1 | P a g e

2016

Fauquier County Public Schools

MIDDLE SCHOOL MODERNIZATION & PRIORITIZATION

PROCESS: REPORT FROM THE AUGUST 25TH ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

DAVID STURTZ & KERRIANNE WOLF, DEJONG-RICHTER

September 1, 2016

DRAFT

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Welcome & Introductions .............................................................................................................3

Process Overview, Review Background Data, and Visioning Presentation ...........................3

Exercise 1: Deconstructing the Industrial Model, Alternatives to Grouping Students ...........4

Exercise 2: Considering the Role of the Teacher, This will Revolutionize Education ..............6

Exercise 3: The Third Teacher, Redesigning the Middle School ...............................................8

Exercise 3: The Third Teacher, Redesigning the Middle School ...............................................9

Advisory Committee:

Name Title

Earsaline Anderson Community Member

Carol Arnold Volunteer

Barbara Bannister WMS Principal

Rachel Beattie PBS Parent

Greg Bengston Fauquier Hospital

Angela Castaldy TMS Teacher/Parent/Volunteer

Blair Conner LHS Teacher

Randy Corpening SpEd Director

Christopher Coutts LFCC, Dean of Students

Tony Dandrea CHR AP

Joanne Duncan TMS Parent

Joyce D'Urso Retired TMS teacher, Volunteer

Sarah Frye CTE Supervisor

Thelma Gaskins TMS Nurse/Clinic

Brian Gorg Center District School Board

Chris Granger Center District Board of Supervisors

Donna Grove Cedar Run District School Board

Donna Guzman FHS AP

Laura Henson SSC Rep, CMB Parent, Volunteer

Laura Hoover MMP AP

Madison Humphries LHS Junior

Michele James AMS Café Mgr.

Name Title

Wes Kennedy Business Dev.

Bob Kravetz WarrentonTown Council

Ben Maas St. James Episcopal Church

Susan Maharidge WMS Secretary/Bookkeeper

Mark Marchinetti Middle/High/Alt, AP SAS

Mary Leigh McDaniel Marshall District Board of Supervisors

Larry Miller Parks & Rec Director

Sally Murray Former School Board

Samuel F. Myers Warrenton Fire & Rescue Chief

Ruth Nelson TMS Principal

Jon Nuckles US Dept of Transp Office of Inspector

Mark Ott FHS Teacher

Nicole Polster TMS Parent

Conway Porter Community Member

Nancy B. Premen KRHS Parent

Brandie Schaeffer Warrenton Planning Commission

Robby Settle Sheriff's Office, AMS SRO

Stephen Starner FHS Senior

Walter Story Contractor, Community Member

Melissa Wiedenfeld FHS Parent

Becky Yates CMB Teacher

DRAFT

3 | P a g e

MIDDLE SCHOOL MODERNIZATION & PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Advisory Committee

August 25, 2016

4 p.m. – 8 p.m.

Welcome & Introductions

Dr. David Jeck, Superintendent introduced RRMM Architects, Duane Harver & Mark Probst,

and DeJONG-RICHTER’s David Sturtz and Kerrianne Wolf. He welcomed committee members

and thanked them for their participation.

Process Overview, Review Background Data, and Visioning Presentation

Mr. David Sturtz, of DeJONG-RICHTER presented the Middle School Prioritization process and

timeline. He discussed how the advisory committee would play a key role in building consensus.

It is important for communities to be aware of the facility planning challenges that all Divisions

face when navigating this process. Some of those challenges include tradition, time, taxes, and

turf. Building trust and transparency through this process can help address those challenges.

Further considerations that impact all Divisions engaged in facility planning are standardized

test requirements, preparing students for new 21st Century careers, the cost of technology tools

& infrastructure, budgets, and norms for instructional practices. The final presentation was

background data which included enrollment, facility utilization, facility condition & educational

adequacy, and overall site considerations such as access roads, drop off, and parking.

Following the presentation, committee members viewed three short videos to inspire engaging

conversations around alternatives to grouping students, the role of the teacher, and their vision

for vital elements in a renovated or newly constructed middle school. Below are the results of

those conversations.

DRAFT

4 | P a g e

Exercise 1: Deconstructing the Industrial Model, Alternatives to Grouping Students

Participants watched a video clip entitled, “Changing Educational Paradigms” by Ken

Robinson. Mr. Robinson criticized curricula standardization, grouping students by age group

and teaching most content in separate subjects as vestiges of the industrial age that do not

present the best strategies for educating students today. Particpants were then asked to discuss

the following in small groups:

• Do you accept these critiques: Why/why not?

• What are alternatives to standardizing education for students?

• What are alternatives to grouping students by age?

After initial large group discussion, participants came up with the following responses in their

small groups. Group responses were recorded on flip-charts and shared with the group at large.

Group Response | Summary

Among the alternatives discussed were differentiation testing & scheduling instead of

standardized testing, as well as and the need to encourage risk taking in both learning and

teaching. Creating a feasible alternative may create the need for additional professional

development and readily accessible technology to be an integral part of instruction. It was

suggested that the best environment is one where students have the opportunity to achieve

their educational goals by using their own learning strategies.

Source: Ken Robinson’s “Changing Educational Paradigms”

DRAFT

5 | P a g e

Group Response | Detailed

Age groups, cause mix / blending

o Some separation needed

o Block schedules – design vs.

practice = no more classrooms

Non teacher centric – more discovery

(groups? digital?)

o Teacher not aware without

collaboration

o Group work is difficult

Social – a lot to learn

o Liberty example – lobby

o A lot of change by school level

(SCAM)

o Even when one classroom –

teachers group you

o Project based – never feels like

enough time

o Farm to school

Subject blending (History/English)

o Deadlines are hard

Accessibility

Apptitude – what are the different

apptitudes?

Best environment is where students have

opportunity to achieve their educational

goals by using their own learning

strategies

Building design (labs, views) – windows

help stress

Career and Technical Education

Collaborative space

Community use

Creative groupings – art, home

economics, auto repair

Desire – growing children early on around

their interests

Differentiation testing instead of

standardized testing

Encourage risk taking – both learning and

teaching

Facility that has the ability to adapt to

change – integrated technology

Flexibility is key

Generations

Grand places – spaces for creativity (art,

home economics, auto repair)

Incorporate physical activity in order to

increase productivity

Lots of natural light

More of a collaborative environment

between disciplines

Multiple teachers reaching multiple

students

Non-traditional learning to Project based

to collaboration

Not everyone learns the same

Not waste precious time traveling to labs

Outside classroom space learning,

proximity?

Pod and collaborative learning areas for

students and teachers

Project focused collaboration between

age groups

Recognition of specific technology

Recognition of student needs – special

education, for example, but integration

into larger community

Rotation of classes / spaces

Safety issues

Scale back student to teacher ratio

Spaces more flexible to accommodate

collaboration

STEM – space for single-sex education

Subject in class – breakdown of subjects

and materials

Teacher / Instructor training

Technology – needs to be readily

accessible and an integral part of

instruction

Technology - latest technology in

classrooms

Tendency to make one size fits all

Testing space

The current model has limitations.

Legacy conditions make it hard to

change

The industrial model should be re-

thought.

Time spent doing each activity –

scheduling differently

Wider hallways

DRAFT

6 | P a g e

Exercise 2: Considering the Role of the Teacher, This will Revolutionize Education

Theorists have for decades spoken of

how technology would replace the

teacher. Participants watched a clip

of Derek Muller from the website

Veritasium present a brief history of

such prognostications and how they

have all fallen short. Technolgy, Mr.

Muller presents, does not replace the

teacher but at its best, provides tools

for teachers to “guide the social

process of learning” and stimulate

creative and critical thinking.

Participants worked in small groups

shared a story of the most impactful

class each had experienced either as

a teacher or a student. Small groups then took those stories and condensed them into keywords

that exemplified the key elements of these experiences.

Group Response | Summary

Responses emphasized the relationship between teacher and student as the common

demoninator for classes having the biggest impact on students and teachers alike. Not a single

response mentioned content delivery specifically, implying that technology tools could perhaps

best be used to help deliver content in ways that free up teachers to have more time to invest

building positive working relationships with students.

DRAFT

7 | P a g e

Group Response | Details

Building good relationships between

students and teacher (2)

Challenges students to reach full

ability and/or potential (2)

Energy (2)

Engaging and passionate (2)

Enthusiasm (2)

Flexibility (2)

Fun /cool yet effective (2)

Movement (2)

Autonomy

Caring

Classroom management

Comfort / phyysical and emotional

Confidence

Connection

Consistency

Creative

Curiosity

Desk types

Difference approaches (art, movies,

lit)

Ease

Encouraging (vs. discouraging)

Evolving / fluid

Experiential, engaging

Facilitator of learning

Giving back

Hands-on

Individualized

Integrated teaching

Interactive

Know students and where they

come from – need to know who you

are teaching

Knowledgable

Making right decision for situation

Mixed spaces

Motivating

Motivating in structure

Non-judgemental

Open

Outside

Ownership

Passion of the teacher

Personal connection between

student and teacher

Questioning the environment

Rapport

Recognizes value of each individual

student

Relevance

Respect for all students

Sees potential

Self-worth

Sense of community

Math teacher taught other skills (life

skills, in this case driving a car!)

Teacher effort to connect

individually

Took students outside – interactive

Trust

Using animals

DRAFT

8 | P a g e

Exercise 3: The Third Teacher, Redesigning the Middle School

The final exercise asked participants to

note what they believe are the most

important space requirements for their

teaching and learning spaces.

Requirements include such

considerations as adaptive & flexible

collaboration space, natural light, and

a safe & secure environment.

Group Response | Summary

All responses emphasized the desire

for modern learning environments to

be flexible for a variety of

teaching/learning strategies, have

natural light and generally inspire

users.

Group Response | Details

Adaptive rooms/ flexible collaboration (or not) space (2)

Natural light (2)

Safe/modern/secure vestible & environment (2)

Abundance of natural light

Accessibility (light, technology, space, people, ADA, media)

Common space (gathering, good flow)

Community spaces – multiple facilities

Connectivity

Day lighting

Effective use of space

Flexibility & flow of space (collapsable walls)

Flexible & comfortable furniture (desk/tables with plugs)

Inspiring architecture

Light, open, natural

Multi-use areas

Open space

Operable windows with views

Sectioned space as well

Variety of resources

Welcoming – not institutional

DRAFT

9 | P a g e

Summary

The central intent of this meeting was to work with a diverse group of Division stakeholders to

develop key educational considerations for future facility planning. This stakeholder group

identified the following:

A variety of learning spaces should be available to facilitate a variety of teaching and

learning methods.

Learning environments should be inspiring, designed for collaborative teaching and

project environments, ideally including natural light

Technology should help teachers personalize content delivery and free up teachers’

time to allow them to focus more time and energy on building constructive relationships

with students

FCPS has a wealth of quantitative data on the condition, capacity and adequacy of Taylor

and Warrenton Middle Schools. This report, though brief, can provide an additional qualitative

dataset to consider when prioritizing facility needs.

DRAFT