PLACE: BOARD ROOM – ADMINISTRATION BUILDING …pausd-web.pausd.org/community/board/downloads/brd_packet/pkt... · 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA : DATE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER

12.18.07 Page 1

PLACE: BOARD ROOM – ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA DATE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007 TIME: 6:30 P.M. STUDY SESSION

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF EDUCATION

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

Most Board of Education meetings are cablecast live on cable services CHANNEL 28 and webcast live on

http://communitymediacenter.net/watch/schedules Board materials are available on the district web site at http://www.pausd.org/community/board/agenda.shtml

Community members wishing to address the Board are allotted THREE minutes per speaker. Should more

than 20 people wish to address any one topic, the Board may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker. Materials presented at the Board meeting will be copied and provided to Board members after the meeting.

Additional instructions are listed on the back page of this agenda.

I. OPENING A. Call to Order 6:30 p.m.

II. STUDY SESSION A. Recommendation for the High School Task Force Discussion 1 Staff will present and review the High School Task Force report to the Superintendent

for Board discussion.

III. ADJOURN

http://communitymediacenter.net/watch/schedules

http://www.pausd/community/board/agenda.shtml

1

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 1 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 12.18.07 TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent FROM: Scott Laurence, Associate Superintendent – Administrative Services SUBJECT: Recommendations from the High School Task Force BACKGROUND On August 29, 2006, the School Board discussed implementation of a High School Task Force (HSTF). On December 12, 2006, the School Board took action to fund the HSTF from the 2006-2007 District Block Grant. The HSTF was charged with reviewing enrollment projections, examining options to educate a growing population of students, and bringing forward recommendations to the Superintendent by the end of the 2007 calendar year. A project outline was presented to the Board on March 13, 2007, and a follow-up request to modify the charge statement was presented to the Board on September 11, 2007. The HSTF held its first meeting on May 16, 2007, and met weekly from September through November. Supporting information, including meeting agendas, minutes, survey results, and working documents, is attached. MEMBERSHIP

First Last Association Suzanne Attenborough Paly, PTSA Kris Brockmann Paly Teacher Burton Cohen PAUSD, Dir. Secondary Ed., HSTF

Facilitator Carmen Giedt PAUSD, Principal, Terman Kristina Gossard Gunn Teacher Joan Jacobus Gunn Parent/PTA Max Keeler Gunn Student Marion Krause Greendell Teacher, PAEA Scotty Laurence PAUSD, Assoc. Supt., Project Lead Corey Levens Gunn Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins Gunn Principal Jackie McEvoy Paly Principal Malati Murthy Paly, CSEA Rep. Sandra Pearson Paly Principal, Retired, HSTF

Facilitator Elaine Ray Parent Network Students of Color Martin Stone Paly, Parent/PTA Todd Summers Gunn Teacher Sandi Urabe Foothill Dean, Retired Ron Williamson Paly Teacher

2

REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL TASK FORCE The High School Task Force began its work at an exciting time in education. Planning for the projected growth in the District’s high school population over the next five to six years allowed us to consider a wide range of possibilities. One of our guiding principles has been to ensure that we maintain the strength and quality of our current academic and extracurricular programs while exploring new possibilities to meet the needs of all students as our school enrollment increases. The need to connect with and build relationships with each student has also been of paramount importance. While the Task Force is well aware of the excellent educational experience currently offered at both of our high schools, we would like to recommend to the Superintendent and the Board of Education that our high schools more closely reflect the high tech, entrepreneurial, creative, and innovative community in which we live. Technology is presenting opportunities to engage students in learning in ways that did not exist even five years ago. It has created the potential for students to participate in learning communities that extend far beyond the confines of a single high school campus. In preparing all of our students for global citizenship, the vision of the HSTF has been to create conditions that will encourage academic achievement, prepare students for college and careers, and foster teamwork, cooperation, and commitment to life-long learning. Thus, after many hours of fact-finding, discussion, and deliberation, the following are our unanimously agreed upon recommendations to the Superintendent on how to achieve these goals. CORE VALUES/ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE WORK OF THE HSTF

• Small size, intimacy, and personalization of education are central to the PAUSD community. These values are central to everything we do.

• Establishment of a third comprehensive high school is not an option at this time. • Both high schools will be supported equitably.

• Both high schools will be supported with resources sufficient to enable them to meet the desires, dreams, hopes, needs, and high expectations of all their stakeholders.

• Achievement gap reduction must be integrated into all resource planning discussions. • All new spaces created should be flexible in design and in use.

• Clear and open communication with all stakeholders is essential. It should take place at all stages in planning the facilities and programs needed to accommodate an expanding high school population.

• Our recommendations are based on fiscal responsibility and are reasonable for a five-year

implementation.

3

HIGH SCHOOL TASK FORCE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

a. The District should increase the capacity of Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools to accommodate 2,300 students each.

b. The District should spend money, time, and attention on developing small, intimate,

personalized learning options for students.

c. The District should create flexible learning spaces that lend themselves to diverse curricular and instructional systems.

d. The District should maximize the use of all current alternative educational programs,

expanding or establishing our own, if needed. IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Facilities –

a. Plan for additional teaching spaces, labs, and administration space, and bathroom and support facilities to accommodate 2,300 students in the next five years. Meet or exceed State standards in both number and quality of classrooms.

b. Design all new construction for flexible use. Strongly consider multi-story facilities. Open

space, which might also be used for playing fields, co-curricular, or extracurricular activities should be protected.

c. Implement flexible building design to accommodate new and emerging educational

technologies.

d. Provide new and flexible spaces to support creative programming and uses for both large and small student groups.

e. Implement “smart classroom” technologies and online learning centers including

video-conferencing capabilities.

f. Provide appropriate spaces for expanded extracurricular and co-curricular programs. Provide appropriate spaces for expanded intramural and club sports programs, making participation in physical fitness attractive to non-athletes.

g, Improve food services and availability. Make food service areas attractive as meeting

places for teachers, parents, and students.

h. Include traffic and parking mitigation in all plans. Ingress and egress from both campuses, and provision for parking and traffic circulation issues must be considered.

4

Staffing –

a. Increase adult contact and support. The need to connect with and build relationships with each student is of paramount importance and is a factor in improving student performance.

b. Increase staffing in all areas including, but not limited to, guidance and other counseling

services, classified, coaching, and administration. It is important to maintain current staffing ratios and examine all areas where growth affects student services. This includes District support services.

c. Provide circumstances whereby each student can establish a supportive relationship with

at least one adult staff member. In this regard, custodians, campus supervisors, and school secretaries can be as important as teachers, coaches, librarians, and principals.

d. Consider staggered start times for staff and students. Work with PAEA and CSEA to

develop voluntary pilot programs. e. Improve articulation and transition between middle and high schools. Educational Options for Students –

In order to achieve our core values of small size, intimacy, and personalization of education in a large high school environment, the Task Force proposes that PAUSD implement several, if not all, of the following educational options at one or both high schools. Implementation should be based on demand and available resources at each campus. It should be emphasized that not all of these options will be implemented at either or both sites.

a. Online learning

Online learning is now established as a very effective way to take classes. Students have control over the time, place, and pace of their learning. Online courses offer options that may not be available to students on their high school campuses.

b. Project-based learning

Project-based learning offers students the opportunity for interdisciplinary study and hands-on, practical application of their knowledge and skills. It makes school more interesting and more engaging because students understand the relevance of their studies. Teachers in such circumstances usually serve as coaches and resources for the students.

c. Independent study options

Independent study allows students to pursue work, attendance at community college, or other activities such as service learning while continuing to make progress toward graduation. It is an efficient and popular way for a student to earn make-up credits toward a high school diploma or to fill in gaps in a student’s transcript that result from having moved between schools. An independent study student typically meets with the supervising teacher once a week.

5

d. Late afternoon/evening courses These could be offered as a way to meet the needs of students who do not function well in the morning, but who are active and lively at night. This would also allow for a more effective use of existing infrastructure and reduce the need for additional facilities.

e. International Baccalaureate Program (IB)

The IB offers an alternative to AP courses. It is a demanding course of study, designed for highly motivated 16–19-year-olds, that prepares students for university level work. The IB takes an interdisciplinary approach to the attainment of knowledge and skills and emphasizes creativity, action, and service to others.

f. Teaming

Teaming creates situations where the same students participate in the same classes taught by a particular group of teachers. This allows teachers to get to know the students well, to share information about them, and to prepare and plan lessons together.

g. Career Pathways

Career Pathways identifies the courses students should take throughout high school to prepare for a particular career. The pathway may lead immediately to a degree program, a certificate program, or to paid employment after high school. Pathways provide a focus and direction that make learning more meaningful and relevant for students. Pathways also create small learning communities.

h. Extension of the school day by adding 0 and 8th periods

Early morning, late afternoon, or evening classes allow for a more effective use of existing infrastructure and reduce the need for additional facilities.

i. Staggered start times for students

Staggered start times would reduce traffic flow problems at both Gunn and Paly and also address the need for students to sleep more.

j. Off-campus course work

Students take classes at local community college, career and technical campuses, and/or other accredited programs. The District is encouraged to strengthen its ties with these institutions.

Alternative Education and Support Programs –

a. Coordinate all alternative education programs at the District level to better meet diverse student needs.

b. Conduct a comprehensive review and needs assessment of the student population in the

District, grades 7-12, so as to determine total potential demand for alternative programs, including but not limited to AVID, Career/Tech Options, community college options, Focus on Success, Independent Study, Middle College, Opportunity, Study Skills, Alta Vista, and Terra Bella. We should investigate other regional options.

6

c. Based on the comprehensive review and needs assessment and our belief that demand exceeds the current supply of available spaces in certain shared programs, the District should explore establishing our own programs.

NEXT STEPS The HSTF advises that this information and the resulting recommendations be shared and considered in depth in conjunction with the following three key District processes: • The bond election in Spring 2008 – Future construction planning should take into account

the need for flexible spaces at the high schools.

• The Strategic Planning session in Spring 2008 – Much of the discussion and the recommendations point to areas the high schools need to explore between now and 2020.

• The upcoming WASC process at Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools, running through

Spring 2009 – Future consideration needs to be given to curriculum and delivery systems. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A number of topics came up in discussions that did not fall within the direct charge of the HSTF. The HSTF recommends that the following items be examined at both site and District levels during the Strategic Planning and WASC processes: a Re-evaluation of graduation requirements b. More teacher-parent interaction surrounding academics, curriculum, and student work

c. School start times and student sleep needs d. Review of policy for accepting credits from non-PAUSD institutions

e. End fall semester before winter break making semesters of unequal length. Testing days should be discounted when considering semester lengths

f. Small specialty schools within the larger schools could be examined to determine their

viability if growth continues in a five to ten year time frame RECOMMENDATION This item is for discussion only. Attachments

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Information 11 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 03.13.07 TO: Board of Education FROM: Marilyn Cook, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services SUBJECT: Major Project: High School Task Force On August 29, 2006, the Board discussed implementation of a High School Task Force Major Project that was unfunded at that time. On December 12, 2006, the Board took action to set aside funds of up to $80,000 from the 2006-2007 District Block Grant for this major project. The Task Force is funded over a two-year time frame from spring semester this year through fall semester of next year. This was part of the First Interim Budget Report. On February 6, 2007, the Board approved the Superintendent’s recommendation for a High School Task Force major project for the 2007-08 school year. Since the High School Task Force has been approved and funded, staff is now bringing forward information as to how this project will be carried out. Details of this major project are provided in the attached document. RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only and requires no action. Attachment

Attachment 1

Palo Alto Unified School District

Major Project: Overview Statement

Project Name: High School Task Force

Division Responsible: Educational Services Last Updated: March 13, 2007

Project Manager(s): Burton Cohen, Director of Secondary Education

Sandra Pearson, Consultant

Departments Involved: Departments in Ed Services, Business Services, HR

Prepared by: Marilyn Cook

Project Summary

Project Overview

Board policy places an enrollment maximum at each of the District’s two comprehensive high schools of 1,950. This is the point at which science laboratories and other specialized facilities will reach capacity within the seven-period school day. Demographer forecasts show that this capacity of 3,900 high school students will possibly be reached by or before the 2012-2013 school year. Recent increases in numbers at the freshman level indicate that Palo Alto may be a destination high school district and that additional facilities may be required before 2012. Consequently, the purpose of this project is to explore alternatives for high school students necessitated by increasing enrollment. This provides an opportunity to examine student needs and interests and to plan for programs designed to prepare students for the future in a vastly changing world.

Project Description

• A Task Force consisting of four parents (one from PTSA and one from SSC from each high school); one middle school principal; one elementary principal; one student from each high school; one representative from Foothill Middle College, Stanford University, the City of Palo Alto, PAEA, and CSEA; two teachers from each high school, and the two high school principals will be convened.

• Staff resources to the Task Force from the District will include Carol Zepecki (student services), David Hoshiwara (career tech education) Marie Scigliano (instructional technologies), Bill Garrison (assessment and accountability), Ron Smith (construction/facilities), and Kara Rosenberg (adult education).

• Sandra Pearson will facilitate the community input process. • Collection of data will include research data on model high school programs, local demographic projections,

survey of student needs and community interests, and other information decided as the process progresses.

Project Overview Last printed 3/8/2007; 1:52:30 PM

Attachment 1

Project Overview Statement – Template Version

Page 2 3/8/2007

• A review of facilities available to PAUSD, capacities, costs, possible reconfiguration or construction, alternatives with cost analysis will be conducted.

• The Task Force will review all materials and alternatives and will submit a report with alternatives considered and recommendations to the Superintendent by January 2008.

• Options to be explored include a third comprehensive high school; a small, specialized school program; and an expansion of the current sites.

Project Outcome

The project will result in a recommendation for potential innovative institutions, structures, or programs that will best serve the needs of high school students over the next twenty years. Program design will incorporate student needs so that enrollment in the program will be by choice rather than assignment. Options will be considered for expansion or construction of facilities that will accommodate the anticipated enrollment growth. Included in the data will be cost estimates, capacity figures, equipment and services needs. • Program Considerations

o Number of students to be served (size of program or school) o Staff required (expertise in specialty areas) o Site and district support staff needed o Technology/equipment/materials needed for start-up and continuing o Student and community interest and support

• Facilities Considerations

o PAUSD real property inventory o 20-year Master Plan educational specifications and technical standards o CHPS Standards and Comprehensive Energy Reduction Program o Assessment of current facilities and capacity expansion options o Financing options

Project Conditions

Project Assumptions and Risks

• Assumptions about the End Results o Any option considered will need to be an attractive choice to students and community o Program design will be flexible to meet future needs o Broad community support will be developed o The requirement to expand facilities presents the rare opportunity to design a forward-looking program o Any option will continue academic excellence and provide expanded opportunities for students o Facilities and funding will be affordable by the Palo Alto community

• Project Risks

o The District may not have the capacity to take on a project of this scope o A compelling and innovative program design may be unaffordable o Resistance to change could hinder implementation efforts o Location could be inconvenient or unattractive to students or parents o The community could be unwilling to support the project financially o The time frame may be too aggressive for a thorough study

Attachment 1


Page 3 3/8/2007

Primary Project Deliverables and Duration Estimates

Phase 1a – Research and Data Gathering (April – July 2007)

• Gather local demographic information April 2007

• Gather materials regarding current high school models

April - June 2007

• Conduct needs assessment/interest survey of students and community

Senior class – May 30, 2007 Next year’s classes – September 1-10, 2007

• Gather information on facilities/options/costs in PAUSD

April - September 2007

Phase 1b – Set Up Project Structure (April – May 2007)

• Establish Task Force and planning group April 2007

• Hire support staff May 2007

• Conduct orientation meeting May 2007

• Establish calendar of activities May 2007

Phase 2 – Examine Data, Research Materials, Options (August 20, 2007 – October 31, 2007)

• Task Force reviews information August – October 2007

• Visit identified model programs August – October 2007

• Provide for community input August – October 2007

Phase 3 – Develop Recommendations and Prepare Report of Findings (Nov. 1, 2007 – Jan. 2008)

• Develop recommendations November – December 2007

• Provide for community input November – December 2007

• Produce Report of Findings for Board discussion and action

December 18, 2007: Information January 8 & 22 } Recommendation to Board

• Roll into Facilities Master Plan January 15 & 29, 2008

Attachment 1


Page 4 3/8/2007

Planning Cost Estimates:

Project Cost Centers Cost Estimate Cost Totals

High School Principals • Per diem rate as resources

$10,000 $10,000

Consultant: (Sandra Pearson) • Facilitator

$25,000 $25,000

Educational Services • Project Manager (May 2007 – January 2008) • Support staff (clerical)

$15,000

$12,000

$27,000

Business Services • Facilities resource time

$10,000 $10,000

Research Activities and Materials • Materials/printing • Travel expenses

$2,000 $5,000

$7,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST

$79,000

$79,000

The Board allocated up to $80,000 for this project in their meeting of December 12, 2006.

Attachment 1

PAUSD: High School Task Force

May 16, 2007 Conference Room A, 6-9 p.m.

Agenda Meeting mission:

• to welcome task force members and receive the charge statement from the Superintendent

• to gather foundational information as a context for summer readings and fall 2007 work

• to be informed of the projected work plan and basic task force expectations Welcome Burton Cohen Charge Statement and Rationale for Time-line Mary Frances Callan 10 Introductions of Task Force members and District Staff Resources 15 Project Overview: Understanding the Demographics Marilyn Cook 40 Project Outcome, Conditions (Board Enclosure) Update on Facilities: 20 year plan Tom Hodges 40 Planning Group Update Sandra Pearson 30 Contact Information Responsibilities to Constituents Binder organization Work Plan Outline Reading Materials Public Comment Burton Cohen 15 How to Address the High School Task Force If you wish to address the HSTF, please fill out a speaker card and give it to one of the facilitators prior to the beginning of open forum. Please limit your remarks to a maximum of three minutes. If numerous individuals request to speak, the facilitator may limit the time allocated to each speaker, or the HSTF will be asked to vote to extend the meeting time. If you wish to address the HSTF in writing, you may email your remarks [email protected] or send a hard copy to High School Task Force Attn: Burton Cohen and Sandra Pearson, 25 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto, Ca. 94306. The HSTF agendas and meeting notes will be posted on the PAUSD website. Every effort will be made to schedule the open forum 30 minutes before the end of each meeting.

Attachment 2

mailto:[email protected]

HIGH SCHOOL TASK FORCE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 5/16/07

Complete tape recordings of High School Task Force meetings are available at 25 Churchill Avenue.

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m.

Members present:

Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Cory Levens, Gunn High School – Site Council Max Keillor, Gunn High School – Student Scott Laurence, Palo Alto High School – Principal Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Malati Merthy, CSEA – Palo Alto High School Marion Krause, PAEA – Greendell Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color

Alternates present: Suzanne Barbarasch, Jordan Middle School – Principal

Community Resources Present: Bill Fellman, City of Palo Alto – Mgr. Admin. Serv. Jean McCown, Stanford University – Dir., Community Relations John Schultz, Foothill College – Exec. Dir., Facilities/Ops/Constr. Mgt __________ Urabi (sp?)

PAUSD District Staff Resources Present: Bill Garrison, Dir., Testing and Assessment Tom Hodges, O’Connor Construction Kara Rosenberg, Principal, Adult Education Marie Scigliano, Dir., Student Serv. Ron Smith, Project Manager, Facilities Carol Zepecki, Dir., Student Support Serv.

Co-Facilitators Present: Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired

Charge Statement and Rationale for Timeline

Cohen and Pearson welcomed the High School Task Force (HSTF) members. Cohen said the purpose of the meeting was to understand the charge from the Board of Education and what tasks needed to be accomplished for the next meeting in September.

Approved: High School Task Force Meeting – May 16, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 3

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2007 Callan said the number of students had increased in the past 5 years. She said the AAAG (Attendance Area Advisory Group) had determined the need for this group. The AAAG would be presenting a recommendation to the Board in June that included accommodation of increased enrollment. The AAAG suggested this Task Force consider the following three options, then present recommendations in December. These recommendations would then to be incorporated into the 20-Year Facility Master Plan. Callan added that dollars for facilities did not come from the General Fund. She then listed the three options:

Option 1: Add a third comprehensive high school Option 2: Open a magnate school (such as biotech) Option 3: Increase capacity at existing campuses Half option: Collaborate with another entity to add to Cubberley

She said the HSTF charge was look at the above options, examining all the pros and cons, then develop recommendations to accommodate the additional 500-600 students expected to come to the high schools in the near future. The goal was that in December, this group could make a recommendation that would enhance PAUSD’s high school education, including what facilities would be needed. This would also need to integrate with the existing middle school programs. The reason for the tight timeline, was that the first chance for a potential bond election for construction funding was in June 2008, with the next chance not appearing for another 4 years. Callan then read the official charge statement: “The purpose of the Charge Statement is to clarify the work, the responsibilities, the authority, and the expected results of the PAUSD High School Task Force (HSTF). It was asked if the reconfiguration of the high schools (such as having one site host all 9th and 10th graders, and the other all 11th and 12th graders) could be considered. Callan said that it could. Cohen said the HSTF was responsible for giving the Superintendent a recommendation. She would then recommend to the Board.

Project Overview Cook said whatever the group recommended must be affordable to the district and the community, practical, and in the best interest of the students and parents. She then handed out a copy of Page 28 from an enrollment projection report furnished by Lapkoff and Gobalet Demographics. She said the district would reach capacity in the high schools, based on medium projections, in 2011. Cook said that over the past few years, the district had budgeted for enrollment growth halfway between Lapkoff and Gobalet’s medium and high projections. This year, the firm had increased projections, so now what is labeled as “medium” is what used to be the “high” projection.

Update on Facilities Hodges said the comprehensive 20-Year Facility Master Plan went to the Board on April 24, 2007, and was posted on the district’s website at www.pausd.org. This was meant to complete the facilities needs not fulfilled by the Building for Excellence program. This plan contained a $74 million placeholder to fund the results of the HSTF. The plan also contained detailed histories of each site including current conditions, site plans, and utility usage. This was followed by needs and costs. The plan also contained Lapkoff and Gobalet enrollment forecasts and a list of the lease agreements on all the district’s properties. Hodges then handed out a 3-page document entitled, “Conceptual Budgets for New School Facilities,” and


Attachment 3

http://www.pausd.org/

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2007 a site map of Cubberley. These reflected projected design and construction costs on proposed projects. He noted that all projections were in 2007 dollars. For Option 1, construction costs for each high school were about $4.4 million, plus soft costs of about $2.8 million. For Option 2, realistic capacity of Cubberley, should it become a high school again, would be about 1,400 students. The cost to renovate the campus was estimated at about $63 million. For Option 3, a specialty school with a 500-student capacity on 6 acres would cost about $20 million. Hodges then said the Master Plan was still being refined based on Board direction. Pearson said the district had been working closely with Foothill and the City of Palo Alto, because the Cubberley site was very complicated, and that the September 19th HSTF meeting would focus on this site.

Planning Group Update Pearson said the group needed to remain focused in order to meet the December deadline. She then briefly reviewed selected sections of the binder. Regarding the schedule of meetings, there would be no more meetings than were listed, unless subcommittees chose to meet outside of the full HSTF meetings. It was asked if possible site visits were included in the list. Pearson said they were not. She then said that regarding the fall work plan, plenty of time in November was needed to discuss options. October was meant to be a “working” month in small groups, and it was envisioned that student and parent survey results might require specialized discussions. For the September 5th meeting, norms would be set and the decision-making process would be discussed. On September 19th the focus would be on Cubberley. On October 3rd, the focus would be on survey results and analysis provided by Bill Garrison. Pearson said one thing the Board was very specific about was that they did not want the HSTF to redesign the existing schools. More materials would be available on the district’s website in the future, as would survey opportunities. Cohen added that this HSTF work was just the first phase in the process. Fellman asked what it cost the district per high school student. Callan said it was approximately $12,000 per K-12 student per year. She added that 85% of the district’s budget went to staffing expenses. Keillor suggested having college-style lecture halls in the high schools in order to accommodate larger groups of students. Krause asked where the group might start formulating an idea of what might make sense as far as another high school. Pearson said it was hoped this would come out through the survey. She added that there were groups of students whose needs were not currently being met. Callan said there was some information on the profiles of these students (such as those attending Terra Bella or Alta Vista), and this could be presented at a future HSTF meeting. Pearson suggested that anyone having profiles on groups of students share their information with the group. Ray asked if group members could request further information on topics that might affect a final decision. Laurence said large amounts of data were available and could be given to group members as needed. It was suggested that members contact Laurence at [email protected] to ask questions or request more information. Brockmann asked if surveys of students could include middle college and other alternative program students, as well as home school students. Jacobus asked for definitions of these programs. Cohen said Terra Bella was for a variety of students who were not flourishing in a


Attachment 3

mailto:[email protected]


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2007 comprehensive high school. Alta Vista Continuation High School was run by Mountain View-Los Altos for credit-deficient students to help them make progress toward graduation. Laurence said a list of all the alternative education options for students, along with the numbers of students involved, would be provided in the fall. It was asked if discussions had occurred with Stanford regarding the creation of a joint program. Cohen said this was why representatives from Stanford were attending this group. Callan added Stanford was working closely with Ravenswood School District, for example. It was suggested that Palo Alto High School be expanded to the District Office property, then move the District Office to another site. Jacobus requested historical enrollment and staffing data for the high schools. Laurence said he could provide this. Fellman noted that Paly was on Stanford-owned land that would revert back to Stanford if no longer used for a school.

Public Comment There was no public comment.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

Attachment 3

Palo Alto Unified School DistrictHigh School Task Force

Conceptual Budgets for New School Facilities

Study Option 1Design & Construction Cost to increase capacity at Gunn and Paly to 2200 students

Assumptions:1. Site area is available at each campus, allowance for demolition2. Buildings and areas per below.3. Shared Gym, Athletic Facilities, Music and Theater with main campuses4. Costs shown in 2007 Dollars

Description Area SF Cost Total Cost

Construction Cost

Gunn CampusDemolition & Sitework 20,000 SF $12.00 $240,000

Classroom Buildings: 2 storyClassrooms, Standard, 8 each 7,680 SF $285.00 $2,188,800Classrooms, Science, 2 each 2,400 SF $350.00 $840,000Classrooms, Art/Tech, 2 each 2,400 SF $300.00 $720,000

Support BuildingsAdministration Shared Cafeteria Bldg Shared Food Service, adj to Café Shared Locker Facilities, share w/ Gunn Shared Library & Computer Lab Shared Restroom Facilities 1,200 SF $350.00 $420,000

13,680 SFTotal Gunn Construction $4,408,800

Paly CampusDemolition & Sitework 20,000 SF $12.00 $240,000

Classroom Buildings: 2 storyClassrooms, Standard, 8 each 7,680 SF $285.00 $2,188,800Classrooms, Science, 2 each 2,400 SF $350.00 $840,000Classrooms, Art/Tech, 2 each 2,400 SF $300.00 $720,000Classrooms, Music and shops Shared

Support BuildingsAdministration Shared Cafeteria Bldg Shared Food Service, adj to Café Shared Locker Facilities, share w/ Gunn Shared Library & Computer Lab Shared Restroom Facilities 1,200 SF $350.00 $420,000

13,680 SFTotal Paly Construction $4,408,800

Total Construction $8,817,600

Soft Cost

Contingency, 10% of construction $881,760Design Fees, 11% of construction $969,936Project & Construction Mgt Fees, 5% $440,880Plans, Specs, Testing, Inspection 6% $529,056

Total Soft Cost $2,821,632

Total Project Cost $11,639,232

Attachment 4



Study Option 2Design & Construction Cost to renovate Cubberley into a 1400 student high school

Assumptions:1. Site area is 35.4 acres, refurbish, not replace sitepaving and landscape2. Does not include costs for termination of existing lease or cost to acquire land back from the City3. Buildings and areas per existing building inventory, 180,000 SF4. Costs shown in 2007 Dollars


Construction CostSitework (Renovation) 1,542,024 SF $7.00 $10,794,168

Classroom Buildings: (Renovation)Classrooms, Standard 44,131 SF $180.00 $7,943,580Classrooms, Science 14,624 SF $250.00 $3,656,000Classrooms, Art/Tech, 2 each 8,100 SF $220.00 $1,782,000Classrooms, Shop 16,500 SF $200.00 $3,300,000

Support Buildings (Renovation)Administration 7,675 SF $165.00 $1,266,375Cafetorium/Student Center 11,570 SF $225.00 $2,603,250Food Service 1,600 SF $250.00 $400,000Gym, Athletic & Locker Facilities 27,675 SF $225.00 $6,226,875Library 13,575 SF $210.00 $2,850,750Theater, Music, Dance 13,225 SF $200.00 $2,645,000Pavilion 17,125 SF $110.00 $1,883,750Pool 1 LS $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000Restroom Facilities 4,200 SF $225.00 $945,000

180,001Total Construction $48,296,748

Soft Cost

Contingency, 10% of construction $4,829,675Design Fees, 11% of construction $4,829,675Project & Construction Mgt Fees, 5% $2,414,837Plans, Specs, Testing, Inspection 6% $2,897,805



Attachment 4



Study Option 3Design & Construction to build a 500 facility for a specialty school for high school students. Assumptions:1. Project Site area is 6 acres2. Buildings and areas per below.3. Costs shown in 2007 Dollars4. Assumes that utility services are available to the selected site.


Construction CostSitework 261,360 SF $12.00 $3,136,320

Classroom BuildingsClassrooms, Standard, 16 each 15,360 SF $285.00 $4,377,600Classrooms, Science, 2 each 2,400 SF $350.00 $840,000Classrooms, Art/Tech, 2 each 2,400 SF $300.00 $720,000

Support BuildingsAdministration 3,000 SF $260.00 $780,000Cafeteria Bldg 6,500 SF $320.00 $2,080,000Food Service, adj to Café 1,600 SF $375.00 $600,000Locker facilities 2,400 SF $375.00 $900,000Library & Computer Lab 4,800 SF $325.00 $1,560,000Restroom Facilities 1,200 SF $350.00 $420,000

39,660 SFTotal Construction $15,413,920

Soft Cost

Contingency, 10% of construction $1,541,392Design Fees, 11% of construction $1,695,531Project & Construction Mgt Fees, 5% $770,696Plans, Specs, Testing, Inspection 6% $924,835



Attachment 4

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Direction 9 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 09.11.07 TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent FROM: Scott Laurence, Assistant Superintendent – Administrative Services SUBJECT: High School Task Force BACKGROUND In March 2007, a proposal to create a High School Task Force was approved by the Board of Education. The recommendation was to convene a group of students, staff, parents, and community members to examine the impact of enrollment growth at the high school level. The purpose of the project was to explore alternatives for high school students necessitated by increasing enrollment. This provided an opportunity to examine student needs and interests and to plan for programs designed to prepare students for the future in a vastly changing world. Options considered would be for expansion or construction of facilities that would accommodate the anticipated enrollment growth. Potential configurations included (1) a third comprehensive high school, (2) a small specialized school program, and (3) an expansion of the current sites. The timing of the recommendation was intended to coincide with the presentation of the Facilities Master Plan. A recommendation for potential innovative institutions, structures, or programs that will best serve the needs of high school students over the next twenty years was to be presented to the BOE in December 2007. Rationale for Revision of Mission Discussions have been taking place since March 2007 about the scope of the High School Task Force. While the group is well structured and informed about high school students, programs, and issues, it does not have the same capacity regarding construction and fiscal issues. The focus of the High School Task Force should be more about the educational needs of students in terms of programs and opportunities and less about bricks and mortar. The High School Task Force needs to discuss the implications of the gradual growth of the high school population over time. This will create opportunities to develop alternative educational options for students. There are currently excellent programs in place, but they do not serve all students’ needs. Focusing on the educational options created by having more students allows us to consider exciting possibilities. These include partnership ideas with Adult Education and Foothill/De Anza Community College District, the exploration of career/tech options, and online and virtual high school curriculum. It also allows the possibility of expanding or modifying existing programs. Decoupling the Cubberley discussion from the HSTF will allow a thoughtful and realistic programmatic discussion to occur. The discussion of lease agreements, bonds, and property is very

Attachment 5

important as we face increasing enrollment. However, the High School Task Force is not the correct group of people for this work. For your information a list of the members of the High School Task Force are attached to this agenda item. Community resources from the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and Foothill/De Anza Community College District are listed as well as support personnel from the Palo Alto Unified School District. RECOMMENDATION After a series of meetings with the Superintendent, high school principals, and District personnel, the following focus statement revisions for the High School Task Force (HSTF) mission are recommended:

• Examine current programs and educational options and make recommendations to serve a growing population of students in the future.

• Assess needs of students not served well by comprehensive high school structures. • Charge the High School Task Force to share their work during the Strategic Planning

process. • Focus the work of the HSTF on programs that provide alternative educational options for

students. • Examine partnerships, programs, and alternative learning options for students that will

prepare them for the future. • Coordinate with Business Services in examining fiscal and construction considerations in

relationship with potential program options. • Remove the examination of a third comprehensive high school as an option for this

committee. Further, we recommend the Property Committee, made up of Board of Education members Camille Townsend and Barbara Mitchell, Interim Chief Business Officers Robert Golton and Cathy Mak, plus appropriate support staff work with the City of Palo Alto and the Foothill/De Anza Community College District regarding any changes to the Cubberley site. Assistant Superintendent Scott Laurence will serve as the liaison between the two groups.

Attachment 5

Attachment A

HIGH SCHOOL TASK FORCE

MEMBERSHIP Likins, Noreen Gunn High School – Principal Gossard, Kristina Gunn HS – Teacher Summers, Todd Gunn HS – Teacher Jacobus, Joan Gunn HS – Parent / PTSA Levens, Corey Gunn HS – Site Council Keeler, Max Gunn HS – Student McEvoy, Jackie Palo Alto High School – Principal Brockmann, Kris Palo Alto HS – Teacher Williamson, Ron Palo Alto HS – Teacher Attenborough, Suzanne Palo Alto HS – Parent / PTSA / Site Council Stone, Martin Palo Alto HS – Parent / PTSA / Site Council Ketchum, Neal Palo Alto HS – Student Cox, Don J. L. Stanford Middle School – Principal TBA Elementary School Principal Murthy, Malati CSEA – Palo Alto HS Krause, Marion PAEA – Greendell Ray, Elaine PNSC – Parent Network for Students of Color Barbarasch, Suzanne Alternate – Jordan Middle School – Principal Giedt, Carmen Alternate – Terman Middle School – Principal Needels, Michael Alternate – Gunn HS – Site Council COMMUNITY RESOURCES Benest, Frank City of Palo Alto – City Manager Fellman, Bill City of Palo Alto – Manager, Administrative Services McCown, Jean Stanford University – Director, Community Relations Myers, Rose Foothill College – Vice President, Relations with Schools Miner, Judy Foothill College – President Schulze, John Foothill College – Executive Director, Facilities/Operations/Construction Mgmt. Swett, Denise Foothill College – Dean, Middlefield Campus Urabe, Sandi Foothill College – Dean, Middlefield Campus (retired) PAUSD STAFF RESOURCES Garrison, Bill Director, District Office Hodges, Tom Construction Hoshiwara, Dave Coordinator II, Greendell Laurence, Scott Assistant Superintendent, District Office Rosenberg, Kara Principal, Adult Education Scigliano, Marie Director, District Office Smith, Ron Construction/Project Manager, Facilities Zepecki, Carol Director, District Office CO-FACILITATORS Cohen, Burton Director, Secondary Education, District Office Pearson, Sandra Palo Alto High School – Principal (retired)

Revised 9/5/07

Attachment 5

Palo Alto Unified School District High School Task Force

September 19, 2007

6:00-9:00PM Staff Development Center (SDC)

25 Churchill Avenue

AGENDA 6:00-6:15 Welcomes and Introductions 6:15-6:45 Charge Statement/Mission reviewed -Superintendent Dr. Kevin Skelly 6:45-7:15 Task Force Working Norms -Review of proposed working norms -Agreement to working norms 7:15-7:30 BREAK 7:30-8:00 Presentation on expansion of current high schools -Assistant Superintendent Scotty Laurence 8:00-8:20 Pros and Constraints of expanding current high schools -Small working groups brainstorm and charting -Choose spokesperson for concise report out 8:20-8:45 Small working groups report out 8:45-9:00 Open Forum -Community information sharing per working norms

Attachment 6


Complete tape recordings of High School Task Force meetings are available at 25 Churchill Avenue. Many of the materials handed out at these meetings can be found online at:

http://pausd.org/community/HighSchoolTaskForce/index.shtml

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

Members present:

Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School - Principal Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA Cory Levens, Gunn High School – Site Council Max Keeler, Gunn High School – Student Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Malati Merthy, CSEA – Palo Alto High School Marion Krause, PAEA – Greendell Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color

PAUSD District Staff Resources Present: Kara Rosenberg, Principal, Adult Education Carol Zepecki, Dir., Student Support Serv. Scott Laurence, Asst. Supt,

Co-Facilitators Present: Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired

Charge Statement Reviewed

Skelly thanked the group members for serving on the Task Force, saying the Board was very interested in this group’s work. He said he had reviewed the revision made to the charge by the Board, which removed consideration of a full comprehensive high school in the next three to five years. The group’s charge was now to focus on the following:

• Explore small specialized programs and an expansion of the current sites • Review the facilities available to PAUSD, site capacities, costs, possible

reconfigurations or construction, and alternatives with cost analysis.

Norms

The group reviewed and agreed on norms for conducting the HSTF meetings.

Presentation on Expansion of Current High Schools

Questions posed about the change in the HSTF charge were responded to by Laurence. In response to a concern raised, it was agreed that if the Superintendent disagreed with the HSTF final recommendation, the group would then discuss this with the Superintendent before any presentation to the Board.

Approved: High School Task Force Meeting – September 19, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 7


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 Laurence then gave a presentation that included:

• A brief overview of both high schools’ current offerings • The basic method used for calculating capacity for a site

A discussion of the presentation followed. Questions raised included:

• Extending the present instructional day • Amending the present instructional calendar • Possibilities of writing or speaking with personnel from larger high schools • Possible configuration of a 9th grade academy • When data from the parent and student survey would be available • Reconfiguring grade levels served in high schools and middle schools

Pros and Cons Activity An activity followed in which Task Force members noted pros, concerns, and questions

regarding expanding the current high school sites. This activity was to sample the current thoughts of the Task Force members. The resulting matrix follows:

Pros Concerns Remaining Questions To provide more options to students (courses, programs, school within a school) (11)

Loss of personalized student experience; increased isolation; harder to connect with caring adults, over-crowding (15)

How will we make sure student needs are being met in larger schools? And how can these students be identified? (3)

Most cost-effective way to accommodate growth (5)

Students less able to be in limited electives (such as band, choir, sports, student gov.) (4)

Successful models? How are other large schools dealing with our concerns? How did Paly handle past growth spurts? (3)

Redesign existing facilities more efficiently so they can accommodate growth (4)

Less open spaces on campus; increased stress on facilities (4)

Can existing schools be reconfigured? (i.e.: school within a school, move 9th grade to middle school, change schedule) (3)

Keep site loyalty, identity, and ownership; more cohesive community (3)

Staff overload; loss of staff connection to site (3)

What should the community reasonably expect of its high schools? Do the sites have to grow equally? (2)

Maintain the high level of excellence and breadth of specialty programs (2)

Need clear mission and vision for curriculum

Where do we fund the expertise for what we want? How does a potential bond play into a recommendation? (2)

Expanding the existing schools would be a safe bet if enrollment were to drop in the future.

We still do not have any alternative placement/program options

How could we best develop a virtual high school program? (one site or two with one on each campus? One larger one?)

What outside constraints exist? (i.e.: union contracts, funding)

What timeframe should our recommendations address? (Are we looking for a 10-year or 20-year solution?)

Why are the kids going to school? Is it more cost-effective to acquire a

3rd comprehensive high school site? What kind of pressure would be put

on existing alternative programs? Members were given an assignment to come back to the October 3rd meeting with one additional card they would like to add to each option.

Public Comment There were no public comments.



Attachment 7


Attachment 7

High School Task Force

Pro, Concerns, and Remaining Questions from 9/19/07 Meeting Exercise Regarding the Possible Expansion of the Existing High Schools

Additional comments from the 10/3/07 meeting are in italics

Pros Concerns Remaining Questions

To provide more options to students (courses, programs, school within a school) (11)

Loss of personalized student experience; increased isolation; harder to connect with caring adults, over-crowding (15)

How will we make sure student needs are being met in larger schools? And how can these students be identified? (3)
















As enrollment grows, opportunities for online classes, internships and possible programs with Stanford could increase.

What are current and historical staff (including classified) to student ratios? If current facilities were expanded would the ratio worsen? (2)


It could maintain current peer streaming.

Will an expanded school day with more periods and more classes add to student stress?


1

Attachment 8

2

Maximum use of existing facilities would be made.

More difficult for staff to connect and know each other

Why are the kids going to school?

Larger enrollment at current sites may allow more kids with similar interests to connect.

There may be increased opportunities for PAUSD to develop alternatives for kids and rely less on Alta Vista, Terra Bella, etc.

Is it more cost-effective to acquire a 3rd comprehensive high school site?

How will we address the needs of students who fall through the cracks?

What kind of pressure would be put on existing alternative programs?

Increased wear and tear on facilities

What do we need to do to pass a bond measure? It there is no bond, options will be limited.

How do we accommodate the needs of students in the middle (those who are not the highest achievers or who have special needs)?

Will the savings achieved by adding to additional school sites, rather than adding another site, be lost if a third comprehensive high school is added in the future?

Should we work backward from a goal, as the new special education law suggests? (i.e.: goal = doctor. Focus on science and math in school)

Can the school calendar be reconfigured?

Can other available spaces (Cubberley, local colleges, industrial sites) be used creatively?

Attachment 8

Palo Alto Unified School District High School Task Force

October 3, 2007

6:00-8:00PM Staff Development Center (SDC)

25 Churchill Avenue

Meeting Purposes: -To review and discuss expansion of the current high schools -To receive survey results and findings from students, parents, staff

AGENDA 6:00-6:15 Welcomes Agenda approval from September 19, 2007, meeting 6:15-6:45 Review results of Expand Current High Schools activity -Pros -Concerns -Remaining Questions -Additions to above 3 categories 6:45-7:45 Data Results of the student, parent, staff surveys -Dr. Bill Garrison, Director of Research/Assessment 7:45-8:00 Open Forum -Community information sharing per working norms Note: Light snacks will be available during the meeting Next Meeting: October 10, 2007

HSTF Agenda 10-3-07 BAC 9-25-07

Attachment 9




MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

Members present:

Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Carmen Giedt, Terman Middle School – Principal Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Corey Levens, Gunn High School –Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, _________________ Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher

PAUSD District Staff Resources Present:

Bill Garrison, Dir., Testing and Assessment Scott Laurence, Asst. Supt. Kara Rosenberg, Principal, Adult Education Carol Zepecki, Dir., Student Support Serv.

Co-Facilitators Present:

Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired

Welcomes and Approval of Minutes from September 19, 2007

The minutes from the 9/19/07 meeting were reviewed. The spelling of Corey Levens’s name was corrected and that suggested that it be noted he was a parent Site Council member. The HSTF unanimously approved the minutes. Laurence reviewed with the group the revised work plan and the enrollment report he presented at the Board of Education meeting of September 25, 2007.

Review Results of Expand Current High Schools Activity

The matrix resulting from the activity performed at the 9/19/07 meeting regarding the option of expanding current high schools was reviewed. The group then added more comments to it. Additions are shown below in italics.

Pros Concerns Remaining Questions To provide more options to students Loss of personalized student How will we make sure student needs

Approved: High School Task Force Meeting – October 3, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 10


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2007 (courses, programs, school within a school) (11)

experience; increased isolation; harder to connect with caring adults, over-crowding (15)

are being met in larger schools? And how can these students be identified? (3)
















As enrollment grows, opportunities for online classes, internships and possible programs with Stanford could increase.

What are current and historical staff (including classified) to student ratios? If current facilities were expanded would the ratio worsen? (2)


It could maintain current peer streaming.

Will an expanded school day with more periods and more classes add to student stress?


Maximum use of existing facilities would be made.

More difficult for staff to connect and know each other

Why are the kids going to school?

Larger enrollment at current sites may allow more kids with similar interests to connect.

There may be increased opportunities for PAUSD to develop alternatives for kids and rely less on Alta Vista, Terra Bella, etc.

Is it more cost-effective to acquire a 3rd comprehensive high school site?

How will we address the needs of students who fall through the cracks?

What kind of pressure would be put on existing alternative programs?

Increased wear and tear on facilities What do we need to do to pass a bond measure? It there is no bond, options will be limited.

How do we accommodate the needs of students in the middle (those who are not the highest achievers or who have special needs)?

Will the savings achieved by adding to additional school sites, rather than adding another site, be lost if a third comprehensive high school is added in the future?

Should we work backward from a goal, as the new special education law suggests? (i.e.: goal = doctor. Focus on science and math in school)

Can the school calendar be reconfigured?

Can other available spaces (Cubberley, local colleges, industrial sites) be used creatively?

Data Results of the Student, Parent, Staff Surveys

Laurence said the HSTF Planning Group had created and administered surveys to students and parents in the spring and fall. Garrison presented the results of the surveys. In summary, electives and core academics ranked at the top of very important aspects of the high school


Attachment 10


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2007 experience. In terms of the focus of a potential smaller specialty school, visual/performing arts, science/technology, and health sciences/biotech ranked highest. Regarding the addition of 300 students to each campus, a majority of respondents believed there were already too many students, although that was reflected in only 38.5% of the survey responses. There was support for the addition of a third high school, and a number of respondents said it they may be interested in attending a specialty school. The Task Force then discussed the findings.

Public Comment Melissa Baten Caswell said she believed students were vocationalized too early, so she was concerned about opening a specialty school. She preferred offering specialty programs in the existing high schools, so students could try them out without being locked in.


Attachment 10


High School Growth

High School Parent Survey

Dear High School Parent:

Palo Alto school district is looking for ways to accommodate a projected increase of approximately 500

high school students over the next several years. As we plan for more students, we value your ideas.

Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. The information will be used in formulating our

plans for growth.

There are several ways of addressing increased enrollment. Among these are: (1) adding a third high

school, resulting in three high schools of approximately the same size (about 1,400 students); (2)

creating a specialty high school with a particular focus like environmental studies or performing arts;

and, (3) expanding the current facilities at Gunn and Paly to accommodate the growth.

Each of these possible solutions results in different options for our high school students. Specialty

schools can offer programs with greater depth and focus, but the smaller size also means fewer course

offerings and less diversity in student interests, resulting in, for example, fewer clubs, sports teams and

other extracurricular activities. Larger high schools, like Gunn and Paly, offer a wide selection of

course offerings and many extracurricular programs.

Your responses will help shape the future of our high schools. Thank you for your help!

For each of the items below, please circle your response or write in, as needed.

1. When you think about your student’s high school experience, what is most important to your

student about being at Gunn or Paly?

a. the diversity of student interests

Very important Somewhat important Not important

b the college prep focus


c. elective classes that meet my interests and/or needs


d. the core academic classes


e. the social life


f. the wide variety of extracurricular choices


g. the academic challenge


g. Other? Please specify: _______________________________

2. Gunn and Paly are average-size high schools with 1,600 to 2,000 students. Do you feel that a

smaller school (500 to 600 students) with a specific focus (like environmental studies or performing

arts) might better serve your student’s needs?

a. Yes, definitely. b. It is possible. c. No, definitely not.

Please continue on back.

Attachment 11

3. If a smaller, specialty high school were available in Palo Alto, what program or programs would

your student be most interested in?

a. International studies

Very interested Possibly interested Not interested

b. Environmental studies


c. Health sciences, biotechnology


d. Journalism, media production


e. Visual and performing arts


f. Science and technology


g. International Baccalaureate


h. Career Tech


i. Virtual high school (online high school, independent study)


j. Other? Please write in your suggestion: __________________________

4. What effect do you think another 300 students or so on each campus, would have on the overall

high school experience at Gunn or Paly?

a. It would improve the experience: more students, more interests, more choices.

b. It would have little or no effect.

c. There are already too many students on campus.

d. I really don’t know what the effect might be.

e. It really doesn’t matter to me if there are more or fewer students on campus.

5. Do you think that opening a third high school comparable to Gunn or Paly is a good idea?

a. Yes b. Possibly c. No

6. If there were a smaller specialty high school in Palo Alto with a program that interested your

student, would he or she give serious thought to attending that high school and not attending Gunn

or Paly?


7. Please give us any specific ideas you might have for a new high school and/or changes in Gunn or

Paly? Use extra paper if necessary. There is no need for it to be attached to this survey form.

Thank you for your help!

Attachment 11


High School Growth

High School Student Survey

Dear High School Student:

Palo Alto school district is looking for ways to accommodate a projected increase of approximately 500

high school students over the next several years. As we plan for more students, we value your ideas.

Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. The information will be used in formulating our

plans for growth.

There are several ways of addressing increased enrollment. Among these are: (1) adding a third high

school, resulting in three high schools of approximately the same size (about 1,400 students); (2)

creating a specialty high school with a particular focus like environmental studies or performing arts;

and, (3) expanding the current facilities at Gunn and Paly to accommodate the growth.

Each of these possible solutions results in different options for our high school students. Specialty

schools can offer programs with greater depth and focus, but the smaller size also means fewer course

offerings and less diversity in student interests, resulting in, for example, fewer clubs, sports teams and

other extracurricular activities. Larger high schools, like Gunn and Paly, offer a wide selection of

course offerings and many extracurricular programs.

Your responses will help shape the future of our high schools. We appreciate your best thinking.


For each of the items below, please circle your response or write in, as needed.

1. When you think about your high school experience, what is most important to you about being at

Gunn or Paly?

a. the diversity of student interests


b the college prep focus


c. elective classes that meet my interests and/or needs


d. the core academic classes


e. the social life


f. the wide variety of extracurricular choices


g. the academic challenge


g. Other? Please specify: _______________________________

2. Gunn and Paly are average-size high schools with 1,600 to 2,000 students. Do you feel that a

smaller school (500 to 600 students) with a specific focus (like environmental studies or performing

arts) might better serve your needs?


Please continue on back.

Attachment 12

3. If a smaller, specialty high school were available in Palo Alto, what program or programs would

you be most interested in?

a. International studies


b. Environmental studies


c. Health sciences, biotechnology


d. Journalism, media production


e. Visual and performing arts


f. Science and technology


g. International Baccalaureate


h. Career Tech


i. Virtual high school (online high school, independent study)


j. Other? Please write in your suggestion: __________________________

4. What effect do you think another 300 students or so on each campus, would have on the overall

high school experience at Gunn or Paly?

a. It would improve the experience: more students, more interests, more choices.

b. It would have little or no effect.

c. There are already too many students on campus.

d. I really don’t know what the effect might be.

e. It really doesn’t matter to me if there are more or fewer students on campus.

5. Do you think that opening a third high school comparable to Gunn or Paly is a good idea?

a. Yes b. Possibly c. No

6. If there were a smaller specialty high school in Palo Alto with a program that you were interested

in, would you give serious thought to attending that high school and not attending Gunn or Paly?


7. Please give us any specific ideas you might have for a new high school and/or changes in Gunn or

Paly? Use extra paper if necessary. There is no need for it to be attached to this survey form.


Attachment 12

High School Growth Survey Results, Spring/Summer 2007

Respondent * Q 1a: Diversity of Interests Crosstabulation

987 659 66 1712

57.7% 38.5% 3.9% 100.0%

1227 1068 134 2429

50.5% 44.0% 5.5% 100.0%

127 121 38 286

44.4% 42.3% 13.3% 100.0%

2341 1848 238 4427

52.9% 41.7% 5.4% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Very ImportantSomewhatImportant Not Important

Q 1a: Diversity of Interests

Total

Respondent * Q 1b: College Prep focus Crosstabulation

1365 328 38 1731

78.9% 18.9% 2.2% 100.0%

1518 813 103 2434

62.4% 33.4% 4.2% 100.0%

130 129 27 286

45.5% 45.1% 9.4% 100.0%

3013 1270 168 4451

67.7% 28.5% 3.8% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1b: College Prep focus

Total

Respondent * Q 1c: Electives Crosstabulation

1222 481 26 1729

70.7% 27.8% 1.5% 100.0%

1910 497 31 2438

78.3% 20.4% 1.3% 100.0%

211 70 5 286

73.8% 24.5% 1.7% 100.0%

3343 1048 62 4453

75.1% 23.5% 1.4% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1c: Electives

Total

Page 1

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 1d: Core Academic Crosstabulation

1544 180 7 1731

89.2% 10.4% .4% 100.0%

1642 729 55 2426

67.7% 30.0% 2.3% 100.0%

165 107 14 286

57.7% 37.4% 4.9% 100.0%

3351 1016 76 4443

75.4% 22.9% 1.7% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1d: Core Academic

Total

Respondent * Q 1e: Social Life Crosstabulation

833 827 72 1732

48.1% 47.7% 4.2% 100.0%

1606 758 72 2436

65.9% 31.1% 3.0% 100.0%

155 108 23 286

54.2% 37.8% 8.0% 100.0%

2594 1693 167 4454

58.2% 38.0% 3.7% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1e: Social Life

Total

Respondent * Q 1f: Extracurricular Crosstabulation

840 812 72 1724

48.7% 47.1% 4.2% 100.0%

1420 912 101 2433

58.4% 37.5% 4.2% 100.0%

153 111 23 287

53.3% 38.7% 8.0% 100.0%

2413 1835 196 4444

54.3% 41.3% 4.4% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1f: Extracurricular

Total

Page 2

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 1g: Academic Challenge Crosstabulation

1226 471 29 1726

71.0% 27.3% 1.7% 100.0%

1323 1011 98 2432

54.4% 41.6% 4.0% 100.0%

152 117 17 286

53.1% 40.9% 5.9% 100.0%

2701 1599 144 4444

60.8% 36.0% 3.2% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total


Q 1g: Academic Challenge

Total

Respondent * Q 1h: Other important things? Crosstabulation

1542 219 1761

87.6% 12.4% 100.0%

2248 181 2429

92.5% 7.5% 100.0%

248 36 284

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

4038 436 4474

90.3% 9.7% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

no comment comment

Q 1h: Other importantthings?

Total

Respondent * Q 2: Specialty School? Crosstabulation

283 842 626 1751

16.2% 48.1% 35.8% 100.0%

286 1314 821 2421

11.8% 54.3% 33.9% 100.0%

30 123 134 287

10.5% 42.9% 46.7% 100.0%

599 2279 1581 4459

13.4% 51.1% 35.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Yes, definitely It is possibleNo,definitely

not

Q 2: Specialty School?

Total

Page 3

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 3j: Other specialty school? Crosstabulation

1649 110 1759

93.7% 6.3% 100.0%

2243 180 2423

92.6% 7.4% 100.0%

253 31 284

89.1% 10.9% 100.0%

4145 321 4466

92.8% 7.2% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

no comment comment

Q 3j: Other specialtyschool?

Total

Respondent * Q 4: Impact of 300 more students? Crosstabulation

154 174 889 393 76 1686

9.1% 10.3% 52.7% 23.3% 4.5% 100.0%

416 413 682 532 340 2383

17.5% 17.3% 28.6% 22.3% 14.3% 100.0%

47 38 102 52 39 278

16.9% 13.7% 36.7% 18.7% 14.0% 100.0%

617 625 1673 977 455 4347

14.2% 14.4% 38.5% 22.5% 10.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Improveexperience

Little or noeffect

Alreadytoo manystudents

Don't reallyknow

Doesn'tmatter to me

Q 4: Impact of 300 more students?

Total

Respondent * Q 5: Opening a 3rd HS, Good Idea? Crosstabulation

714 749 276 1739

41.1% 43.1% 15.9% 100.0%

650 1207 546 2403

27.0% 50.2% 22.7% 100.0%

87 130 68 285

30.5% 45.6% 23.9% 100.0%

1451 2086 890 4427

32.8% 47.1% 20.1% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Yes Possibly No

Q 5: Opening a 3rd HS, Good Idea?

Total

Page 4

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 6: Would attend a Spec Sch Crosstabulation

357 804 560 1721

20.7% 46.7% 32.5% 100.0%

378 1138 880 2396

15.8% 47.5% 36.7% 100.0%

58 112 114 284

20.4% 39.4% 40.1% 100.0%

793 2054 1554 4401

18.0% 46.7% 35.3% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Yes, definitely It is possibleNo,definitely

not

Q 6: Would attend a Spec Sch

Total

Respondent * Q 7: Other ideas? Crosstabulation

1395 374 1769

78.9% 21.1% 100.0%

1724 719 2443

70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

154 132 286

53.8% 46.2% 100.0%

3273 1225 4498

72.8% 27.2% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

no comment comment

Q 7: Other ideas?

Total

Page 5

Attachment 13

Responses to Question 3 by those who responded "Yes, definitely"or "It is possible" to Question 2 and Question 6.

Respondent * Q 3a: International Studies Crosstabulation

257 373 155 785

32.7% 47.5% 19.7% 100.0%

363 612 230 1205

30.1% 50.8% 19.1% 100.0%

43 45 27 115

37.4% 39.1% 23.5% 100.0%

663 1030 412 2105

31.5% 48.9% 19.6% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested

Possiblyinterested Not interested

Q 3a: International Studies

Total

Respondent * Q 3b: Environmental Studies Crosstabulation

232 375 174 781

29.7% 48.0% 22.3% 100.0%

276 603 322 1201

23.0% 50.2% 26.8% 100.0%

32 51 32 115

27.8% 44.3% 27.8% 100.0%

540 1029 528 2097

25.8% 49.1% 25.2% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3b: Environmental Studies

Total

Respondent * Q 3c: Health sciences, Biotech Crosstabulation

316 301 172 789

40.1% 38.1% 21.8% 100.0%

367 493 344 1204

30.5% 40.9% 28.6% 100.0%

31 45 39 115

27.0% 39.1% 33.9% 100.0%

714 839 555 2108

33.9% 39.8% 26.3% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3c: Health sciences, Biotech

Total

Page 6

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 3d: Journalism, media Crosstabulation

218 375 182 775

28.1% 48.4% 23.5% 100.0%

296 596 312 1204

24.6% 49.5% 25.9% 100.0%

21 54 40 115

18.3% 47.0% 34.8% 100.0%

535 1025 534 2094

25.5% 48.9% 25.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3d: Journalism, media

Total

Respondent * Q 3e: Visual & Performing Arts Crosstabulation

325 332 147 804

40.4% 41.3% 18.3% 100.0%

592 411 202 1205

49.1% 34.1% 16.8% 100.0%

59 35 22 116

50.9% 30.2% 19.0% 100.0%

976 778 371 2125

45.9% 36.6% 17.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3e: Visual & Performing Arts

Total

Respondent * Q 3f: Science & Technology Crosstabulation

373 311 119 803

46.5% 38.7% 14.8% 100.0%

436 478 287 1201

36.3% 39.8% 23.9% 100.0%

38 40 37 115

33.0% 34.8% 32.2% 100.0%

847 829 443 2119

40.0% 39.1% 20.9% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3f: Science & Technology

Total

Page 7

Attachment 13

Respondent * Q 3g: International Baccalaureate Crosstabulation

172 351 223 746

23.1% 47.1% 29.9% 100.0%

166 582 441 1189

14.0% 48.9% 37.1% 100.0%

19 51 42 112

17.0% 45.5% 37.5% 100.0%

357 984 706 2047

17.4% 48.1% 34.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3g: International Baccalaureate

Total

Respondent * Q 3h: Career Tech Crosstabulation

188 299 271 758

24.8% 39.4% 35.8% 100.0%

280 584 335 1199

23.4% 48.7% 27.9% 100.0%

19 49 47 115

16.5% 42.6% 40.9% 100.0%

487 932 653 2072

23.5% 45.0% 31.5% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3h: Career Tech

Total

Respondent * Q 3i: Virtual High School Crosstabulation

87 247 419 753

11.6% 32.8% 55.6% 100.0%

231 444 509 1184

19.5% 37.5% 43.0% 100.0%

19 34 62 115

16.5% 29.6% 53.9% 100.0%

337 725 990 2052

16.4% 35.3% 48.2% 100.0%

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Count

% within Respondent

Parent

Student

Senior

Respondent

Total

Veryinterested


Q 3i: Virtual High School

Total

Page 8

Attachment 13


Questions, Comments, and Observations from the 10/3/07 Meeting

Welcomes and Approval of Minutes from September 19, 2007

• It was asked if it was known how many of the middle school students who left the district returned for high school. Laurence said it was about 100.

• It was asked if the 07-08 ninth grade numbers were typically lower than other grades. Laurence said there had been an unusual dip this year.

Data Results of the Student, Parent, Staff Surveys

• It was noted that parents and high school level students not attending Gunn or Paly had not been surveyed. Laurence said this group was being surveyed and the results would be available at the following meeting.

• It was suggested that the difference between a “specialty” school and simply an “additional” school be made clear to parents.

• One member said he had hoped questions would be posed regarding the possibility of a 9th grade only school. He then suggested surveying high school teaching staff on this topic.

• It was noted that 53% of parents believed there were already too many students, yet only about 30% of students felt this way.

• One member observed that while parents believed there were too many students, this did not necessarily mean they would support a bond election in order to build new facilities.

• It was observed that the biotech program at Gunn had started slowly, and had grown over time.

• It was also noted that a specialty school could do serious damage to the existing high school programs.

• It was asked if, in light of the change of the charge, a smaller specialty school could still be considered. Laurence responded that the group would not consider a third comprehensive school at this time, but a smaller specialty school was an option.

• It was noted that many of the respondents voiced interest in more than one type of specialty school.

• Parents and students were more willing to consider a 3rd comprehensive high school and more options, but this was not available, so how could this be provided in an alternative program?

• Parents believed smaller was better, but students did not appear to agree. This might be because students currently had such a rich offering. A smaller, more specific academy would not be able to offer so much.

• A 9th grade academy would not work because most classes were not grade-specific and the students would have to be divided up in order to move on to the to Gunn or Paly for 10th grade, which could cause peer streaming issues.

• A specialty high school would have to be very well defined in order to get community buy-in.

• There was a consensus that electives and core academics were important and the interest in a wide range of specialty programs. which might stem from the current variety of available electives.

• There was a core of 425 students who would attend a specialty school, although it was not known which specialty was preferred. In addition, an all-day shuttle bus would be needed to take students to the comprehensive high schools so the kids at the specialty school could also take advantage of the diverse electives offered.

Attachment 14

High School Task Force PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 Churchill Avenue • Palo Alto, CA 94306

AGENDA

October 10, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Staff Development Center (SDC) 25 Churchill Avenue

Meeting Purposes: • To discuss decision-making • To clarify the concept of a specialty school • To address the questions posted on ‘growing’ the existing high schools • To discuss site visits in order to view how other organizations have addressed the questions and

concerns on expanding the existing high schools

6:00 - 6:15 Welcomes / Procedures

Approval of Minutes from October 3, 2007 Decision-Making Discussion Conference Report

6:15 – 7:00 Presentation/Discussion on Specialty Schools -Concept -A Model Specialty School 7:00 - 7:45 Response to the Question Set: Growing the Existing High Schools -Site Visits 7:45 - 8:00 Open Forum -Community Information-Sharing per Working Norms Notes

• Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Next Meeting: October 17, 2007 • Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker.

Should more than 5 people wish to address the Task Force, the Facilitators may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker.

Attachment 15





Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Carmen Giedt, Terman Middle School – Principal Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Corey Levens, Gunn High School –Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College - Dean, Retired Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher


Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt. Kara Rosenberg - Principal, Adult Education



Welcomes and Procedures

Minutes for the meeting of October 3, 2007 were reviewed and approved. Decision-making, including the consensus model, was discussed. The group agreed to work toward consensus, rather than having a final vote. Laurence gave a report on the conference he attended in Connecticut the prior week, where he met with representatives from school districts that were comparable with PAUSD. He learned that these districts were facing similar issues to those of PAUSD, such as student stress, increased enrollment, achievement gap, etc. He suggested speaking with representatives of the New Trier School District about how they managed their 10th-12th high school and 9th grade only school.

Presentation/Discussion on Specialty Schools

Cohen gave a presentation on developing specialty schools. The example he presented was an environmental studies 11th-12th grade school of about 450 students in Minnesota, which he had helped develop. The school had partnered with the Minnesota Zoological Gardens,


Attachment 16



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2007 and its students were offered the same comprehensive curriculum as those at the larger schools in that district. Enrollment was by application, which included the following three questions:

• What is your interest in the focus study? • What do you hope to draw from this study? • What personal value do you hope to bring to this campus?

The district’s board of education had required that the demographics of the district be emulated for this new school, and it was built around the concept of the “coherent curriculum”. Students had to demonstrate their learning on a regular basis in varying ways. In addition, research reports submitted by students were utilized by the local municipality to make millions of dollars’ worth of decisions. Cohen said it had taken five years to plan this school and open it, and that the students, who wanted an option different from their regular high school, had found a great deal of success. A short video documentary was shown about this school which is now in its 13th year of operation. (The video can be found on the Lucas Foundation’s website-Edutopia). The presentation was followed by a discussion.

Response to the Question Set: Growing the Existing High Schools

A discussion on growing the existing high schools took place. The group considered visiting sites of other schools, such as Homestead and Monta Vista, as they both had larger enrollments than PAUSD.

Public Comment Jan Rossi asked how well the graduates of the small specialty high school did compared to regular high school students after high school in terms of college and beyond. Cohen said their success was comparable to the rest of the high school students in the district.


Attachment 16




• How will consensus would be determined? Cohen said consensus agreements involved a common understanding among the entire group.

• A Task Force member said he would be very uncomfortable bringing a recommendation to the Superintendent that involved a one or two member majority.

• The group agreed to work toward consensus, rather than having a final vote.

Presentation/Discussion on Specialty Schools

• What was the teacher/student ratio in the specialty school Cohen presented. Cohen said it was the same as the rest of the district, and was comparable with PAUSD.

• Did it cost the same to operate as the other schools in that district? Cohen said it did.

• How long did it take to get the project underway? Cohen said from starting the planning process to opening the doors of the school was about five years. There was 18 months of concept development, followed by a report to the Board at which time the projected was approved.

• How are the two “blocks” of the day scheduled and how is the connection to the home school maintained? Cohen said one portion of each student’s day was at the home schools where electives could be taken and the other was at the Minnesota Zoo school site. There were shuttle buses moving between sites throughout the day.

• Did many students take advantage of the home school opportunity? Cohen said most did, because as juniors and seniors, they were already involved in various electives that they wanted to continue.

• It was noted that it was possible to have a “career academy” like this within a school, rather than at a separate campus.

• What is the downside to this type of program? Cohen said that all entities involved had to sign a common agreement. In addition, a smaller campus could not offer as many elective choices. The staff was also smaller, so teacher roles were different. A smaller campus also could not enjoy the same economy of scale the larger schools had, so partnerships had to be formed. This type of program also tended to be more demanding on the student.

• What other alternative programs were available to students in the district? Cohen said there were other support programs, but nothing like this.

• How was funding impacted for the larger schools in the district when students attended them for other courses? Cohen said funding there was different and there was no impact.

• Were there any negative impacts on the comprehensive high schools, such as scheduling issues, with the specialty school students returning for electives during the day? Cohen said about 100 students from each campus were participating in the specialty school, so the comprehensive

Attachment 17

schools did their planning as though these students were part-time students there.

• Were all the schools in the district on the trimester system? And how important was this? Cohen said they were all on the same schedule. The advantage was that the final two weeks of each trimester involved the conclusion of coursework and intensive study, often including travel, based on the theme for that term.

• Were the costs of the special program borne by the families? Cohen said they were, although the district did provide scholarships for those who wished to attend but could not afford to.

• What were the roles of the partnerships? Cohen said the Minnesota Zoo, for example, donated the 10-acre tract of land for the school and the Zoo’s education program was accredited and it provided 50% of the staff needed for electives, as well as other contributions. There were also agreements with the city, county, and state; as well as the Gates Foundation and the Lucas Foundation.

• The Lucas Foundation was also involved in a program at Mount Madonna School near Watsonville, and visitors were welcome.

• The cost per pupil for a specialty program can be much more than in a regular program. Did this specialty program cover costs with other support such as grants? Cohen said the per pupil cost was kept the same as the rest of the district, which contained about 22,000 students. There were not a lot of grants or extra dollars coming in from the partners.

• Where did the curriculum come from? Cohen said the curriculum had to be the same as the rest of the district. Students in this program were expected and encouraged to dig deeper into the subject matter.

• Where there any clashes between the larger schools and the specialty school? Cohen said there was a lot of distrust at first from the home high schools because this school was new and different. After some time, this waned and counselors started actually recommending students attend the special program.

Response to the Question Set: Growing the Existing high Schools

• What exactly is meant by “growing a school”? Will growing a school involve recommending the addition of other options, such as career academies or schools within schools? Laurence and Pearson responded that options would be considered and that staff would be making presentations on existing models at the next few Task Force meetings.

• Isn’t the Committee’s charge to create a solution for the 20% of students who are struggling? Laurence said the group’s charge was to address enrollment growth and to support all student groups.

• Can those not familiar with PAUSD sites visit them to learn more? Laurence said he would arrange visits for interested Task Force members to Monta Vista and Homestead High Schools, as well as Gunn, Paly, Alta Vista, and Middle College at Foothill to learn about those programs as well. Those who made visitations would report back to the group. It was suggested that interested members e-mail Laurence.

• Pearson noted that the most common concern among the group appeared

Attachment 17

to be over the loss of personalized student experience; increased isolation; difficulty in connecting with caring adults; and over-crowding.

• It was noted that many students believed there were more students to meet at larger schools.

• More students would mean more teachers in order to maintain class size, so there should not be a loss of personal experience.

• It was suggested that Paly’s Teacher Advisor (TA) system be used at Gunn as well in order to increase the availability of counseling to students.

• The sense of community at Paly in project-based learning is much stronger than at a regular large comprehensive high school.

• There are ways to increase the sense of community at larger schools, such as having “houses” or “home rooms”.

• The growth at Gunn has been accommodated without any significant impact on the student experience.

• While PAUSD high schools have grown, the auxiliary programs, such as Alta Vista have not.

• Non-teaching staff now appear to be over-worked, because their numbers have not increased along with the number of classroom teachers.

• If the schools grow, how will the quieter students still be acknowledged during the day?

• How will groups such as band accommodate additional students? One teacher said he found that as the groups grew, he had more trouble knowing all the kids individually and that the facilities had a capacity limit.

• Concern was also voiced for the feeling of connectedness among staff as the number of teachers grew with enrollment.

• The ratio of counselors to students of 320:1 is good, however more students may have more need for counseling as enrollment increases so this ratio may need to be adjusted downward.

• With more students, a wider variety of classes can be offered. • The very high-end students are not currently being served. • Every student should have at least one caring adult on campus, and

students need the skills to connect. • The personalization in school comes from having focused mission, vision,

and values that are accepted by the school and community.

Public Comment

• Jan Rossi asked how well the graduates of the small specialty high school did compared to regular high school students in terms of college and beyond. Cohen said they were comparable to the rest of the high school students in the district.

Attachment 17


AGENDA

October 17, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Conference Room A 25 Churchill Avenue

Meeting Purposes: • To discuss the Pros and Concerns about a specialty high school concept for PAUSD • To review data from the student survey: Off campus student perspectives • To discuss current Alternative Programs and future needs in PAUSD • To review where we are currently in our work

6:00 - 6:15 p.m Welcomes / Procedures

Approval of Minutes from October 10, 2007 Discuss the Pros and Concerns about a specialty high school for PAUSD

6:15 – 6:30 p.m. Presentation of survey results: Students in programs outside PAUSD 6:30-7:30 p.m. Presentation on Alternative Programs in PAUSD - Dr. Carol Zepecki

• Current status • Future needs

7:30-7:45 p.m. Review of the current status of our work 7:45 - 8:00 p.m. Open Forum

• Community Information-Sharing per Working Norms Notes



Attachment 18


Complete tape recordings of most High School Task Force meetings are available at 25 Churchill Avenue. Many of the materials handed out at these meetings can be found online at:



Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Corey Levens, Gunn High School –Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher


Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt. Kara Rosenberg - Principal, Adult Education Ron Smith – PAUSD Facilities Carol Zepecki, Dir., Student Support Serv.




Minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2007 were reviewed and approved.

Presentation of Survey Results

Laurence presented results from the survey administered to 22 Alta Vista students. For the most part, they appeared to be in line with the results from Gunn and Paly students.

Presentation on Alternative Programs in PAUSD

Zepecki gave a presentation on the following programs: • Alta Vista Continuation High School • Terra Bella Community School • Middle College at Foothill Community College • Other smaller programs

Review of the Current Status of Our Work

The group reviewed and discussed the work done thus far.


Attachment 19



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2007 The group also continued its discussion regarding a specialty school.

Public Comment Melissa Baten-Caswell suggested looking at relationships with other community colleges, such as Cañada College.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Approved: 10/24/07

Attachment 19




• Is there a foundation or private funding for the specialty school Cohen presented at the previous meeting? Cohen said pupil allotments were the same as the rest of the district. Once the program began, parents formed a foundation. Land was donated and building construction was funded by an existing bond. Opening costs were absorbed by the district as they would be for any new school opening.

• Can PAUSD students attend another district’s specialty school? McEvoy said this was currently an option, and that students moving to another district bring funding with them. Pearson said representatives from Foothill College would come to the next meeting to discuss partnerships and programs.

• It was suggested that a new program could start as a school within a school and later grow to it’s own site.

Presentation of Survey Results

• Some kids don’t do as well in comprehensive high schools because they have trouble transitioning and organizing. An open campus also can play a role.

• Stigma for students attending continuation schools can be an issue, until kids and parents are educated on the quality of education they will receive.

Review of the Current Status of Our Work

• Can “soft costs” such as year round school, split schedule, school within a school, etc. as non-brick and mortar options be discussed? If a bond measure should fail, there must be other options.

• Another group member said that when she was at another district, she did a fair amount of research on year round high schools and that she would be happy to share this.

• Will there be feedback from the Principals on whether there were specific groups of students whose needs might not be currently being met?


Attachment 20


HSTF Pros and Concerns Regarding the Addition of an Independent Specialty School to PAUSD

Pros Concerns Questions It would be good for kids who don’t thrive in the Palo Alto “style” of learning. (3)

How do we provide the rich curriculum (especially electives and sports) that a large school can provide? (4)

Do we need a specific concept?

Choices for students (3) The timeline does not seem realistic. (3)

How do you narrow the specialty? Cohen said a more sophisticated survey would need to be used to determine exactly where students’ interest is, and what possible partnerships exist, as well as space resources.

Offers a typically smaller learning community (3)

It could cost more to build and run than regular classes. (3)

How could the Palo Alto population come to a consensus regarding what type of specialty school?

Gives students a chance to investigate an area thoroughly and see the application in the real world by using project-based learning and constructivist curriculum. (2)

Can a specialty school draw 450-500 students? (2)

Who is the target population? Cohen said that for the MN district, the target was the entire grade 11-12 population, and the specialty school’s pop should emulate the entire district’s population.

Rigor and record of success May impact enrollment at other schools. (2)

Find the right “specialty” and company funding could be there to support the school.

It might fail.

Exciting educational opportunity for district staff.

Enrollment could be very variable.

Culminating public exhibitions Stress on staff Partnerships and community involvement

How can a theme be chosen without causing division in the community?

Alleviates overcrowding It won’t immediately relieve overcrowding.

It could be good for a group of targeted students.

It would make the district even more attractive, drawing in additional enrollment.

Limited transportation is currently available.


Attachment 21


AGENDA

October 24, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.


Meeting Purposes: • To receive information on possible program collaboration with Foothill College • To receive information on the Middle College Program at Foothill College • To review survey results submitted by current Middle College students • To receive growth perspectives from the PAUSD High School Principals • To verify/finalize site visits


Approval of Minutes from October 10, 2007

6:10 – 6:45 Presentation of program collaboration thoughts • Foothill College • Middle College

6:45-7:00 Presentation of student survey results – Middle College 7:00-7:45 Growth perspectives from the PAUSD High School Principals 7:45 - 8:00 Open Forum




Attachment 22





Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kristen Brockmann, Palo Alto High School – Teacher Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt. Corey Levens, Gunn High School –Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher


Kara Rosenberg - Principal, Adult Education Ron Smith – PAUSD Facilities Carol Zepecki, Dir., Student Support Serv. Carmen Giedt, Terman – Principal

Guest: Michael Wilson, Middle College Program – Faculty Coordinator

Denise Swett, Foothill College – Dean of Middlefield Campus Co-Facilitators Present:



Minutes for the meeting of October 17, 2007 were reviewed and approved.

Presentation of Program Collaboration Thoughts

Urabe introduced Swett and Wilson. She then gave a presentation on the Middle College program, where 72 11th and 12th graders currently get one-half day high school work and one-half day college work.

Approved: 10/29/07 High School Task Force Meeting – October 24, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 23


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2007

Presentation of Survey Results – Middle College

Laurence presented the results of the High School Growth survey administered to 26 Middle College students. A few highlights follow:

• The most important thing about being at Gunn or Paly is elective classes, with diversity of student interests and variety of extracurricular choices coming in second and third.

• 14 students said a smaller school would definitely suit their needs better. • When it came to the choice of a specialty school, visual and performing arts was

first, international studies was second, and virtual high school was third. • 18 students would definitely attend a specialty school in the field they chose.

Laurence and a small group of Task Force members attended a site visit to Alta Vista earlier in the week. Highlights follow:

• It is a small, intimate program. • Demographics are very different from Middle College. • Attendance is at about 93%. • 50% of students work full or part time. • Class size is 20-25. • 155 students are currently enrolled, although each year over 300 students usually

pass through Alta Vista. • 12-15 students per year stay for a fifth year if they are on track to graduate. • Graduates receive Alta Vista and PAUSD diplomas, and have the opportunity to

graduate at their home school. • As most students are credit-deficient rather than low performers, there is not a large

achievement gap. • Students are not given F’s, but rather are encouraged to keep working until they

reach C-level work. • There are some co-ed sports, and the male-female ratio is 60%/40%. • There are no semesters or quarters. • There is a full time police officer, and the campus is very calm, with virtually no

fights. • 155 students are in the program, with 32 from PAUSD. • Growing this program is not an option, as the quality of the program will be lost. • 10% of students are Special Education students. • They are leasing the land for $1 per year for 40 years from the City of Mountain

View, and the facility was built with Mountain View-Los Altos (MVLA) impact fees. • 80% of students register for college prior to graduation. • Having key non-teaching staff in any program is very important.

Growth Perspectives from the PAUSD High School Principals

Likins gave the group copies of the Gunn campus map and the school profile brochure. Highlights of her presentation follow: What is done well at Gunn:

• College prep and elective programs are strong. • The athletic program is successful, with nearly half of all Gunn students on a team. • The campus atmosphere is positive. • There are nearly 60 clubs on campus. • A large amount of direct support comes from parents.


Attachment 23


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 • Over 90% of Gunn graduates go on to college.

What Gunn staff wish they had or could do: • Traditional education program does not benefit all students. • Kids need more opportunities to learn creatively. • Students are not provided with opportunities to use the technology they have grown

up with. • More flexibility in scheduling and programs is needed.

What it would take to improve: • Flexible space • Flexible staff • More experts • Teachers who could track and monitor progress • Flexible work hours for teachers

Obstacles: • Existing requirements for university admission • Change is difficult to implement • Credentialing requirements, and No Child Left Behind requirements • Lack of autonomy at the individual school level

McEvoy handed out copies of Palo Alto High School’s profile and campus map, as well as a draft of the proposed projects under the bond, the school-wide action plan, and an example of how the 900 Building might be rebuilt in a cluster format. Highlights of her presentation follow:

• There is high academic performance, with 70-80% of students going on to college. • Only 20% of underrepresented minority students graduating from Paly met A-G

university requirements (UC). • WASC plans will address school growth based on the work of this Task Force. • Paly has a block schedule two days per week, allowing students to work on special

projects. • 70-75 students are assigned to each teacher advisor. • Instructional Supervisors bring a rich, dynamic component to instruction at PAUSD

high schools. • Career Technical Education at Paly allows education to be approached very

differently from traditional high school courses. McEvoy would like to grow this area, because it is so in demand in the Silicon Valley, and WASC may suggest this type of visioning to occur.

• Having two high schools that are meeting student needs in different ways is very important. The population needs are different at each school.

• Spaces need to be looked at in a more flexible way. • Build on the strengths of the programs Paly already has. There is also money

available (grants, state funding initiatives) to bolster the career technical program.

Public Comment Triona Gogarty asked if the district could receive Perkins and CTE funding. McEvoy said this was already occurring. She added that Prop 1D money also paid for equipment, and that bond money could match Prop 1D money. Likins said Perkins money is available in the vocational education area.


Attachment 23


QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2007 MEETING Presentation of Program Collaboration Thoughts

• Do the students at Middle College only come from MVLA and PAUSD? Yes. • How are high school graduation requirements satisfied? There is a high school core of

English and history courses. The rest is done as college coursework. Graduates earn a PAUSD diploma.

• When students finish at Middle College, do they transfer in to Foothill, or apply to it or other colleges? After 2 years, students have completed one year of college, so about half choose to stay another year at Foothill to complete the sophomore year before transferring. Students in the honors program can transfer as Juniors to almost any college in the U.S.

• There are also Special Education students attending Middle College. • What is the trigger for a Counselor to refer a student to Middle College? Teachers often

do referrals of students who need a different experience. • Is the high school portion of the curriculum based on PAUSD curriculum? Yes. • If students are doing well in the curriculum at Middle College why do they struggle at

their home school? Middle College is very different in that there is a sense of community and the care taken with the students is very different.

• How many students at PAUSD would be interested if there was no limit. Probably no more than are currently attending Middle College, as many are hesitant to relinquish links with their home schools. This program is being well-publicized.

• Does Middle College have a good reputation on home school campuses? There is often parental concern, although once the program is explained, they feel more comfortable.

• Is transportation ever an issue? It can be, however there are bus lines available and some students drive.

• There used to be a waiting list. Has there been a recent change in the program or the students that alleviated the waiting list? There is a waiting list. Currently the target number of students from PAUSD is 38, and 39 are attending. Less than ten students from each district are currently on the waiting list.

• By the time students have reached their Junior year at Gunn, they often have a very diverse education and are less likely to leave.

• What was the motivation behind creating the freestyle program? This was created by staff at MVLA, so they would need to describe it to the Task Force.

• While the Middle College supports 72 high school students, PAUSD is looking for a solution for 500 students. What would you suggest? Urabe said Middle College could not support more than about 30 additional students, and only in the Technology Middle College. There are no plans to expand the Middle College program at this point, and Foothill does not have any interest in attracting more high school students at this time.

• There are also a substantial number of students taking courses at Foothill while attending Gunn and Paly, because the high schools do not offer some of the courses they desire.

• Is there a limit to the number of concurrently-enrolled students Foothill can support? There is no limit during the regular school year, but there is a limit during the summer time.

• What is the financial formula for Middle College? Students do not pay fees for the Foothill classes, because their home districts are charged $13 per unit, and mandatory fees for regular students have been waived. PAUSD also has a contract with MVLA to pay approximately $10,000 per student. Students do have to buy textbooks.


Attachment 24


Presentation of Survey Results – Middle College and Observations from Alta Vista Site Visit

• What percentage of students go to Middle College decide they cannot handle it and return to their home schools? About 10% of regular education students have returned to their home schools after trying Middle College and struggling.

• Having key non-teaching staff in any program is very important.

Growth Perspectives from the PAUSD High School Principals

• In order to best meet the needs of students, it seems that attendance areas should be alleviated, or transfers between schools should be freely allowed, as the schools have differing ways of meeting student needs.

• Are the Principals advocating for the elimination of attendance areas and the addition of a third comprehensive high school? If so, how would this occur? Likens said she was not suggesting this, however she hoped for more flexibility for students to satisfy requirements. McEvoy said open enrollment is not necessarily competitive, and her challenge was how to provide the best education for the students who attend her school site.

• A new program or site will need a new administrative structure. In addition both parent and student will need to be sold on any new program or site.

• Are the Principals saying they can already accommodate the growth? McEvoy said that with the addition of facilities, this can be done. Laurence said a third institution could be added to an existing site, or it could be added to a new site, or current programs could be grown.

• The community seems to believe high schools are already too big, because Principals and teachers do not have close relationships with the students they currently have.

• This may be the beginning of a values discussion in this Task Force. Some questions to answer during this discussion might be: Should the high schools continue to be the same size? Should the two sites offer the same programs?

• If the group decides to grow the two schools, ways to develop a more personalized experience ought to be developed.

Attachment 24


AGENDA

October 29, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.


Meeting Purposes: • To receive information about program possibilities:

o Career VocEd – David Hoshiwara o Adult Education – Kara Rosenberg o Instructional Technology – Marie Scigliano

• To hear plans for the Task Force November 2007 meetings


• Approval of Minutes from October 24, 2007

6:10 – 7:40 Presentation of program possibilities • Career Voc/Ed • Adult Education • Instructional Technology

7:45 - 8:00 Open Forum

• Community Information-Sharing per Working Norms

Notes • Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Next Meeting: November 7, 2007 • Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker.


Attachment 25





Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Carmen Giedt, Terman – Principal Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt. Corey Levens, Gunn High School –Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher


Kara Rosenberg, Adult School – Principal

Guest: David Hoshiwara, Career Voc. Ed - Coordinator




Likins suggested that the minutes for October 24, 2007 be edited on Page 3 under what Gunn staff wished they had, bullet to read: “Students are not provided with opportunities to use the technology they have grown up with.” In addition, Jacobus asked that the statement on Page 2 regarding the lease of land from the City of Mountain View should read that the lease was for 40 years at $1.00 per year. Minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2007 were reviewed and approved with the suggested edits.

Presentation of Program Possibilities

Hoshiwara said there were portions of Career Voc. Ed in both high schools, and he coordinated the funding. He encouraged interested group members visit Freestyle High in Mountain View. He then gave a brief overview, with highlights following.

• About half Career Voc. Ed. funds benefit students with special needs • Programs being funded include: Adult Ed TPP (Transition Partnership Program), El


Attachment 26



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2007 Cajon, Next Step Academy, OICW Agreement (Job Training), ROP (Regional Occupational Program), Tech Prep, Transition Partnership Program, WorkAbility I, Work Experience

Hoshiwara’s HSTF suggestions for serving an additional 500 students:

• Address needs of students not currently being served • Funding is very restrictive • Current programs are funded through outside sources, with PAUSD contributing

about 12% Rosenberg gave a presentation on Adult Education, with highlights following:

• Current Adult School services for high school students: GED testing, foreign language, non-credit classes for Juniors and Seniors

• Potential services that might be offered include: GED preparation, Adult Diploma Program, test prep center, and Adult CTE (Career Technical Education)

• Road blocks include: regulations, facilities, volume, money

Laurence said the site visit to Monte Vista High School was scheduled for November 8 from 10:oo a.m. to noon. Monte Vista is opening some new facilities in December that were built to accommodate enrollment growth.

Options - Brainstorming

Laurence said the goal for October was to give the group a sense of what was currently occurring in PAUSD. He then reviewed the group’s mission, as well as actual and projected enrollment numbers. The group discussed additional options to accommodate increased enrollment. Laurence asked the group to come back to the next meeting with recommendations for growth over the next seven years.

Public Comment There were no requests to speak.


Attachment 26


QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE OCTOBER 29, 2007 MEETING



• What do you get when you go through the El Cajon program? PAUSD high school credits.

• Are all the students in the program at Paly actual Paly students? Yes. • Are all the programs filled to capacity? Yes. • Can any programs be expanded? Yes, with additional funds. El Cajon and VA would

be good programs to expand. • Would additional space be needed? Yes for ROP. Other programs such as El Cajon

and VA are offsite. • How do students enter the program? They are usually referred by teachers or

counselors. • Is there a district office staff person who looks for third party funding? Laurence said

Hoshiwara has done this, however no one has officially been tasked with this responsibility. Likins said a Stanford alumni organization has helped Gunn do research on fundraising and grant writing.

• Would those benefiting from GED prep be current PAUSD high school students, or adults who were credit-deficient? Likins said it was mostly those who were over 18, which is the minimum age for taking the GED test.

• Would the Test Prep Center be targeted to specific students or open to all students? It would be open to all students, and it would be fee-based for some tests.

• What is the process used to start an Adult School class? A job market survey would be done to determine need, then cost would be determined. Some areas, like welding, would require a large amount of equipment, making the cost prohibitive.

• Considering the modest pay for Adult School teachers, what qualifications are required? Teachers of academic subjects are required to have a BA and 5 years experience in the field. Career technical classes require a certificate.

• How many additional students might be accommodated in the near future? A Career Technical Education strand might be developed with Paly, however an adult-based program would be required, and this may be difficult. The number of students supported is not known.

• Does the Adult School offer citizenship training? Yes, there are about 8 students now.

• Is there any available Federal funding for citizenship training? Yes, about $5 per student hour.

• Adult schools are capped, however there is currently room to grow. Career technical education, is not capped, and Rosenberg saw no problem with growing this program as long as there is space.

• How many adults and high school students are in the program? No students and about 6,000 adults attend the Adult School throughout the year.

• Can Voc Ed programs accommodate additional students? Not without additional funding.

• ROP programs have a cap now, but if they were to grow, would the cap be increased? It is not known if the cap will grow for ROP programs in the future.

Options - Brainstorming

• Appropriate sizes for Paly and Gunn ought to be considered first. This would help the group determine when alternate programs are needed. At that point, alternative funding, such as from the Gates Foundation, could be sought. It was responded that

Attachment 27




an affluent community such as this may have trouble finding funding. In addition, studies had shown that more affluent districts were more successful with larger schools.

• Information on enrollment in lower grades and migration of families into and out of the district may help with planning.

• How many homes are now owned by senior citizens? Demographic data will be released on November 13.

• Will traffic issues be discussed in terms in growing sites? Yes, pros and cons for all the options will be discussed.

• Aside from expanding the two high schools, how else can additional space be acquired?

• Is a bond election definitely happening? The final decision will not be made until January.

• This is a good time to consider findings of groups such as Stressed out Students and the possibility of changing school hours.

• Do the high schools need to be grown equally, and do programs need to remain equal at the two schools? This is something that can be addressed at a future meeting.

• Is there a waiting list for a program like TEAM (Together Everyone Achieves More)? About 100 students are mostly hand-selected for TEAM. A complete analysis will be done in the spring.

Suggested additional options to accommodate increased enrollment:

• Lower existing high school enrollments (to approximately 1750 at each school), consider programming for 700-900 range

• Include high school Principals’ reports o Flexible use of space o Grow Voc Ed/Career Tech

• Four quarter year – attend 3 quarters (split schedule) • Create an alternative school (like Alta Vista) for approximately 125 • Freestyle High School • Expand the two high schools (add 2-story buildings) • Move district office to accommodate specialty school/program

Program options:

• Maintain (increase) personalization: teacher/teacher, student/teacher, add home room or advisory for groups of 20-25 students, explore hands-on learning opportunities, Interdisciplinary learning

• Choice (Career Voc Ed connected to work) • Explore choice of high schools (not necessarily by attendance area) • Increase adult/student ratio • Partnerships/teaming/collaboration • Help students with next steps (guidance and others) • Explore options online and other alternative instructional opportunities • Flexibility (only 40 units? Where earned and what they can bring in) • Alternative teaching and learning styles

Attachment 27




• Summer immersion programs • Interdisciplinary teams • Flexible space

Attachment 27


AGENDA

November 7, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.


Meeting Purposes:

• To receive information about program possibilities • To hear program status/future possibilities in Instructional Technology • To review Spring 2007 Board assumptions, HSTF assumptions, and norms • To review and find common ideas for the HSTF recommendation


Approval of Minutes from October 29, 2007

6:10 – 6:45 Presentation of program possibilities • Instructional Technology

6:45 – 7:00 Review of work to date

• Board assumptions • HSTF Norms • HSTF assumptions to date

7:00- 7:15 Individual review/modification of suggested recommendation 7:15-7:45 Individual recommendation proposals (Groups of 3)

• Sharing • Crafting a combined recommendation proposal (round 1)

7:45-8:15 Group of 3 recommendation proposals (Groups of 6)

• Sharing • Crafting a combined recommendation proposal (round 2)

8:15-8:30 Presentation of recommendation proposals from the Groups of 6 8:30-8:45 Finding the common ideas from the Groups of 6 recommendation proposals 8:45-9:00 Open Forum


• Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Next Meeting: November 14, 2007

Attachment 28

• Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker. Should more than 5 people wish to address the Task Force, the Facilitators may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker.

Attachment 28




MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kris Brockmann, Palo Alto High School - Teacher Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt., Project Lead Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Elaine Ray, Parent Network Students of Color Kara Rosenberg, Adult School – Principal Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher

Community Resource: Rose Meyers, Foothill College - VP, Relations at Schools

Guests: Marie Scigliano, Dir., Education Technology Chuck Merritt, Vice Principal, Paly

Co-Facilitators:



Minutes from 10/29/07 were reviewed and approved.


Scigliano and Merritt gave a presentation on Virtual High Schools, with highlights following. • Description of “online learning”: Synchronous and asynchronous communication • Models

o Commercial Subscription Model: Apex Campbell Union High School District: Teachers facilitate the use of an

Apex-run course using Campbell’s labs o Consortium Model

Florida Virtual High School o Lab-based Model

Approved: High School Task Force Meeting – November 7, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 29


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007 Riverside Virtual High School: Came from their high school task force

discussions UCCP: This curriculum is modified and made to fit a school’s needs

o Check-in Model Public Comment Melissa Baten Caswell asked if any exploration had been done on video conferencing, as this is more visual. This can be part of any of these models.

Review of Work to Date Pearson reviewed project assumptions and risks as stated in the HSTF Overview Statement. She said the group was not being asked to consider cost at this point in the discussion. The following assumptions were developed during prior meetings:

• No third comprehensive high school will be discussed at this time. • No specialty school in the short term (next 5-7 years) will be discussed at this time. • Recommended spaces must be flexible. • Personalization within the schools is a high priority. • The two existing comprehensive high schools are valued. • Enrollment can increase to 2,300 at each school in the short term (next 5-7 years). • Schools can maintain their uniqueness.

Meeting norms were reviewed.

Presentation of Recommendation Proposals from the Groups of 6

Task Force members met in small groups to develop recommendations, then they combined into groups of six to refine recommendations. The resulting recommendations follow: 1st group

• Increase capacity to 2,300 for the two high schools, by building classrooms in a way that ensures students continue to receive the current level of education. o This will require infrastructure modifications, such as parking, bathrooms,

classrooms, etc. • Flexible spaces are valued. • Maximize alternative programs, such as Alta Vista, Foothill, OSCW. • Spend money, time, and attention on relationships with students, including

homerooms, guidance, and staff/student ratios. 2nd group

• Commonalities include expansion on the two campuses such as adding two-story buildings and flexible space.

• Online learning opportunities were significant and could be offered on both campuses, and via video conferencing.

• Personalize the student experience. • Develop student plans, revised on quarterly basis. • Offer alternative approaches to learning and teaching with project-based instruction

and school within a school. • This alternative program could meet A-G requirements and could grow over time. • Open a Middle College-type program, either off campus or on campus, with a project

focus.


Attachment 29


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007 • Explore alternative programs such as International Baccalaureate. • Extend the school day and change or stagger start times.

The date of the 11/14/07 meeting was changed to 11/19/07.



Attachment 29


QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE NOVEMBER 7, 2007 MEETING


• When there is a commercial product, how does onsite staff involvement work? In the past, the AP Statistics course was enhanced by a course offered by Apex. The Apex curriculum included enhancements allowing for data to be manipulated electronically via a model embedded in the course.

• Can PAUSD do a statistics course with Apex that meets A-G requirements and does not require additional PAUSD staff? Yes. The District can buy the needed seats in an Apex course once it has been confirmed that the course meets requirements.

• Are you familiar with Plato? Yes, although it involves online classes for WASC credit. • How would the classes taken from Florida transfer over for California requirements?

This model emphasizes AP programs, rather than A-G requirements, because AP is more universal.

• Are the courses and texts approved in the same way as they are in California? They are accredited within their local organizations.

• How are language acquisition or physics labs handled? There are tools, such as audio files, which are widely used. InClass is also used.

• Do students ever meet the teacher, or is it all on the Internet? How does this work? In the consortium model, unless you are taking the course from a teacher at your school, you may never meet the teacher face to face. Usually communication is electronic.

• How are quizzes and tests administered? Tests can be made available for a very limited time period, and there are other ways tests can be devised to keep students from cheating. This kind of learning also can have other requirements such as chat room discussion participation.

• Who would train teachers to run virtual classrooms? There are trainers who specifically train these teachers.

• Are any other models set up so PAUSD teachers can create courses and teach them as they wish? Any of these models can be used this way.

• What kind of impact has Virtual High School had on enrollment growth? This is a very new program, so impact is not yet known. There is already buy-in from the other schools in that district.

• What would a Virtual High School require in regard to facilities? To serve all the secondary schools in the district, they usually require a lab or two and some office space.

• How soon might PAUSD implement a program that would accommodate student interest, and how many students might be accommodated?

• The Adult School runs a program teaching English at home with videotapes, and these students are actually scoring higher than the in-class students.

• It appears these programs only address top students. What about other underserved populations such as struggling students? How you use virtual learning should depend on which issues you are trying to address. Virtual High School can be done in different ways using the same technology. There are a number of products that can be used to give individual remediation as well.

• What materials are available that might sufficiently grab the interest of struggling students? Keep in mind that not all students are highly technologically inclined.

• How many students are currently getting credit for online classes? Every year, a handful of students take advantage of online high school courses to make up

High School Task Force Meeting - Comments – November 7, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 30

High School Task Force Meeting - Comments – November 7, 2007 - Page 2

deficient credits, or to take classes not offered by PAUSD schools. • Can a number of sections of existing classes be switched to online classes, and the

teachers who are freed up be used in other ways? Teachers may not be freed up if a number of students sign up for online courses, because they are still needed to supervise and support the students. The actual model would need to be seen first. The teachers might be used to teach a lower level if the online courses are AP. Each site would likely have different needs that do not match the skills potential available teachers might possess.

• What type of student tends to be most successful in online courses, and what type of teacher tends to be successful? Successful students are typically mature and disciplined, and like to communicate in writing. Successful teachers also like to communicate in writing.

• From a student’s perspective, education is moving more toward Internet interaction, such as InClass. Regarding the Discussion Board, not many students are interested in using it. If online courses are offered, they would definitely have to be attended on a volunteer basis. Video conferencing might be attractive to many students, as well as interactive websites.

Public Comment Melissa Baten Caswell asked if any exploration had been done on video conferencing, as this is more visual. This can be part of any of these models.

Review of Work to Date

• If the schools are more different than they are now, students should be allowed to choose which school they attend.

• It is OK to be unique, but we must be very conscious of the differences and the schools must meet students’ needs. There must not be a perception of inequity.

• Is a 1,000-student model for a specialty school excluded? Yes. There is a substantial cost involved in a specialty school of even 500 students.

• It was proposed that Gunn and Paly be decreased to about 1,750 each, and a third 750-900 student non-comprehensive high school be opened. This new school would not have offerings as broad as the comprehensive schools. o The cost for a new smaller high school would be tremendous, and what

would happen with declining enrollment in the future? o It may be difficult to get up to 1,000 students to attend a new non-

comprehensive, non-specialty school. o It was agreed that this would not be pursued.

• It was agreed that the statement about maintaining uniqueness would be omitted from the assumptions.

Presentation of Recommendation Proposals from the Groups of 6

• One smaller group suggested opening schools from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. It would have to be made clear that students could not take more than seven classes.

• What are preferred head counts and seat availability at the high schools for various programs?

• There are a number of students who would be successful at a non-comprehensive school with a closed campus.

Attachment 30

High School TaskHigh School Task

Force-ProgressForce-Progress

ReportReportEfforts to date:Efforts to date:

Seven meetingsSeven meetingsParent and student surveysParent and student surveysTwo site visitsTwo site visitsEight presentations by staff and partnersEight presentations by staff and partners

Attachment 31

Project AssumptionsProject Assumptions

Any options considered will be attractiveAny options considered will be attractiveto students and communityto students and community

Program design will be flexibleProgram design will be flexible Broad community support will beBroad community support will be

developeddeveloped Facilities expansion will be forwardFacilities expansion will be forward

lookinglooking Options will continue academicOptions will continue academic

excellence and expand opportunitiesexcellence and expand opportunities Facilities and funding will be affordableFacilities and funding will be affordable

Attachment 31

InformationalInformational

PresentationsPresentations Dr. Garrison discussed the key findings fromDr. Garrison discussed the key findings from

parent and student surveys:parent and student surveys: Parents and students appreciate our high schoolsParents and students appreciate our high schools Parents and students want a wide variety ofParents and students want a wide variety of

offerings and optionsofferings and options Parents rated core academics and curricular rigorParents rated core academics and curricular rigor

as very importantas very important Students also felt the above are important, as wellStudents also felt the above are important, as well

as are social life and extracurricular activitiesas are social life and extracurricular activities

Attachment 31


PresentationsPresentations Burton Cohen - Specialty SchoolsBurton Cohen - Specialty Schools Carol Carol ZepeckiZepecki - Alternative Programs - Alternative Programs Kara Rosenberg - Adult EducationKara Rosenberg - Adult Education Dave Dave HoshiwaraHoshiwara - Career/Vocational Ed - Career/Vocational Ed Marie Marie SciglianoScigliano and Chuck Merritt - and Chuck Merritt -

Virtual High SchoolsVirtual High Schools

Attachment 31


PresentationsPresentations Foothill College - Middle College and otherFoothill College - Middle College and other

program optionsprogram options Noreen Likins and Jacquie McEvoy Noreen Likins and Jacquie McEvoy –– Growing Growing

the two high school sitesthe two high school sites Site visit to Site visit to MontaMonta Vista High School - a Vista High School - a

comprehensive high school with approximatelycomprehensive high school with approximately2,500 students2,500 students

Site visit to Alta Vista High School - theSite visit to Alta Vista High School - thecontinuation high school PAUSD contractscontinuation high school PAUSD contractsservices with through services with through MtnMtn. View-Los Altos. View-Los AltosUnion HSDUnion HSD

Attachment 31

Agreements to DateAgreements to Date

Under the direction from the SchoolUnder the direction from the SchoolBoard or through consensus we haveBoard or through consensus we haveagreed to place in abeyance, for the nextagreed to place in abeyance, for the nextfive to seven years, the following optionsfive to seven years, the following options

A third comprehensive high schoolA third comprehensive high school An off-site specialty school of 500-1,000An off-site specialty school of 500-1,000

studentsstudents

Attachment 31

Current StatusCurrent Status

Determining final recommendations to beDetermining final recommendations to bepresented to Dr. Skelly by early Decemberpresented to Dr. Skelly by early December

Compiling data to be used to inform theCompiling data to be used to inform theStrategic Planning process and the WASCStrategic Planning process and the WASCprocesses at the two high schoolsprocesses at the two high schools

The High School Task Force recommendationsThe High School Task Force recommendationswill be presented to the School Board onwill be presented to the School Board onDecember December 18, 200718, 2007

Attachment 31

High School Task High School Task ForceForce--Progress Progress ReportReportEfforts to date:Efforts to date:

Seven meetingsSeven meetingsParent and student surveysParent and student surveysTwo site visitsTwo site visitsEight presentations by staff and partnersEight presentations by staff and partners

Attachment 32

Project AssumptionsProject Assumptions

Any options considered will be attractive Any options considered will be attractive to students and communityto students and communityProgram design will be flexibleProgram design will be flexibleBroad community support will be Broad community support will be developeddevelopedFacilities expansion will be forward Facilities expansion will be forward lookinglookingOptions will continue academic Options will continue academic excellence and expand opportunitiesexcellence and expand opportunitiesFacilities and funding will be affordableFacilities and funding will be affordable

Attachment 32

Informational Informational PresentationsPresentations

Dr. Garrison discussed the key findings from Dr. Garrison discussed the key findings from parent and student surveys:parent and student surveys:

Parents and students appreciate our high schoolsParents and students appreciate our high schoolsParents and students want a wide variety of Parents and students want a wide variety of offerings and optionsofferings and optionsParents rated core academics and curricular rigor Parents rated core academics and curricular rigor as very importantas very importantStudents also felt the above are important, as well Students also felt the above are important, as well as are social life and extracurricular activitiesas are social life and extracurricular activities

Attachment 32


Burton Cohen Burton Cohen -- Specialty SchoolsSpecialty SchoolsCarol Carol ZepeckiZepecki -- Alternative ProgramsAlternative ProgramsKara Rosenberg Kara Rosenberg -- Adult EducationAdult EducationDave Dave HoshiwaraHoshiwara -- Career/Vocational EdCareer/Vocational EdMarie Marie SciglianoScigliano and Chuck Merritt and Chuck Merritt --Virtual High SchoolsVirtual High Schools

Attachment 32


Foothill College Foothill College -- Middle College and other Middle College and other program optionsprogram optionsNoreen Likins and Jacquie McEvoy Noreen Likins and Jacquie McEvoy –– Growing Growing the two high school sitesthe two high school sitesSite visit to Site visit to MontaMonta Vista High School Vista High School -- a a comprehensive high school with approximately comprehensive high school with approximately 2,500 students2,500 studentsSite visit to Alta Vista High School Site visit to Alta Vista High School -- the the continuation high school PAUSD contracts continuation high school PAUSD contracts services with through services with through MtnMtn. View. View--Los Altos Los Altos Union HSDUnion HSD

Attachment 32

Agreements to DateAgreements to Date

Under the direction from the School Under the direction from the School Board or through consensus we have Board or through consensus we have agreed to place in abeyance, for the next agreed to place in abeyance, for the next five to seven years, the following optionsfive to seven years, the following options

A third comprehensive high schoolA third comprehensive high schoolAn offAn off--site specialty school of 500site specialty school of 500--1,000 1,000 studentsstudents

Attachment 32

Current StatusCurrent Status

Determining final recommendations to be Determining final recommendations to be presented to Dr. Skelly by early Decemberpresented to Dr. Skelly by early DecemberCompiling data to be used to inform the Compiling data to be used to inform the Strategic Planning process and the WASC Strategic Planning process and the WASC processes at the two high schoolsprocesses at the two high schoolsThe High School Task Force recommendations The High School Task Force recommendations will be presented to the School Board on will be presented to the School Board on December 18, 2007December 18, 2007

Attachment 32


AGENDA

November 19, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.


Meeting Purposes:

• To receive information about a high school site visit • To review draft recommendation wording • To develop draft ideas for recommendation support statements

o Rationale o Reality o Resources o Long/short term considerations


• Approval of Minutes from November 7, 2007

6:05 – 6:15 Report on high school site visit 6:15 – 6:25 Review of draft recommendation wording (individual)

6:25 – 7:00 Large group review/modification of suggested draft recommendation 7:00 - 7:45 Idea development for recommendation supporting statements 7:45 - 8:00 Open Forum


• Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Next Meeting: November 28, 2007 • Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker.


Attachment 33


Complete tape recordings of most High School Task Force meetings are available at 25 Churchill Avenue. http://pausd.org/community/HighSchoolTaskForce/index.shtml

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

Members present:

Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt., Project Lead Corey Levens – Gunn High School – Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher

Co-Facilitators: Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired


Minutes from 11/7//07 were reviewed and approved with the exception of the removal of the bullet on Page 2 regarding schools retaining their uniqueness.

Report on High School Visit

The committee members who visited Monta Vista High School, a larger high school, shared their perceptions.

• There appeared to be fewer special education students. • There appeared to be fewer alternative school referrals, such as Alta Vista. • They did have a large leadership class. • They relied on students as catalysts for communication and involvement in

activities. • They did not have school within a school or split schedule. • Many of the buildings were two-stories. • The steps they did take seemed to be working. • They had tried homeroom, but it did not really work. • Their enrollment had increased by 600 kids in the past five years, which is

comparable to the increase PAUSD is expecting. • They had used their $150 million facility bond measure to plan for this growth, as

PAUSD is doing. • The Principal advised that the most important thing is communication with parents

and community. • Growth was managed incrementally and adjustments were made accordingly over


Attachment 34


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007 time.

• Their administrative team had been changed so that one Vice Principal position was converted into two Dean positions, and all staff handled guidance.

• Monta Vista is part of a high school only district, where parents seem less invested and more detached than at PAUSD.

• Different programs are distributed among the five high schools within the district. • As they grew, they made sure organizations such as clubs received the resources

they needed to grow as well. • Each of the high schools chose to become a large high school, while maintaining

current cultures. • Communication had been dramatically improved, and a great deal of information

was available on the web. • Schools were allowed to vary in size, with Monta Vista at 2,500 and Cupertino at

1,500, for example. • Monta Vista does not have a large theater, like Gunn does. • The 90-minute Period C on Wednesdays, or the "collaboration period", when staff

had a chance to collaborate at the beginning of the day instead of the end, and students could stay home and sleep in a bit. This might be one idea for relieving stress during the week. Plus, unlike the end of the day, students were not on campus to interfere or distract staff.

• Like Paly they had a modified block schedule, theirs on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

• They had a 30-minute tutorial period on Thursdays in the middle of the day, when all kids and teachers were on campus.

• They emphasized their Leadership classes, which accommodate about 100 students with 8 areas of leadership (staff relations, campus, clubs, student life (intramurals), spirit and recognition, Link Crew, daily announcements, missing one?).

• LINK Crew program involves 200 kids. Theirs starts by meeting with 8th graders during their last semester of MS and continues for all four years in HS, meeting several times a year, using class time.

• Homestead HS has grown 300 students in the last 2 years, from 1,900 to 2,200. • Fremont Union High School District is a basic aid district too. • Monta Vista has 3.5 guidance counselors. To supplement, all admin given alpha

group for guidance. • Site confirms student residency every year with 3 forms of ID, if "fishy" send referral

to district office. • Start Aug 27, moved exams before Christmas; 2nd semester longer but STAR, AP

tests even out semesters • 115 special ed students (I don't know how this compares to our numbers but current

notes say MV "appeared to have fewer")

Large Group Review/Modification of Suggested Draft Recommendation

Committee members reviewed the draft recommendation wording, developed at the meeting of November 9 by the two groups of committee members. Additionally, a draft bond project summary was reviewed, which included suggested improvements to accommodate growth. The group suggested revisions, which would result in a draft set of recommendations to be compiled by the planning group and brought forward at the next HSTF meeting for approval. Comments:


Attachment 34


MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007 • What effect will increasing enrollment have on sports teams? It is likely that

additional teams will be developed, such as Freshman football. • Will any of the new classroom buildings on the Draft Bond Project Summary be

multi-story? The HSTF does not need to recommend on this, because the sites will make this decision.

• The bond money can only be for facilities, not technology. • What does “unfunded projects” mean? These projects are not funded by the current

bond money the district is receiving. • Can technology be bought with money from a Prop 39 bond? Yes. • Will a parcel tax be needed to fund the furnishing of new Prop 39 buildings? No.

Funding will be found elsewhere.



Attachment 34


AGENDA

November 28, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.


Meeting Purpose:

• To review draft recommendation and document language


Approval of Minutes from November 19, 2007

6:10 - 8:45 Review of Task Force Recommendation Document/Language 8:45-9:00 Open Forum


• Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker. Should more than 5 people

wish to address the Task Force, the Facilitators may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker.

Attachment 35



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007

Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m.

Members present: Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kris Brockmann, Palo Alto High School - Teacher Kristina Gossard, Gunn High School – Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt., Project Lead Corey Levens – Gunn High School – Parent/Site Council Noreen Likins, Gunn High School – Principal Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Todd Summers, Gunn High School – Teacher Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher

Guests: Marvina White, Co-Founder of Parent Network of Students of Color

Co-Facilitators: Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired


Minutes from 11/19//07 were reviewed, edited, and approved.

Laurence introduced Marvina White, who was holding an event regarding closing the achievement gap. White, Co-Founder of Parent Network of Students of Color with Elaine Rae, noted that Black and Latino students were scoring well below White and Asian students in regard to standardized testing. Laurence said placeholders in the list of Facilities Master Plan had been left to accommodate enrollment growth up to 2,300 at each of the two existing high schools. He said he also had discussed initial ideas with Kevin Skelly. Skelly also asked that the HSTF members come to the December Board study session, when the proposal was tobe presented. Laurence noted that at a Board study session, recommendations could be presented and discussed, but the Board could not accept them at that meeting, due to the Brown Act.


Attachment 36



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007

Comments: • If Gunn’s enrollment increases to 2,300 how will increased traffic be mitigated? • The current 1,950 enrollment limit was established by the Board last year as

guidance for the Attendance Area Advisory Group (AAAG) and this group.

Review of Task Force Recommendation Document/Language

The group discussed the draft recommendations and made suggestions. It was agreed that the Planning Group would make revisions, then bring back another draft for the full group to review on December 5, 2007.



Attachment 36


AGENDA

December 5, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.


Meeting Purpose:

• To review draft recommendation and document language


Approval of Minutes from November 19, 2007

6:10 - 8:45 Review of Task Force Recommendation Document/Language 8:45-9:00 Open Forum


• Light snacks will be available during the meeting • Community members wishing to address the High School Task Force are allotted three minutes per speaker. Should more than 5 people

wish to address the Task Force, the Facilitators may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker.

Attachment 37



MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2007

Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.

Members present: Suzanne Attenborough, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Kris Brockmann, Palo Alto High School - Teacher Joan Jacobus, Gunn High School – Parent/PTSA Max Keeler, Gunn High School - Student Marion Krause, Greendell – PAEA Scott Laurence - Asst. Supt., Project Lead Corey Levens – Gunn High School – Parent/Site Council Jackie McEvoy, Palo Alto High School – Principal Malati Murthy, Palo Alto High School – CSEA Elain Ray – Parent Network Students of Color Martin Stone, Palo Alto High School – Parent/PTSA/Site Council Sandi Urabe, Foothill College – Dean (Retired) Ron Williamson, Palo Alto High School – Teacher

Co-Facilitators: Burton Cohen, Dir., Secondary Education (Absent) Sandra Pearson, Palo Alto High School Principal, retired


Minutes from 12/5/07 were approved.

Review of Task Force Recommendation Document/Language

The group reviewed and discussed the proposed revisions to the Report to the Superintendent from the High School Task Force, and agreed upon further edits. Some areas discussion focused on were educational experience, educational options, alternative programs, staff to student ratios, and implementation of the recommendations. Laurence said the next step would be the presentation of the final version of the Report to the Superintendent to the Board of Education at a study session on December 18, 2007. It was agreed that the experts who presented to the HSTF would be asked to attend the Board study session. Laurence said the goal was that these recommendations would be embedded in WASC reports and addressed in the Strategic Plan.



Approved: High School Task Force Meeting – December 5, 2007 - Page 1

Attachment 38


Documents

PLACE: BOARD ROOM – ADMINISTRATION BUILDING …pausd-web.pausd.org/community/board/downloads/brd_packet/pkt... · 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA : DATE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER