About Hillsdale High SchoolAcademicsParentsStudentsVisual & Performing ArtsAthleticsAlumniAbout Smaller Learning CommunitiesContact HHS

Administration
Contact Us
Directions to HHS
Hillsdale High School History
In the News
Mission
Site Council
Smaller Learning Communities
San Mateo Uniion High School District
Staff
Welcome Message

Daily Bulletin
Hillsdale High Homepage

Hillsdale High School Site Council November 6, 2006 Minutes

SLC Council Meeting
November 6, 2006

Attendance:  Rianda, Crockett, Williams, Lawton, Kongsle, Lance, Shiu, Roberts, Radotic, Gilbert, Freiberg, Bissell, Spalding, Meiman

I.  House Reports
Florence –   
Reported that house discussion of article on hidden codes of behavior for those in generational poverty was both thought provoking and useful.  Commended Jeff and Marty Roberts for providing the materials.

Kyoto –
Marty Kongsle reported a high level of discourse and some very good writing as the result of a “social issues” unit in advisory.  Students wrote ‘business letters’ to congressmen, leaders, corporations and newspaper editors.  Watch the ‘letters to the editor’ section of your local papers!

Marrakech –
Discussed incidents of academic ‘dishonesty’.  (See item III below).

Seville –
Commented on improved environment since the establishment of our newest house.

II.  Distinguished School Application
Suzanne reported on progress and requested assistance in completing the application.

III.  Academic Honesty
A brief discussion of student behaviors.  Copying of homework assignments and plagiarism from internet sources seem to have become more habitual for our students.  Is it the result of increased pressures to achieve to higher standards? 

The decision was made to place this on a future agenda.

IV.  Next Steps to Ensure Integrity of SLCs and Sustainability

This discussion began with a review of written and anecdotal responses from last Thursday’s house meetings.  We agreed that revisiting the cornerstones would help us to initiate the conversation… as usual, the discussion ranged far and wide from there.  These are the main points of discussion:

Cornerstones
            Standards:

  • Test scores have shown positive upward trends, but it’s difficult to pinpoint causes;
  • benchmark assignments/exams have targeted specific standards in many subject areas;
  • students appear to identify more positively with HHS, and are more motivated to do well on the exams;
  • advisory curricula addressing literacy, test-taking skills and standards have had some effect.

Collaborative Time:

  • Marrakech reports that the 3 year loop in advisory is causing some havoc with collaboration.  Discussions of students and advisory curriculum are proceeding, but take a lot of time to the detriment of desires to collaborate on curriculum.
  • Kyoto reports some frustration at the lack of collaborative contact (formal and informal) between colloeagues teaching math.  It was observed that physical location of core group classrooms has made it more difficult to maintain consistent contact with colleagues teaching the same courses.
  • QUESTIONS:  Are departments weakening as a result of the emphasis on core collaborative groups?  If benchmarks are having a positive effect, can we maked more time for planning them?  Where will we find the time to plan portfolios and their attendant projects?  Collaboration is key, but lunch time is inadequate for these kinds of efforts… how do we create more collaborative time?

Equity:

  • We are seeing more equity for our students, and all agreed that advisory is a critical piece of that improvement.
  • Questions were raised about the equity of work load among/between advisors.  Part of this was identified as the result of varying perceptions of the role/work of the advisor.
  • Suggested that it may be time to revisit and redefine the roles of the advisor.
  • As our reality has “tightened” significantly over the last six months, it has become increasingly difficult for some advisors (primarily for juniors) to maintain previous levels of contact.

Personalization:

  • Meghan offered her observation that, though it may cause logistical problems for collaboration, the three-year-loop in advisory has actually streamlined her job as advisor.  Familiarity with parents and advisees has made the whole process quicker and more efficient.

Discussion of the Cornerstones ended with suggestions for topics we need to revisit:

  • Our criteria for academic success and graduation.
  • Assessment… philosophy, strategies, ESLRs
  • What is our vision of a “small school?”  And what kind of small school do we want to be?

The 11th/12th Grade SLCs

When advised that the “Section Fairy” might just fly down and make ‘em materialize, these were the suggestions for where we might need more sections:

  • Senior Advisories – 9 – 12 sections
  • Junior Advisories – 3 sections
  • VPA – 1 – 3 more sections
  • ELD – 2 sections
  • Math – 3 sections
  • Grade 12 Econ/Gov and English – 2 sections

Sciences

  • Is it appropriate for juniors who aren’t “math ready” to take physics?
  • Can we offer a science elective for grade 11 while students get math up to snuff for Physics?
  • It was observed that the new academic core has driven perceptual changes for students… they expect to take science in the 11th grade.

Junior/Senior Exhibitions

  • Are we losing personalization for the juniors?  (large caseloads mean that there is little time to have one-on-one conferences between students and adults.)
  • There are significant differences between the 9/10 and 11/12 cores… 11/12 teachers see instruction and assessment in ways that differ significantly from the 9/10 curricula.
  • Nonetheless, the transition seems to be a bit easier for juniors this year.

Additional Support for SLCs and the Larger School

  • Stipends for “teacher leaders” in each house. For instance:
      • Math support
      • Literacy
      • Peer Coaching
      • Differentiation
      • Data Gathering and Analysis
      • etc……
  • $$$$ for professional development, particularly the week before school starts.
  • Better content-area support in terms of collaborative time and curricular leaders.

Identification and strategic allocation of resources will be key elements in the near future.  We need to clarify the 11/12 design so we can learn how to best use CSM, Grants, HHS Foundation, Stanford and other resources.

V. Stanford SRN Connection

Jeff and Don met with SRN and they are proposing a new relationship with Hillsdale that would connect to an SRN network called LEADS that will bring together progressive district leadership from around the country. Hillsdale would serve as a model of good practice in action for participating districts, with a focus on rigor and support, as well as the change and decision-making process.

Concerns: No guarantee of benefits for HHS, other than “bullet-proofing”.

Recommendation: Review MOU with Stanford. Be clear about our needs and what we would like to get out of the relationship. One suggestion is to tie this more directly to the summer professional development and ask Stanford to take a more substantial role in supporting summer PD before the school-year.