Amendments page 3.. for example should be inserted in by AprilY

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 4

									                                 ICAC Minutes

Wednesday September 14, 2005

In attendance*:
Margaret McIntosh, Diane Dyson, Katie McGovern, Joe Leibovitch, Donna Quan,
Uton Robinson, Gen Ling Chang, Jacqueline Karsemeyer, Liz Thompson, Kathy
Lundy, Alice Pitt, Jeff Kugler, Mari Rutka, Yaw Obeng, Mike Rethazi, Aldona
Volunge, Cheryl Prescod, Pat Saul, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Maria Yau, Cassie Bell

*(Please make sure you do sign in at ICAC meetings so that we are continually able
to update the group email list- please pardon any errors/omissions in the above list)


   1) Welcome and Introductions:
      Co-chairs Uton Robinson and Sheila Cary-Meagher thanked OISE/UT’s Jeff
      Kugler and, specifically, Nina Lewis for arranging a wonderful lunch for the
      group, as well as organizing the space and putting up direction signs; all
      ‘rsvps’ were gratefully received as it difficult to organize food otherwise.

   2) Update: (Sheila Cary-Meagher/ Uton Robinson):
        • Trustee Cary-Meagher is speaking to Lloyd McKell (TDSB Community
            Services) regarding parent and community reps for the ICAC- this will
            likely be an ongoing process; welcome to Cheryl Prescod, a parent rep
            from the Jane/Finch area
        • Superintendents Robinson and Chang will share ICAC minutes and
            info. at regional meeting for superintendents next week- this will
            support the communications process around the model school initiative
        • Heather Johnson (PSSP) will replace Ken Jeffers, President of PSSP,
            at ICAC table although Ken will continue to monitor emails and minutes

   3) Minutes: (changes/approval of previous meeting minutes: August 26th, 2005)
         • Top of page 5, Jeff Kugler stressed that LOI is very important (minutes
       perhaps do not reflect this), this committee will not be moving this project
       into less needy schools, even if the staff is committed; the whole point of this
       project is to take these resources into our neediest schools
         • Amendments: page 3..” for example” should be inserted in statement:
         “…results show that some Toronto neighbourhoods are not necessarily
       poverty-ridden, but, for example, have high numbers of recent immigrant
       arrivals with high needs.”
         • page 6…there should be a # 6) in school process, we had discussed a
       “de-briefing” session for each school which was not accepted to be a model
       school.

     Minutes approved, with amendments, unanimously.

   4) Action items from minutes:
         • Direct Line initiative should also be supplemented by “tel” tdsb for
             teaching staff, as well as hard copy of communications for all



                                                                                        1
          schools;CUPE does a monthly newsletter which could include a piece
          on the model schools, depending on length etc. (Katie McGovern);
          press releases should also go to multi-language newspapers (they will
          translate pressers) to get word out into community; does Parks and
          Rec. Dept. at City have a “newsletter” that this could be fed into?
      •   Also suggested, a letter from Director of Education, Gerry Connelly, to
          all principals for distribution to staff – this will ensure it reaches
          teachers; also need communications through TSAA, childcare centres
          etc.
      •   Communication must be two-fold: 1) general awareness of initiative 2)
          specific to schools which can/should apply to do proposal

      ACTION ITEM: Suggested that a template communications message be
        written regarding the model schools initiative, including contact info.,
        and circulated to all ICAC members for circulation to their
        members/organizations/agencies (ie. CUPE, PSSP, TSAA, ETT etc.)
      Responsibility: Superintendent Uton Robinson, Trustee Sheila Cary-
        Meagher, Cassie Bell (Done: please see hard copy as well as email
        circulated)

5) Proposal Template Review: Maria Yau, TDSB Research and Information
   Services
      • This template is meant to be a platform for discussion by this group, it
         is not a final version by any means; Maria suggests ICAC reviews
         template section by section while she collects feedback;
      • Trustee Cary-Meagher stresses that she wants the proposals to be
         returned in hard copy only- no electronic responses; this will support
         community and group participation as well as be more equitable for
         people who may not have broad access to computers;
      • Under “General Information” suggested form needs more contacts,
         especially if this is to be a “team” project; also, should encourage some
         attachments with proposal ie. school profiles, letters of support etc.
      • Suggested that a section might be added stressing principal’s or
         administrator’s demonstrated “fiscal responsibility”
      • Discussion about order of sections- “strengths” then “challenges” or
         vice versa?; suggested that it should be “challenges/strengths”, reflects
         team struggling, but not finished!
      • “outreach/partnerships” section should be expanded (how?)
      • should be a “catch all” space at end to allow for any comments school
         team would like to add
      • it must be made clear (in preamble?) that this is a TEAM effort, not just
         for principals to fill out
      • discussion that proposal should reflect how school is working in
         tandem in some way with local community, otherwise project is not for
         them; conversely, model schools report stated clearly that this project
         was for our neediest schools and neediest schools may well not have
         resources/time/ability to establish any community outreach; need to
         look at each proposal submitted as unique during internal review
         process


                                                                                    2
          •   preamble must be warm and inviting- don’t scare schools off- ie. sit
              down and talk this over with three involved parents if that is all you’ve
              got
          •   role of facilitator mentioned in preamble + contact info.
          •   Question : what about schools which are not doing well? They may not
              have any parent involvement at all. How do we address this? Answer:
              Schools should use the Model Schools Task Force Report and not
              have everything in place, but be poised to really take off with this
              project
          •   Gen Ling Chang also stresses importance of building 5 essential
              components from Task Force Report into proposal template

ACTION ITEM: A sub-committee* of the ICAC be established through email to give
feedback and edits to Maria Yau and Cassie Bell as they work toward preparing a
final draft of the model school proposal. Edits will be tracked and then collated as
completely as possible. Proposal should be posted/circulated by Monday
September 26th if possible, to coincide with Direct Line out to system and should be
available on-line and also through email request.
Responsibility: Maria Yau, Cassie Bell and
            *Mike Rethazi, Alice Pitt, Kathy Lundy, Diane Dyson, Mari Rutka, Margaret
            McIntosh, Liz Thompson, Donna Quan, Yaw Obeng, Aldona Volunge
(Done. Proposal was prepared and approved and posted on the TDSB website by
Wednesday September 28th, 2005. Hard copies are also available)


   6) Overview of Schools in selected clusters:
        • Are we looking at LOI cut off of 100 or less for both this year (ie. 3
            schools) and next year (ie. 4 schools), or just this year? Some ICAC
            members felt LOI of 100 or below was best for all 7 schools; Maria Yau
            confirmed that statistically this would include 1/3 of our student
            population according to EDI research
        • What happens when school is just above LOI this year, but was below
            last year- can superintendents lobby for school to be included anyhow?
            Question of how LOI is weighted- does it truly reflect needy school
            communities?
        • Point is raised that while cut off of LOI of 100 or less might seem
            reasonable, the ICAC has committed to visit every school which
            submits a proposal at least twice- therefore, this committee must
            consider whether it has the resources to realistically accomplish this;
            According to data, if every school of a LOI of 100 or less in the first 3
            clusters submitted a proposal this would mean possibly visiting 40
            schools twice in a one month period;
        • Suggested we go to LOI of 50 or below where “core” neediness is
            consistent and less likely to be variances of LOI formula; ICAC does
            need to acknowledge that LOI as a tool is a little awkward- when
            numbers for schools are .01 apart then difference is very minimal
        • Diane Dyson suggests cut off of 50 or below is correct figure- if we
            consider all elementary schools in this bracket there will be 21 schools




                                                                                      3
          eligible to do a proposal; ICAC members agree and number is set at 50
          or less.

7) Other Business:
      • Jeff Kugler (OISE/UT) discusses the possible visit of Pauline Clarke, a
         superintendent from Winnipeg who has done amazing work with inner
         city schools; Jeff and others heard her speak in Vancouver last year at
         the Inner City Conference; would the ICAC like to host Pauline Clarke
         and invite her to speak both to the general public about inner city/urban
         education and to the ICAC regarding the model schools initiative? If
         ICAC would like to sponsor Pauline, Jeff suggests $500.00 to help
         cover her airfare and accommodation;
      • Venue for this event is discussed- both OISE and Driftwood
         Community Centre are suggested, time of year (ie. weather) may be an
         issue; Jeff will contact Pauline and discuss details and report back to
         ICAC next meeting; Proposed date for Pauline Clarke: December 1,
         2005

      Next Meeting:

      Thursday October 6th @ OISE/UT 9:30- 12 noon Details to be
        confirmed.




                                                                                4

								
To top