnant  or  who  have  small  children  and  it  currently  requires  considerable  storage.    New  Heights  is  separate  from  the  Day  Care  Center  which  needs  sinks  and  a  kitchenette  in  addition  to  adult  and  child-­‐sized  toilets  and  enough  space  for  infants  and  toddlers  (up  to  three  years  old)  as  well  as  the  number  of  adults  required  for  infant  care.    Outdoor  play  space  should  be  ample  with  shade  and  water  available  -­‐  -­‐  it  needs  to  be  a  pleasant  place  but  secure  and  lockable.    Storage  for  the  day  care  is  very  important  with  requirements  for  storing  large  outside  play  equipment  and  space  to  house  the  strollers  that  children  may  arrive  in.        It  is  important  that  the  day  care  facility  be  built  so  that  it  can  be  licensed.  The  expectation  is  that  day  care  will  be  managed  by  an  outside  contractor.    The  group  briefly  discussed  the  need  to  determine  the  policy  around  who  has  access  to  day  care  services:  clearly  students  have  first  priority  but  the  question  was  whether  it  should  be  limited  to  students  or  whether  faculty  or  others  could  use  it  as  well.    STAY  students  would  also  want  to  use  the  facility,  possibly  later  in  the  day  and  possibly  for  older  school-­‐age  students.        The  Media  Center  discussion  focused  on  the  requirements  of  a  video  production  area;  was  the  800  square  foot  classroom  type  production  space  sufficient  also  for  editing  and  production  of  a  student  newspaper  as  well  as  video  production  on  site,  beyond  editing  extraneous  video  footage.    This  area  and  the  media  center  proper  require  secure  lockable  storage  especially  as  equipment  is  getting  smaller  and  more  easily  subject  to  theft.    The  media  center  needs  natural  light  and  good  acoustics  so  it  can  be  used  as  an  alternative  meeting  space  -­‐  -­‐  in  this  way  it  should  be  easily  accessible  to  the  public  after  hours.    Ms.  Newman  indicated  that  the  DCPS  central  office  library  specialist  would  provide  a  media  center  narrative  of  the  program  for  the  Ed  Spec.    People  asked  that  there  be  ample  space  for  people  and  books  in  the  media  center  as  several  new  school  libraries  had  proved  to  be  too  cramped.    Signage  so  that  it  can  be  used  for  a  community  meeting  space  was  also  noted.    The  group  recommended  that  the  Ed  Spec  incorporate  notes  from  the  ELL  faculty  about  their  program  which  is  substantial  but  did  not  seem  to  have  been  provided  for  specifically  in  the  current  Ed  Spec.  There  are  100  ELL  students,  five  dedicated  teachers  and  four  ELL  content  area  classrooms  in  this  program.    The  group  would  like  to  see  a  fuller  description  of  ELL.    Ms.  Bruno,  one  of  Roosevelt’s  ELL  teachers  asked  that  the  bilingual  counselor  be  located  in  the  area  near  ELL.    Ms.  Reilly  referred  to  a  short  summation  of  the  main  recommendations  from  the  SIT  team;  these  will  be  sent  to  everyone  electronically.    The  largest  issue  is  the  proposed  capacity  and  square  footage  of  the  modernized  school,  which  is  now  understood  to  be  open  to  increase  as  required  to  properly  encompass  the  enriched  program  and  increasing  enrollment  envisioned.      .    The  planning  concepts  also  included  the  
  14. 14. recommendation  to  re-­‐open  MacFarland  Middle  School  to  provide  a  direct  feeder  into  Roosevelt  that  can  sustain  the  larger  high  school.    Recapping,  some  of  the  additional  points  the  recommendations  included  were:      • Include  both  a  sensory  room  and  a  quiet  room  for  special  education  and  add  a  third  autism  classroom    • Expand  foreign  language  offerings  at  Roosevelt    • Fitness  center  should  accommodate  some  of  the  physical  therapy  space  for  special  education    • Career  and  Technical  Education  needs  to  be  clarified;  the  recommendation  is  that  Roosevelt  offer  Business  and  Finance  and  Culinary  Arts.    The  sense  was  that  people  wanted  vocations  represented  that  would  provide  students  with  high  level  skills  for  entre  into  21st  century  careers.    • There  is  a  strong  sentiment  that  there  should  be  two  art  rooms  and  two  art  teachers  with  storage  areas  for  the  STAY  program.    • Physical  education  requires  both  a  fitness  center  AND  a  separate  weight  room  that  is  equipped  specifically  to  provide  weight  training  for  student  athletes.    The  gymnasium  needs  more  spectator  space  and  two  full-­‐size  practice  courts  as  well  as  the  exhibition  space.    It  is  understood  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  expand  the  gym  but  practice  space  might  be  managed  separately.        Ms.  Eichelberger  asked  people  to  e-­‐mail  additions  to  the  recommendations  to  Ms.  Reilly.    Roosevelt’s  kitchen  currently  serves  as  the  production  kitchen  for  a  number  of  the  surrounding  elementary  and  PS-­‐8th  grade  schools.    Whether  it  will  continue  to  do  so  and  if  so,  how  many  meals  are  to  be  produced  daily  is  something  that  has  to  be  verified.    Plans  are  currently  predicated  on  the  idea  that  it  will  continue  to  be  a  production  kitchen.    Ms.  Newman  indicated  that  the  architects  would  employ  a  technical  consultant  who  will  work  with  DCPS  central  food  service.    Mr.  Alexander  will  bring  these  questions  to  the  central  office  and  try  to  have  someone  from  food  service  address  the  next  SIT  meeting.        Arrangements  had  not  yet  been  finalized  for  a  tour  of  Wilson  High  School,  a  recently  modernized  building  that  is  very  similar  to  Roosevelt;  that  re-­‐design  was  done  by  the  same  team  that  is  working  on  Roosevelt.    The  tour  will  require  about  90  minutes.    The  group’s  first  choice  for  a  tour  is  next  Thursday  at  6:00  pm  with  a  secondary  preference  being  next  Tuesday.    Ms.  Eichelberger  will  contact  people  when  the  time  and  day  have  been  secured  -­‐  -­‐  the  group  is  to  meet  at  Wilson’s  front  entrance.    Mr.  Patterson  thanked  the  SIT  committee  for  their  support  for  Roosevelt.    Participants:      Kidest  Albaari,   Ed  Spec  Contractor  for  DGS  Renard  Alexander,  DCPS  -­‐  Office  of  Chief  Operating  Officer  Jane  Bettistea,  Neighbor,  Alumni  Yolande  Bruno,  Roosevelt  Faculty,  ELL  Angie  Christophe,  Neighbor,  Ward  4  Council  on  Education  
  15. 15. Dori  B.  Cook,  Consultant  -­‐  Bibb  Cook  Group  Terry  DeCarbo,  DCPS  Instructional  Superintendent,  Cluster  11  (Sp.  Ed)      Tracy  Eichelberger,  Roosevelt  Chief  of  Transformation  Mary  Filardo,  21st  Century  School  Fund  Robin  Gerber,  Washington  Interfaith  Network  Chris  Graae,  Cox  Graae  and  Spack,  Architects  Donald    Gregory,  Cox  Graae  and  Spack,  Architects  Ron  Hampton,  Roosevelt  Family  Community  Resource  Center  Nancy  Huvendick,  21st  Century  School  Fund  Mike  Ivey,  Neighbor,  Ward  4  Council  on  Education  Larry  Juhans,  Roosevelt  PTSA  President  Haregewoin  Kefyalew,  St.  Miriams  Church,  14th  and  Buchanan  Cheryl  Miller,  DCPS,  Roosevelt  Parent    Deanna  Newman,  DGS  Contractor  Bernadine  Okoro,  Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Jerome    Patterson,  Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Cynthia  Prather,  Alumni  Cathy  Reilly,  SHAPPE  Jeff  Standish,  ANC  4C03  Commissioner  Millison  Toye,  Roosevelt  Faculty/Staff  Kyle  Whitley,  DCPEP,  Project  Manager,  DGS                  

×