July 6 2017
1138 Hollins St
Sheila Drummond Camm
Update from City Schools Meeting
Dr Santelieses and Sabrina Sutton met with Michael Seipp, Lou Packett, Lisa Rawlings, Sheila Drummond, and Elizabeth Weber. We discussed the community school plan and areas where we felt that the school system needed to better support the work of the SWP–improved communication, not having an area-wide strategy and awareness, and not having our schools on priority lists for facilities improvements.
The school system was very supportive of the community school concept, and we will work in tandem with them as they develop standards for community schools across the city.
The Committee discussed existing standards for community schools, and the ways in which resources are allocated across the system, and were concerned that the distribution was convoluted and unequal. The Committee would like to know what the baseline is that schools should have (what’s a definition of a 21st Century School).
Made requests: move up on facilities list (no response), informed if any of our schools would be considered for closing (that won’t be given to us). We also asked for Mr Miller to be given to the SWP as a coordinator for the community school planning effort, which was rejected (Mr Miller has taken another principal position).
After the meeting we haven’t heard a lot back from the school system–we need to follow up with City Schools after the meeting.
Community Schools Update
Sheila suggested that it would be important to have an organizational chart for the community school process. Lou put together a draft organizational chart which he shared with the Committee. The chart is attached in the minutes. (Super Router is a Project Manager and Router is a School Coordinator). The Committee had questions about workflow and structure, which they discussed.
The Committee also discussed who would do the work outlined on the organizational chart, what data would be collected. The Committee also emphasized the priority of relationships.
Lou emphasized that there needs to be more participation and engagement from committee members and the neighborhoods to make the planning process happen.
The Committee discussed what neighborhood transformation means to them, and what the goals are for the schools and the communities. We want the neighborhoods to reflect the SWP vision statement, and to be schools that fully prepare all students for the future and that families want to send their children to.
They discussed issues such as students attending schools from outside the area and the general mobility rate and the challenges of affordable housing.
The four pillars of the advisory panel would be health, education, jobs, housing–based on the 4 pillars of a healthy community. The definitions of each will be based on the SWP Vision Plan.
The total cost of implementing the program will be approximately $150,000 a year per school. Lou thinks that there is a potential to ask the community members in the Southwest Partnership area to make a commitment to funding the community school project.
Lou has met with UnderArmor and they’ve expressed interest in partnering with the SWP Education Committee. They have offered their human capital efforts to help the Southwest Partnership education committee and its goals. He thinks that they could be a huge help in putting together materials to market the program.