EDITOR: There have been many editorials and articles in the
paper lately regarding the Live Oak High School Small Learning
Communities grant. Out of respect for the conversations that our
staff has been engaged in regarding this grant, I have deliberately
not responded to the media in any written form, in order to allow
respectful discussions to occur at Live Oak before the issue is
played out in the local paper.
EDITOR:
There have been many editorials and articles in the paper lately regarding the Live Oak High School Small Learning Communities grant. Out of respect for the conversations that our staff has been engaged in regarding this grant, I have deliberately not responded to the media in any written form, in order to allow respectful discussions to occur at Live Oak before the issue is played out in the local paper. However, after Friday’s headline on the front page I am compelled to respond.
In 2000, Live Oak High School received $50,000 in a Small Learning Communities Planning grant. This grant funded members of our staff to visit schools, review data and blend the identified areas of improvement from our WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) Accreditation action plans with possible scenarios to improve working conditions for staff (professional development and collaboration time) and academic and personal interventions for all students.
After a year of planning we wrote a Small Learning Communities implementation grant that was not funded. Feedback from the government indicated that we still had a “plan to plan”.
During the 2002-2003 school year, we continued to review student achievement data and identify interventions to address student achievement gaps. With limited resources, it became apparent that we did not have the staff development time to address the identified needs.
In early January 2003, we received information that we could once again apply for a Small Learning Communities grant. I met with staff members to ask if we should pursue writing another implementation grant. At that time, 85 percent of the staff voted to move forward with writing the grant.
After many opportunities for total staff input, including voluntary prep period meetings, department chair meetings, staff meetings and after-school meetings with the LOHS staff, key goals and strategies were developed. Highlights of the goals and strategies were presented to the school board in late spring 2003.
At that time, the only identified concern by staff was around monitoring the grant. A proposal was made to hold two additional days of voluntary prep period meetings to allow staff to discuss any of their concerns in depth. Following these meetings, it was agreed to add an oversight committee of community, staff members, and students to oversee the implementation of the grant. This one component was added to the grant before it was submitted in mid-May 2003.
The cornerstones on which this grant is written are based on 25 years of research and best practices. Staff development within the school day, mentoring/advocacy for all students, outreach to parents and community members, improvement of instructional practices and ongoing data analysis and program review are key features of implementation. (It is interesting that East Side Union High School District just received $2.5 million in Small Learning Communities grant funding to implement a similar plan in five of the high schools in their district based on the model at Evergreen High School.)
Recent discussions and review of the Small Learning Communities grant are allowing us to develop a better understanding of the achievement gaps that currently exist at Live Oak and how this grant might provide us the resources and time to address the issues related to these gaps. The data on our student performance is very disturbing when compared to schools in state-defined similar comparison bands. Even though we have improved our rate of students meeting the UC/CSU entrance requirements from 25 percent to 34 percent, we still rank 9th out of 11 when compared to similar schools in the three adjacent counties. The county average is 61 percent.
Over the past eight years Live Oaks’s graduation rate has increased from 87 percent to 94 percent. Although this is a 7 percent increase, Live Oak still ranks 8th out of 11 when compared to similar schools in the three adjacent counties. While we are making improvement in these areas, we are still not improving our rankings when compared to similar schools.
With or without the grant funding, Live Oak High School is still required to meet the academic needs of all students as carefully defined in the No Child Left Behind legislation. If the SLC grant is not the roadmap, then what will be the optimum means to meet the professional development needs of staff so that all students can excel?
We will be discussing the grant on Wednesday, Nov. 12, at our staff meeting. The discussions will continue on Nov. 17 after which time our staff will determine their future course of action. I am hoping that we can stay focused on the possibilities and the difficult work ahead.
Nancy Serigstad, principal,
Live Oak High School
