1. Cory Merrill Campus Planning Process April 10, 2008

2. Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting Present and get feedback on the Coordinating Committee’s drafts of: – Discuss the draft “campus blueprint” as articulated through SIG Planning Grant components – Campus configuration possibilities

3. SIG Planning Grant Components Academic Plan Leadership and Staffing Professional Development Demographics and Enrollment Community Engagement Physical Learning Environment Sustainability Budget

4. Possible Synthesis of Visions The Cory Merrill Campus is a neighborhood school with a global vision, promoting a culture of excellence through rigorous academics and an emphasis on responsibility, caring, and respect. Our focus on the liberal arts prepares students for their roles as citizens, workers, and lifelong learners. Seamless programs from grades ECE-(?) support a thematic approach to learning and integrate the arts into the curriculum. The school embraces the diversity of the community and meets each student’s learning needs through high quality classroom instruction and specialized programs. We meet students where they are and challenge them to become who they want to be.

5. Academic Vision Academic vision—see proposed statements Curriculum—follow Denver Plan, infuse arts, explore thematic units Diverse learning needs—committed to developing life-long learners in all students Assessment—multiple measures, relevant to students and teachers, high accountability Culture and Climate— “Culture of excellence” in all aspects of school, welcoming place, shared values guide decisions, school/family contracts

6. Professional Development Central focus is on professional learning communities (PLCs), using student achievement data to inform instructional decisions Importance of teambuilding among all Cory Merrill Campus staff Within PLCs, use best-practices to target instruction (e.g. PEBC, math programs, etc.)

7. Demographics and Enrollment Much of this will be determined by configuration decisions Making sure that enrollment decisions are done in concert with broader feeder pattern and DPS enrollment trends Interest in balancing neighborhood school focus with diversity and choice

8. Community Engagement Building on strong parent and community engagement already Setting high expectations for parent engagement in a variety of ways and in a variety of forms (Epstein model) Build strong partnership with University of Denver

9. Small Group Discussion Take a minute, in silence, to jot down your thoughts on sticky notes about the Cory Merrill Campus blueprint Briefly share your thoughts with those at your table Briefly share highlights of your conversation with the large group

10. Configuration Possibilities 1. ECE-12 models 1. One School 2. Campus Model 3. ECE-1 at Cory, 2-6 at Merrill, 7-12 at South 2. ECE-8 Models 1. One School 2. Two Schools 3. ECE-K at Cory, 1-8 at Merrill 3. ECE-10 Middle College Model

11. Model 1.1: ECE-12 as one school Pros – Small schools work well – Allows for diverse learning levels – Creates strong bonds and sense of permanence – Innovative, will create demand and scarcity – Encourages parental involvement Cons – Would unnecessarily compete with South, rather than supporting the existing feeder pattern – Would limit the number of students at each grade level – HS would be too small

12. Model 1.2: ECE-12 as Campus Pros – Allows Cory to remain small – Still allows for "new blood" at the 6th and again at the 9th grade level – Offers DPS (and in particular Cory/Merrill families) an intentionally small school option at both the middle and high school levels – Doesn't "drain"/ pull students away from the other three feeder schools – Extra-curricular options could be accommodated through South or in partnership with DU. Cons – Potentially affects the feeder pattern at the high school level – Requires some retrofitting of the Merrill building to provide HS level labs etc. – Smaller high school may not be able to offer as many extra-curricular activities

13. Model 1.3: ECE-1 at Cory, 2-6 at Merrill, 7-12 at South Pros – Allows students in the MS years to have access to high school level classes and resources—which addresses many of the GT needs – Creates ECE-12 single vision with effective use of existing grade-level resources – Students could meet graduation requirements at their own pace and possibly graduate earlier, or go to college with credits already in place – Taps into existing resources at South (e.g. languages, electives, sports, facilities) that parents have expressed interest Cons – Too radical of change— moves away from current teacher expertise and expectations – Loses identity of Merrill as middle school – Could compete with feeder pattern elementary schools – Might not have sufficient ECE-6 enrollment to fill campus

14. Model 2.1: ECE-8 as one school Pros – Better ensures that the scope and sequence will be aligned – Promotes collaboration amongst the faculty in both buildings – Creates a community of families and teachers that stay together – Accommodates more students in the early years where there appears to be the greatest demand – Encourages parental involvement because families would be a part of the community longer term – Creates "scarcity" issue, which in turn may increase demand at the 6th grade level Cons – Grade size of 140 may not be ideal at the elementary school level – Feeder pattern would change - in that there would be no "feeding in" in 6th grade

15. Model 2.2: ECE-8 as two schools Pros – Works well for the feeder patterns--doesn't negatively impact their enrollment at ECE- 5 and gives them a middle school option in the neighborhood – Best way to meet initial demand in the community that helped launch this effort – Keeps existing staffing patterns largely consistent Cons – Not particularly innovative or novel, and is likely to not really give us the chance to make a change – Feeder school numbers alone don't support a middle school with those grade level sizes – Doesn't ensure collaboration between faculties – Doesn't necessarily ensure a seamless integration of scope and sequence

16. Model 2.3: ECE-K at Cory, 1-8 at Merrill Pros – Similar to ECE-8 as one school, with additional benefits of possible Reggio Emilia focus for ECE center – Allows for strong ECE-K focus at Cory, seamless 1-8 focus at Merrill – Best use of existing facility resources Cons – Could lead people to expect that all ECE students will be able to enroll on Cory Merrill Campus – Similar to other ECE-8 cons

17. Model 3: ECE-10 Middle College Pros – Benefits of middle college model— prep school in a public setting – Continuity among grades, individual attention, multiple tracks for students (e.g., GT, SpEd, ELA, et al) or mainstream needs. – It would not require significant capital improvements ­ e.g., increased parking for student drivers. – Students would matriculate as juniors in time for IB and AP programs to any area schools. – Opportunities for peer mentoring. – Students could move beyond grade level constrictions when advanced in particular academic disciplines (including movement into upper class environments as appropriate). – We could still create a sister relationship with South High who could be viewed as our mainstream feed. Cons – Entering another HS at 11th grade could pose challenges – Demand for 9-10 years may not be particularly high, and would create potential structural and staffing challenges

18. ECE Center and ECE-16 Dimensions ECE Center could be a part of any of these models, providing a way to meet district demand and make use of available space (e.g. lower floor at Merrill, use of Cory facilities) “-16” dimension could be a part of all high school models through close connections with DU

19. Small Group Discussions What strikes you the most about what you have heard? What criteria matter the most as you consider your preferences? On a Fist to 5 scale, how would you evaluate each of these models?