School Leadership Team Meeting

School Leadership Team Meeting

Monday, March 17, 2014

Topic: Calming Room

In Attendance: Alesha Tuck, Amber Martinez, Alison Preslipsky, Diwanna Griffin, Mary DeBaggis, Leigh Kasin, Talia Chapman, Delilah Cole, Sheila Abraham, Valerie Todd, Cathy Yancey, Jane Douglass

Guests: Kristine Lofton, Tracie Zakas, Christy Altman, Gloria Graham

Recap from last time:

·  Options left: bin of materials and sensory area for each classroom

Next step: rate “wants” on scale of 1-10

·  All age groups: 10

·  Accessible for any student: 10

·  Meets the needs of students’ senses: 10

·  Provides variety of sensory materials: 10

·  Training for teachers and staff: 10

·  Durability of materials: 10

·  Increase education (address student needs when education stops): 10

·  Not to exceed available funds (PTO, community generated, grant generated): 10

Bin of sensory materials

**discussion: can we remove bin of materials as an option? K Lofton stated that it would be best to continue with the Tregoe process in order to see which option comes out on top after completing the process in its entirety

**question about why a separate room does not meet the nonnegotiable requirements; V Todd stated that the amount of time required for each content area would not be able to be met with a separate room. T Chapman stated that a separate room also poses a problem with staff-student ratio requirements

**question about whether nonnegotiables and ratios are violated with the time-out rooms; T Zakas stated that teachers do not monitor students in timeout rooms; behavior technicians do

Bin of Sensory Materials

*L West stated that PTO has already funded sensory materials for classrooms; C Altman stated that while those materials have been beneficial for students, they have been used for specific student needs as opposed to distributed to each teacher/classroom to meet the needs of all students

·  All age groups (since for individual classrooms, all ages in that classroom): 9

o  Discussion about bins again, but team came back to the question of whether bins could meet needs of all age groups, decided that they could as long as the bins in each classroom were suitable to those particular students

·  Accessible for use by any metro student: 10

·  Meets needs of students senses: 5

·  Provides variety of sensory activities and materials: 5

·  Training for teachers and staff: 8

o  Training would entail teaching staff how to monitor students with materials; typically student specific but some general training for how to use materials

·  Durability of materials: 6

·  Increases education: 5

·  Not to exceed PTO and community/grand generated funds: 10

o  Discussion on whether or not bins could/would exceed given budget; decision was that the budget would be set

Separate sensory space integrated into each classroom

·  All age groups: 9

·  Accessible for use by any student: 10

·  Meets students’ senses: 7

·  Provides a variety of sensory materials/activities: 7

o  Higher due to more options in an area than a bin

·  Training for staff: 8

·  Durability of materials: 8

·  Increase education/address student needs when education stops: 7

·  Not to exceed PTO/community/grant funds: 10

Discussion of how much space is available in classrooms

·  A Martinez suggested that most teachers would be willing to dedicate a space for materials provided

·  Statement was made that various aspects of space would have to be ironed out if we go with this option

·  C Altman stated that although there are many ways to block off an area in the classroom, some of these options might not work according to health department and fire codes

·  V Todd stated that we would have to involve the health dept., developmental day, etc. to assist us in making a final decision about what we can and cannot do with these spaces

Option C, designated sensory spaces in the classroom, came out with the higher number of the two options left

Next Steps: PTO needs to decide whether they are still behind funding this project, deciding on specifics

D Griffin expressed concern about whether or not there is a room available in the school to have a separate sensory room

A Tuck stated that the TREGOEprocess is what took a separate room off the list, not that SLT members’ opinions are not valued

Further discussion about next steps: proposal first or PTO decision first?

·  L West stated that PTO would need to meet and clear up what they would potentially be funding, then SLT would be able to come up with a proposal

·  S Abraham asked if the PTO had voted with a “calming” room in mind; it was reiterated that calming was a different word used for a multisensory area

·  L Kasin stated that the PTO had voted on being excited about the idea of a room, but was not then able to commit funds yet due to needing more concrete specifics

Decision: parent SLT members will go back to the PTO to discuss the option that the SLT has come to (a separate sensory space in each classroom). If the PTO is in agreement to continue to be a part of this project, then the SLT will pull together a very specific proposal for the project.

Note: New Date!

Next regular SLT meeting: Monday, March 24, 2014 @ 1:00