Cory Merrill Campus Planning Process

June 12, 2008

Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting

Review background and past agreements Review configuration proposals

Engage in open dialogue Reach consensus on the best configuration

model for the campus

4 Common Needs During a Collaborative Process

The need for information—from friends, technical sources, knowledge-sharing systems, etc.

The need for multiple perspectives—you, bystanders, rivals, etc.

The need to deal with complexity—managing a perhaps bewildering range of possibilities and consequences with a mix of systematicity and intuition

The need to deal with negative emotions—finding and sustaining needed distance (David Perkins, King Arthur’s Round Table, p. 25)

Ground Rules

Listen to understand, not to reload Share air time

Encourage and respect diverse perspectives Be crew, not passengers

Background and Context: The Early Years

1996: Cory nearly closes, revived through HGT magnet status

2005-2006: Parents mobilize and work with schools to find ways to boost enrollment and achievement at Merrill

Spring 2007: CM Committee approaches district for support to make changes, meetings held to discuss

October 1, 2007: SIG/Beacon Planning Grant submitted and (November) approved, forming the Cory Merrill Campus Coalition

Background and Context: Vision and Values Determined

January 2008: Coordinating Committee formed (24 members, reflecting stakeholder groups)

February: Vision and Value statements approved by CMC Coalition

?

Strong Foundation: Shared Vision and Values· Neighborhood/community focus· Academically rigorous for all learners while meeting their diverse learning needs· Offers HGT/GT and/or honors options for students· Seamless integration of programs between schools on the same campus and in alignment with other

feeder pattern schools· Infuses and integrates arts (music, dance, visual arts, and drama) into the curriculum· Emphasizes character and a culture of responsibility, caring, and respect· Explore a thematic approach to learning

Background and Context: Defining Vision and Values

Background and Context: Building Blocks of Excellence

Background and Context: Initial Configuration Possibilities

1. ECE-12 models1. One School2. Campus Model3. ECE-1 at Cory, 2-6 at Merrill, 7-12 at South

2. ECE-8 Models1. One School2. Two Schools3. ECE-K at Cory, 1-8 at Merrill

3. ECE-10 Middle College Model

Model 1: ECE-2, 3-8 as one school

What proponents say Expands openings to meeting growing

demand for Cory—which will soon be filled with entirely neighborhood students entering Kindergarten.

Groups similar grade levels in like buildings

Reduces total number of students needed to fill Merrill middle school spots, solving under-enrollment problem

No negative impact on South/feeder schools if new elementary students are drawn from growing neighborhood

Elementary students become familiar with Merrill and will more likely attend

Promotes continuity in curriculum and instruction for teachers

Would likely still preserve room for the ELA program

What opponents say By using two buildings, there is less

continuity It isn’t a change – status quo Negative impact on feeder schools if

new elementary students are drawn from feeders

200 students per grade in the middle school – not best way to educate students

Challenge of integrating students from feeder schools in at 6th grade

Disrupts the Cory configuration when many feel it isn’t broken

Could have remodel costs involved (though likely small)

A few introductory remarks about the models. . .

Concerns about losing neighborhood schools, and all students coming

Concerns about moving out of schools for a year

Concerns about

Model 2: ECE-5, 6-12

What proponents say: Keeps Cory as it is, answering the

question of “why fix what is not broken”

Reduces the number of students per grade at Merrill, helping solve the under-enrollment problem

Separates students into elementary and secondary, grouping like-age level students

Provides a small high school environment that can be accessed by middle school students seeking enrichment options

Modifications to the building would be minor if any to accommodate high school

What opponents say: Cory is overcrowded now—this

doesn’t really provide an adequate solution. If you move some of the grade levels (e.g. 5) you logse the benefit of keeping Cory as it is

Requires money to modify for high school

Space would likely be limited which could negatively impact the ELA program

Limits the number of feeder students entering in middle and high school

Competes with South High for students

Model 3: ECE-8, 9-12

What proponents say: This model is more likely to attract

students from private schools with the high school option

This would provide a change for Cory and a chance to redefine itself in new ways

Creates a seamless ECE-8 option, integrated in same building

8th graders could still transition to South This is most innovative, different,

inspirational, new Could be model for other small high

schools in the city High school students not in same building

as younger children Continues the positive culture of parent

involvement into the middle school option

What opponents say: High school students would be

segregated from younger students Greater cost for remodeling in both

buildings—could be up to several million dollars

Space would likely be limited which could negatively impact the ELA program

Fewer students could attend (per grade) from feeders and overall

Biggest disruption to the current system—most radical change

Criteria for Selection

Inclusiveness and Diversity (HGT, ELA, Neighborhood Schools)

Increase student enrollment and achievement

Seamless Integration Between Schools Meet Growing ECE Demand Draw Students Back to DPS Effective Use of Facilities (Costs)