School Climate Committee Meeting Minutes
TO: Phil Brier, David
Buzzi, Sue Chickering, Jean
Dufresne, Emily Graham, Steven Grindle,
Dennis Hill, Carol Kelley, Louise Landry, Doug LaPoint,
Amy Lester, Connie Lowe, Beth McKinstry, Heather
O’Dell-Shipe, Janet Shadroui,
Barb Strong, Alicia Tosi
FROM: Jody Emerson
DATE:
CC: Cindy Donlon, Jeff Maher
Request made by C. Donlon to discuss TA – decided to have an additional meeting May 1st for that purpose.
Reminder of previous assignments:
Ä CD: Follow-up with middle school on attendance
Ä CD/JM: Bring list of usable spaces for ISS program
Ä DH/TS: Create tentative attendance suggestions
Ä Full Committee: Read and provide feedback to “Building wide Discipline Philosophy”
JM/CD: The two rooms that are available as possible In-School Suspension rooms are C-2 and C-6. C-2 is larger, air conditioned and C-6 is small and stuffy. Therefore C-2 makes sense as the appropriate place for ISS. The equipment that is currently there can be stored in AV and carrels can be installed for ISS.
JM: We can outfit the room
CD: The real problem is funding the individual – can the person be a paraprofessional & behavior interventionist?
JM: Federal Grant $ for prevention can be used for that depending on the individual hired. The suggestion of using S. Bergeron is possible with Grant $.
CD: Middle school attendance: Prevention approach with grant funding. They can’t throw kids out and by the time they get to Spaulding it is a well developed habit – missing school.
TS: ARB – sometimes medical, sometimes parents just don’t care, a small % is transportation.
*Attendance handout & discussion (see attached)
TS: 30% of our time is spent on clerical issues with attendance.
JM: 7 years ago the switch was made from Teacher attendance to Administrative attendance based on concerns about standards based testing and attendance
JE: Question teacher response? Would ARB still exist?
DH: Cost per/hour of attendance – additional clerical support is needed OR it must return to teachers
TS: Backward approach, indirect and punitive, serving principal’s detention for attendance issues that occurred over a week ago.
DH: Many students skip teacher detention to go to PD.
JM: Paperwork shift more than anything, teachers more accountability.
DB: Magic 2 days in old system to explain, make up, etc.
SC: Computerized attendance
CD: That’s in the plans but not definite in time
DH: ARB dealing with family re: why kids aren’t successful in school, rarely remove students, valuable information. ARB – throw out step or intervention?
CD: Excused and unexcused absence complication
DB: How will new system impact?
DL: What do other schools do? Could take faculty extra hour or more in attendance?? Difficult to keep track of.
TS: Mix of teacher and admin, need centralized accountability
JE: So what do you want from our committee?
TS: Discussion of what he thought job would be like, instead bogged down by paperwork.
DH: Call local schools re: attendance policies
TS: Checked online – logical/natural consequences prevailed, basic policy 10 days nationwide to drop. Attendance ownership back in hands of teacher
Meeting ended due to time, May 1st meeting planned for 7:40 am to discuss TA recommendations to scheduling committee only, Faculty will discuss Building Wide Discipline Plan at next faculty meeting May 9th, SCC will follow-up on May 22nd.