Meeting Minutes of S.I.T. Workshops (April 11th - May 9th, 2013)

APENDIX B

Meeting Minutes of SIT Workshops April 11 – May 9, 2013

Meeting Notes Roosevelt Education Facilities Subcommittee

Thursday, April 11, 2013 Participants Angela Johnson (former Roosevelt STAY parent) Jane Batista, alumni (concerned about adequate space and facilities for the arts) Maurice Edwards, alumni (wants to see science education) Mary Fillardo, Public school advocate Don Gregory, Architect Barbara Haymer, Roosevelt STAY Student Kedeska (don't have last name), GSA Staff, Education Specifications Chuck Simmons, alumni Jerome Patterson, Current employee (LEAP program, special ed emphasis) Cynthia Prather, alumni Agenda included selecting roles, reviewing the education specifications document, discussing topics, and deciding topics to be discussed during the next meeting. Role Selection Roles were agreed as follows: Moderator: Jerome Patterson Scribes: Cynthia Prather and Mary Fillardo as backup Liaison: Chuck Simmons Role?: Maurice Edwards Reviewing the Education Specifications Document Subcommittee members received the contents page of the Education Specifications. the contents page included Introduction, Proposed Capacity, Overview of Planning Concepts, Summary of Space Requirements, Academic Requirements, Special Education Space Requirements, Media Center Space Requirements, Visual Arts Space Requirements, Performing Arts Space Requirements, ROTC Space Requirements, Family Support Center, Physical Education Requirements, Administration Space Requirements, Student Dining Space Requirements, STAY Space Requirements, and Maintenance and Custodial Space Requirements. Since there were not copies of the entire document available, subcommittee members were asked to download and review the entire document before the next meeting. M. Fillardo, who already had a copy of the document and had reviewed it carefully, expressed concern about the lack of specifics in the overall plan. She distributed questions that she had concerning various aspects of the plan (see Attachment A). For example, she was concerned about how the special education spaces could be designed without knowing what the autusim program is and what is done. She distributed an education specifications document from School Without Walls as a sample (See Attachment b). There was not time to review either of those documents.

C. Prather expressed a need to allocate a certain amount of time for each topic on the Table of Contents in order to discuss all of the topics. Don Gregory suggested that the subcommittee discuss the ones for which there was little discussion and then discuss the others. The group decided to discuss special education as the first topic. Special Education Ideas that were shared are as follows: 1/3 of the school's current population is special education the school's goal is to diminish the labelling and separation of special ed and support OT and PT would like to see some open spaces with breakout areas generally would like to remove the stigma of separation between special ed and non special ed students do not want a separate wing for special ed need areas where teachers can collaborate RISE children go to art, music, and gym special ed and non-‐special ed eat lunch together special ed students need access to various school amenities the school also will need some self-‐contained classrooms for low functioning special ed students some quiet spaces will be needed Kedaska from GSA indicated that the specifications plan does address some of the issues. P. 9 supports concepts of inclusion and integrated programming. Starting on p. 62, there is information about spaces, flooring, class size, etc. Individuals can get drafts of the document on internet. Subcommittee members should review and be prepared to discuss next week what they think needs to be changed Discussion Topic for Next Week Arts Education Prepared by Cynthia Prather, Scribe

Meeting Notes1 Roosevelt Education Facilities Subcommittee

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Participants Jane Batista (alumni), Maurice Edwards (alumni), Mary Filardo (Public school advocate), Don Gregory, Architect, Kidest Albaari, (educational facility planning consultant to DGS) , Chuck Simmons (alumni), Jerome Patterson (current employee, LEAP program, special ed emphasis), Cynthia Prather (alumni), Ron Hampton (RHS staff), others Agenda Discussion topics included Special Education, Arts, and Academics. Time for the meeting is 6:00 -‐ 8:00 pm • Ms. Eichelberger passed out notes that the Roosevelt staff prepared describing the educational program and curriculum at Roosevelt, to be included in the educational specification document to guide the architects. • Mary Filardo passed out the table of contents of an educational specification to use as a model for input into the draft educational specifications for Roosevelt. • Cynthia Prather provided copies of the notes from the April 11th, 2013 SIT meeting, educational specifications committee. Special Education The group continued the conversation started last week. In response to a concern that there is a lot of emphasis on meeting the needs of special ed students, Mr. Patterson commented that even general education students benefit from accommodations for disabled children. Facilities for the Arts Visual Arts Jane Batista presented her concerns for the visual arts facilities. The presentation and discussion surfaced the following ideas: • art teachers should belong to a professional organization • teachers should be involved in getting the room up • room should have large sink and natural light (not a ground floor room) • committee should visit schools that have been renovated (visits can be actual and/or virtual tour, i.e., on line, as suggested by Kidest Albaari). Committee said that virtual tours should be in addition to actual visits. • seating tables with chairs (as opposed to stools, where they have no back support) • video equipment • 3D/2D

1 Note that Cynthia Prather arrived at 6:30 pm.

• doesn't have to have access to the outside, since the class could go outside even from an upper level floor, when needed • space for ceramics • kiln, water, plumbing, ventilation, tile flooring, stainless steel? • storage -‐ store room • place to dry and display art Other issues/comments included: Is one art room for 800 students enough? Kidest responded that this is the recommended amount for a student body of this size where each student is only required to take one 9-‐week art course. The group had a long discussion about art space for disabled children. Emotionally disturbed, autistic children can benefit from art therapy. Art is a great way to involve special ed students, and some are great artists. The school might need a second room for severely handicapped children -‐-‐ a room with plenty of space where children can get messy. GSA commented that there are already other special education resource rooms in the plan where sinks could be added. These could be multi-‐functional spaces. One commented on rooms in other schools (e.g., CSAC and Capitol CARE), where they have motion-‐sensitive walls, interactive boards, and other sensory stimulants. Maybe the OT/PT classroom could be enlarged. GSA will consider these ideas. Performing Arts The draft specifications for the performing arts space requirements include the auditorium, 1 instructional room, 1 choir room, 1 storage space for instruments, and 4 individual, sound-‐proof practice rooms. Mr. Dickerson, Roosevelt's current music teacher, presented his vision for the music space, which is based on the current program and his plans for the future. His program now includes general music, beginning band, advance band/jazz band, and various after-‐school activities: auxiliary band, drum line, flag girls, majorettes, and dancers. I also heard concert band/orchestra, big band, interim band, jazz band? He estimated that there were 50/60 in the marching band before homecoming. He noted that DCPS now has no funding for elementary or middle school music, so many of his students are starting at the beginning. Dickerson stated that he was told to ask for the world so he did. His wish list included the following: • the auditorium, • band/orchestra practice room (now sized for 60, but he wants it to hold 100-‐150 people (about 60 musicians, 40 percussion, and auxiliary groups). (Dickerson actually wants to the program to grow to 200 members) The music program will follow the 4-‐year model, with 9-‐ 12th grade. Dickerson also mentioned that Davey Yarlboro at Duke Ellington suggested that students who don't get into Ellington might consider Roosevelt as a fallback. Eastern High School has that kind of room • percussion ensemble room,where drums, e.g., timpani, snare drums, bass drums, etc, could be stored and where they can practice • 4-‐6 modules, with space for 3 students, or marinda, an upright piano, and a set of drums (60-‐ 80 ft each) • practice studio, with dance studio next to it. • stage production, lighting, sound, noise control • digital studio, where students can learn recording and production • adaptive technology • small theaters where children can perform

Planners noted that the current plan is for the dance studio to be in the PE wing. Architect Don Gregory asked about how many students are scheduled for the advanced band? Dickerson estimated 100-‐150 for this current year and hopes to grow the program to 200 members. He needs guidance, human capital, facilities, and counseling to keep all of these components running. Gregory wants facilities to be there for the program to grow. They do already have some of this in the specifications. Academics Science Alumni Maurice Edwards would like to see modern equipment, interactive boards for biology and space for biology, chemistry, physics, and biotechnology. Kidest noted that current specification call for 3 wet labs, physics, and lab Davia Walker, the Academic Pathways Coordinator, reported that the science team is the newest team at Roosevelt. They are starting at "ground 0" and designing based on the Chancellor's goals to improve student achievement, increase the graduation rate, help struggling students, increase parental satisfaction, and increase enrollment. The approach is project-‐based learning, with different guideways in science, beginning at 9th grade. The overall mission is project-‐based learning, with about 15 minutes of lecture and lots of hands on activities. She agreed to send a powerpoint of her presentation. Each teacher needs dual certification so teachers can teach biology and chemistry for example. The team's proposed schedule for developing the program is as follows: Years 1-‐2 build up the science program, including get students access to higher level science classes at Howard University Year 3 include honors courses offered for each science Year 5 include AP course for each science course Roosevelt will start the improvements next year. Thus, they will need sufficient lab space at McFarland while Roosevelt renovation is underway. They can cover the content without the labs, however, if necessary. Most students access textbooks electronically now. School plans to use digital textbooks. Science and English are the two most expensive sets of texts. The school wants all parents to use the online communication hub, Now only 55% of parents are connected to the school online. Want to make sure its' feasible to have Roosevelt is a Title 1 school, so some funds will be available. They hope that funds can go to electronic and computers. Each teacher in the science department will be required to write grants, which should help to bring funds to expand. Last piece: partnerships with Howard University (for AP course on Howard's campus in Biology, wants it to ramp up in 3 years) and GW (social Studies component) Right now they teach French and Spanish, Levels 1 and 2 Plan is to partner with Howard U for Levels 3 and 4 of each language. Miscellaneous Comments • Would like display spaces • Classes may need to be larger

Areas for Potential Problems with Current PE Design Athletics: 11,000 sq ft as is. Not now competition size Community access to facilities Weight room Day care center Roosevelt may have three special ed autism classes next year. They would like all ot roomsants all near kitchen. If that many, the school will need a rich program. Next Steps Open meeting next week, to be held in the main library, 6-‐8 pm Will open the floor for questions. 1 hour for the groups. Discussion should include implications of academic requirements, science facilities, and media rooms for facilities and also the PE space. The plan is to meet weekly until this is done.Tthe committee wants a cohesive draft of everything by May 10 (not a drop dead date, but a deadline) Week of May 13-‐17 -‐-‐ want to organize tours -‐-‐ to Wilson, maybe Eastern Need to discuss School Safety and Security Meeting planners noted that both of the subcommittees seem to be discussing similar things. We might consider meeting together. Prepared by Cynthia Prather, Scribe

FUNDING AND PLANNING FOR ROOSEVELT Ms. Eichelberger welcomed the group and asked Ms. Reilly to report on the DC Council hearings earlier in the day. Ms. Reilly testified for Roosevelt among other high schools, explaining that the school’s modernization is in step with the Master Facilities Plan, guidelines and principles recently released by the office of the Deputy Mayor for Education. Roosevelt is in Cluster 18, which has been identified as one of those most in need of more and better school facilities. The MFP further prioritizes facilities at the middle school level which would be in keeping with re-‐opening and modernizing MacFarland. She urged people to contact council members, especially Ms. Bowser, Mr. Catania, and Mr. Barry as well as Chancellor Henderson. At the hearing, council member Barry referred to the International High School, a proposed consortium of four dual-‐language charters as being in discussion for location at Roosevelt. Evidently these charter supporters have approached the Chancellor as well. They are elementary schools searching for a middle school and high school continuity for their programs and they would like to move forward very soon as they are limited at 5th grade currently. Ms. Bowser is understood to be in favor of restoring Roosevelt’s original funding; Coolidge High School has had funding restored; Garrison Elementary and the Montessori Elementary at Logan have been moved up on the facilities schedule with funding increased. Mr. Hampton will make sure the Roosevelt PTA is aware of the situation. Roosevelt could use support from the feeder schools: Barnard Elementary and Truesdell and West PS-‐8th grade schools. A draft of the revised justification and demographic section for the educational specification was handed out. This had been prepared by the 21st Century School Fund. It outlined how Roosevelt’s feeder schools were not nearly sufficient to build enrollment without a healthy middle school at MacFarland as the Truesdell and West PS-‐8 schools only had about 50-‐60 students in 8th grade between them. With MacFarland closing, Ward 4 now has no DCPS middle schools but it has a rapidly growing school population at the early childhood levels. Consequently the document proposed the re-‐opening of MacFarland as well as expansion of Roosevelt’s program capacity. Discussion continued with some expressing concern that Roosevelt’s modernization not be confused with any move to re-‐open MacFarland -‐ -‐ they thought that focusing on strengthening Roosevelt’s program would be the best strategy. They thought discussion of re-‐opening of MacFarland would best wait until DCPS goes into discussion of feeder patterns. Others were not opposed to having another school take the place of the co-‐location with Hospitality but not if the idea were to supplant Roosevelt itself rather than merely sharing space. People who are interested in coordinating discussions with the council should contact Ms. Reilly. The educational specification group and the facilities group then divided to discuss department areas in depth with the former taking CTE programs, foreign language programs, and ELL and the latter Jr. ROTC, Security and safety, and core classrooms. REPORT OUT FROM THE FACILITIES DISCUSSION GROUP Mr. Edwards reported that Jr. ROTC wanted to keep the drill area in the armory so there is a large open space available -‐ -‐ ROTC functions need to be in the same area rather than scattered through the building. The weight room should move from the armory back to the gym area as should fitness.

Elevators -‐ There is need for at least one large freight-‐type elevator in addition to a second elevator to get people up to the fourth floor; elevator access to the pool is another necessity. Nurse and Health Suite – This area needs further clarification. The nurse was concerned that a reception area be available and visible from the health office. Security -‐ Front door access is required; metal detectors built into the door frames seems appropriate and preferable than a scanning x-‐ray machine. Security officers in the lobby could want and monitor any people who might set off an alarm. The intrusion of security should be minimized. Cameras should be utilized well and possibly a turn-‐style as well. Attention needs to be paid to eliminating “dead” spaces. Two separate entrances are needed: one for students and one for visitors to avoid log-‐jams at the main door. Core Academic Classrooms – In addition to a full complement of required academic courses students should have art, music, athletics and other electives available. There seem to be only four classrooms available for ELL but what is the projection of students who will need ELL? Cubicles for individual study (learning pods) might be considered; reading labs for 9th graders may be good to have. Vocational programs such as drafting, electronics, computer IT training. Career and College Pathway -‐ Either Ms. Eichelberger or Mr. Flynn will make a presentation on this very robust and important program at the next meeting. REPORT OUT FROM THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM GROUP CTE – The group recommended that Roosevelt retain and strengthen the Culinary Arts program as well as Business and Finance. They asked that the current space allowed for Culinary, with the Chef’s workroom/library and serving area be compared to what is proposed to ensure that there is enough space available; bringing in daylight would be a huge plus here. Business and Finance (and entrepreneurship) might be supported with some project space designed with workspace, storage, possibly a sink and workstations for students. Since STAY is expected to continue with barbering and cosmetology in the evenings, the idea was to allow Roosevelt students to use the labs during the day, making it possible for them to finish certification with only one or two more classes after graduation from Roosevelt. Roosevelt might consider eliminating Hospitality as not sustainable. Hospitality had been dropped because there was not enough interest in it and the feeling was that the hotel industry preferred to specifically train employees on their own systems and procedures. However, DCPS central office has indicated the possibility of a substantial hospitality partnership with Marriot that would be expected to involve internships for students. Roosevelt would not want to give up electives, but determining what size student body the program is being built for is important in trading off CTE for the possibility of more varied electives. Cafeteria and Kitchen– The group asked that special attention be paid to acoustics here as modernizations at Woodson and Wilson have resulted in cafeterias that are too noisy to be used as additional meeting space. Re-‐opening the cafeteria to natural light and the courtyard was considered a given.

Kitchen space in the ed spec calls for 400 square feet whereas the current space is very much larger and prepares meals for the surrounding elementary and PS-‐8 schools. This is definitely a production kitchen, cooking a large number of meals from scratch. Whether that is planned to continue in the future is something that has to be verified as well as how that function will be carried on during Roosevelt’s construction. Foreign Language -‐ It was not clear whether the four classrooms designated for foreign were also those provided for the ELL classes. If students were to be able to take four years of world language, or more languages beyond Spanish and French, as a more ambitious program would expect, then more classrooms would be required. Core Classrooms – Classrooms may be considered at several different sizes including the possibility of having some like the new classrooms at Woodson which have a retractable wall making it possible to sometimes use the space as one very large classroom. Special Education – Both a quiet room and a sensory room would be required. NEXT STEPS The SIT is expected to meet again next Thursday, May 9 at 6:00 to finalize recommendations for the education specification. In addition to information on the College and Career Pathway, it would be good to cover the auditorium, the day care center and the family support center. Ms. Eichelberger will request a copy of the SIT participant list from Mr. Pressley as the group needs to move quickly and share draft documents before the next formal meeting. People did not object to the idea of sharing their e-‐mail addresses with the other participants. The draft of the proposed justification and demographics should be shared electronically; Ms. Reilly is preparing a short list of recommendations which the group may want to be able to consider before the next meeting as well. The SIT is still planning a site visit to Wilson sometime the week of May 13th but arrangements have not been finalized. Participants Kidest Albaari Ed Spec Contractor for DGS Renard Alexander DCPS -‐ Office of Chief Operating Officer Kamili Anderson State Board of Ed, Ward 4 David Bennett Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Jane Bettistea Alum

Ray Michael Bridgewater Assembly of Petworth Kelly Coble DCPS Kenneth, Dr. Dickerson Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Maurice Edwards Alum Tracy Eichelberger Roosevelt Chief of Transformation Robin Gerber Temple Sinai -‐ WIN, Wash. Interfaith Network Christoffer Graae Cox Graae and Spack, Architects Don Gregory Cox, Graae and Spack, Architects Ron Hampton Roosevelt FCR center Nancy Huvendick 21CSF Mike Ivey Neighbor, Ward 4 Council on Education Jalila Miller Roosevelt Student Cheryl Miller2 DCPS, Roosevelt Parent Jerome Patterson Roosevelt Special Ed Dept. Chair Cynthia Prather Alum Cathy Reilly SHAPPE Chuck Simmons Alum Millison Toye Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Kyle Whitley DGS -‐ DCPEP

Ms. Eichelberger welcomed the group and thanked them for their participation. There were questions on how the SIT discussions would come together to make changes to the Ed Spec. Ms. Eichelberger indicated that they would send out the notes compiled by the faculty on the educational specification as well as the materials distributed last week on the justification and demographic information and the section provided covering the STAY program. This information would go through Kyle Whitley, project manager for DGS, to Deanne Newman the DGS contractor responsible for the Education Specification. Her point of contact at DCPS would be Anthony de Guzman, Chief Operating Officer. Ms. Newman expected to revise the document and return it to the SIT Team in two weeks to be available in advance of the SIT meeting on Thursday, May 23rd. (Note that this meeting date has been changed to the 23rd from the regular last Thursday of the month.) Mr. Alexander noted that he had shared the justification and demographic statement with higher administration at DCPS with its proposed increase for the capacity of the building. They removed the stipulation that certain parts of the building would be demolished and other parts not modernized. This will give the architects an opportunity to design to the revised educational specification. Thus the expectation expressed by the group that the square footage providing for Roosevelt’s complex and ambitious program will remain flexible until the architects have a chance to work with the more complete, revised Ed Spec anticipated later in May. Mr. Graae of Cox Graae and Spack indicated that the architects will follow through with their due diligence on Ed. Spec. changes; they have not been directed to remove any portion of the building. The 1970’s infill and the windowless addition is a substantial portion of the building’s square footage now. The concern was that the architects not be hampered in their determination of what would function best for Roosevelt’s current complicated program requirements and allow for future growth. Ms. Eichelberger reminded people to return feed-‐back quickly to herself or to the 21st Century School Fund. The group split in two for discussion with the educational program group to cover Day Care and Family Support Space, and the Media Center, and with the facilities group to cover Career and College Preparation, and the Auditorium. The entire group toured the auditorium before coming back together to share their separate discussions. Discussion Group Reports Ms. Prather reported first on discussion of the Auditorium. Community access was very important as it is now used for meetings, Black History Month presentations and festivals as well as graduation for Roosevelt and the nearby middle schools and elementary schools. They were concerned that the phrase “As Is” on page 96 of the Ed Spec would be too limiting. They would like it to be available to theater groups for performances with a full complement of up-‐to-‐date sound and lighting properties. Retaining as much as possible of the historic fabric of the space was important including the lobby and ticket booth. It was not clear whether an orchestra pit space is available, but that might be an important feature. It would also be good to investigate the projection booth to determine if it could be used, updating in some way its original purpose or put to a different purpose. Acoustics are very important. The original wooden seats were renovated a few years ago. They discussed the possibility of finding another space in the building for a college lecture hall space possibly to accommodate distance learning. Similarly they discussed finding a way to incorporate a black box type theater in addition to the auditorium to accommodate smaller, more informal performances.

Roosevelt faculty and staff still have a vision for teaching drama and dance even though they are offered currently through afterschool programs (by the LAYC -‐ Latin American Youth Center). Facilities to accommodate dance and drama might better be located near each other rather than have dance as part of athletics. Ms. Reilly reported the discussion about the Day Care and Family Support space. Eastern High School might provide a model. A parent center for the larger school requires a location near the main administration so parents can find it easily; it should not be paired with the Day Care as that necessarily needs to have its own separate entrance with immediate access to outdoor play space which isn’t likely possible near the main administration. New Heights offers services to students who are pregnant or who have small children and it currently requires considerable storage. New Heights is separate from the Day Care Center which needs sinks and a kitchenette in addition to adult and child-‐sized toilets and enough space for infants and toddlers (up to three years old) as well as the number of adults required for infant care. Outdoor play space should be ample with shade and water available -‐ -‐ it needs to be a pleasant place but secure and lockable. Storage for the day care is very important with requirements for storing large outside play equipment and space to house the strollers that children may arrive in. It is important that the day care facility be built so that it can be licensed. The expectation is that day care will be managed by an outside contractor. The group briefly discussed the need to determine the policy around who has access to day care services: clearly students have first priority but the question was whether it should be limited to students or whether faculty or others could use it as well. STAY students would also want to use the facility, possibly later in the day and possibly for older school-‐age students. The Media Center discussion focused on the requirements of a video production area; was the 800 square foot classroom type production space sufficient also for editing and production of a student newspaper as well as video production on site, beyond editing extraneous video footage. This area and the media center proper require secure lockable storage especially as equipment is getting smaller and more easily subject to theft. The media center needs natural light and good acoustics so it can be used as an alternative meeting space -‐ -‐ in this way it should be easily accessible to the public after hours. Ms. Newman indicated that the DCPS central office library specialist would provide a media center narrative of the program for the Ed Spec. People asked that there be ample space for people and books in the media center as several new school libraries had proved to be too cramped. Signage so that it can be used for a community meeting space was also noted. The group recommended that the Ed Spec incorporate notes from the ELL faculty about their program which is substantial but did not seem to have been provided for specifically in the current Ed Spec. There are 100 ELL students, five dedicated teachers and four ELL content area classrooms in this program. The group would like to see a fuller description of ELL. Ms. Bruno, one of Roosevelt’s ELL teachers asked that the bilingual counselor be located in the area near ELL. Ms. Reilly referred to a short summation of the main recommendations from the SIT team; these will be sent to everyone electronically. The largest issue is the proposed capacity and square footage of the modernized school, which is now understood to be open to increase as required to properly encompass the enriched program and increasing enrollment envisioned. . The planning concepts also included the

recommendation to re-‐open MacFarland Middle School to provide a direct feeder into Roosevelt that can sustain the larger high school. Recapping, some of the additional points the recommendations included were:

• Include both a sensory room and a quiet room for special education and add a third autism classroom

• Expand foreign language offerings at Roosevelt

• Fitness center should accommodate some of the physical therapy space for special education

• Career and Technical Education needs to be clarified; the recommendation is that Roosevelt

offer Business and Finance and Culinary Arts. The sense was that people wanted vocations represented that would provide students with high level skills for entre into 21st century careers.

• There is a strong sentiment that there should be two art rooms and two art teachers with

storage areas for the STAY program.

• Physical education requires both a fitness center AND a separate weight room that is equipped specifically to provide weight training for student athletes. The gymnasium needs more spectator space and two full-‐size practice courts as well as the exhibition space. It is understood that it will be difficult to expand the gym but practice space might be managed separately.

Ms. Eichelberger asked people to e-‐mail additions to the recommendations to Ms. Reilly. Roosevelt’s kitchen currently serves as the production kitchen for a number of the surrounding elementary and PS-‐8th grade schools. Whether it will continue to do so and if so, how many meals are to be produced daily is something that has to be verified. Plans are currently predicated on the idea that it will continue to be a production kitchen. Ms. Newman indicated that the architects would employ a technical consultant who will work with DCPS central food service. Mr. Alexander will bring these questions to the central office and try to have someone from food service address the next SIT meeting. Arrangements had not yet been finalized for a tour of Wilson High School, a recently modernized building that is very similar to Roosevelt; that re-‐design was done by the same team that is working on Roosevelt. The tour will require about 90 minutes. The group’s first choice for a tour is next Thursday at 6:00 pm with a secondary preference being next Tuesday. Ms. Eichelberger will contact people when the time and day have been secured -‐ -‐ the group is to meet at Wilson’s front entrance. Mr. Patterson thanked the SIT committee for their support for Roosevelt. Participants: Kidest Albaari, Ed Spec Contractor for DGS Renard Alexander, DCPS -‐ Office of Chief Operating Officer Jane Bettistea, Neighbor, Alumni Yolande Bruno, Roosevelt Faculty, ELL Angie Christophe, Neighbor, Ward 4 Council on Education

Dori B. Cook, Consultant -‐ Bibb Cook Group Terry DeCarbo, DCPS Instructional Superintendent, Cluster 11 (Sp. Ed) Tracy Eichelberger, Roosevelt Chief of Transformation Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund Robin Gerber, Washington Interfaith Network Chris Graae, Cox Graae and Spack, Architects Donald Gregory, Cox Graae and Spack, Architects Ron Hampton, Roosevelt Family Community Resource Center Nancy Huvendick, 21st Century School Fund Mike Ivey, Neighbor, Ward 4 Council on Education Larry Juhans, Roosevelt PTSA President Haregewoin Kefyalew, St. Miriam's Church, 14th and Buchanan Cheryl Miller, DCPS, Roosevelt Parent Deanna Newman, DGS Contractor Bernadine Okoro, Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Jerome Patterson, Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Cynthia Prather, Alumni Cathy Reilly, SHAPPE Jeff Standish, ANC 4C03 Commissioner Millison Toye, Roosevelt Faculty/Staff Kyle Whitley, DCPEP, Project Manager, DGS

Meeting Minutes of S.I.T. Workshops (April 11th - May 9th, 2013)

News & Politics

Transcript of Meeting Minutes of S.I.T. Workshops (April 11th - May 9th, 2013)