Welcome to the
Task Force to Engage
Riverview
Thursday=
, October
5, 2006
Policy W=
ork
Group
Here is the agenda; it is on the wall as well. There a=
re
post-its too, if you have a question we don't want to lose it. Write it down
and stick it on the parking lot. We have new people, welcome. Let's bring t=
hem
up to speed on where we are.
I will take you through the major outcomes for this gr=
oup. (
Susan Lieberman:
The key is to look at the development of policy or tho=
se
that exist but are not enforced. We look at both areas. First we look at wh=
at
we want to focus on.
We did charts that are pieces that we know. You had
identified topics; we broke it down to see what is impeding it. Susan went
through the parts. We sent out an E-mail asking for direction. You have E-m=
ail
responses to look at as well as charts. We are building on our work.
Susan Lieberman:
I would like you to say who you are. I am Susan Lieber=
man
from Keeping Maine’s Children Connected
(Particip=
ants
introduce themselves.)
Partic=
ipant: &=
nbsp; My name is
Partic=
ipant: Dan Despard, Department of Health and H=
uman
Services.
Partic=
ipant: Carolyn Gray, Choices Project.
Partic=
ipant: Becky Dyer, Maine Department of Educati=
on,
Adult Ed.
Participant:&nbs=
p; I
am Mary Fran Gamage from Department of Labor.
Participant:&nbs= p; Amanda Rector from Department of Labor.<= o:p>
Susan Lieberman:
In looking at last month, there are themes. One is
transition planning. There were different areas, example of systems that
worked, (reading first paragraph, blue sheet.) There are all sorts. =
We
talked about kids who have had disruption. Other examples are of successful
transitions.
We looked at personalized learning plans. The other pa=
rts
are active engagement, data collection, the monitoring that needs to happen,
and existing and emerging programs. There are plans and other initiatives.<=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
We did a quick-write and one concern was that we are g=
oing
too fast and we need to look at other movements. That is why we invited Jaci
Holmes to come and speak. This is from the work that we did but also it
addresses your concerns.
Susan Lieberman:
We would like you to look at the blue sheet. It is a c=
hart.
We will break it down to topics, categories, and elements. Look at the topi=
cs:
they are the emerging themes we came up with. Please look it over. Is it the
major areas we should consider for this group?
These emerged from our last group.
Susan Lieberman:
You can use it as a reference. Is it the major efforts=
we
should address, are there areas we should consider that are not here?
Look also at the E-mail, and think of this morningR=
17;s
talks. If you have your reflections note, please look at that. I will give =
you
three minutes to reflect and then we will pair up and look at them as teams=
and
then share them out with the group. Take three to four minutes to review the
outcomes.
(Participants are looking at outcomes for silent re=
view.)
(Chart on board.)
Themes identified:
Please find a partner and respond to these themes from= the work you did last time. Is it accurate, does it need to be clarified, or are there things that are not there that need to be represented.
Participant: Is
this all from Dean?
No, it is from different people. If you look under
questions, we had three that we asked.
Participant: Is=
he on
the task force?
Susan Lieberman:
Yes but he could not make it.
He had given us something to consider. We asked three
questions. Please move into
groups and have a discussion.
Susan Lieberman:
Would you people from the Department of Labor please m=
ove so
you meet with someone else?
(Participants are talking in pairs.)
Thank you. I would like to focus on two things in term=
s of
what you looked at: clarification and additional topics that we may have
missed. I will let this be a free flow. In areas of clarification, did you =
have
relevant issues that you can share?
Participant: We talked
about not understanding what the interdepartmental concerns are. Where are =
the
intersections? You don't know where they fall apart until you know what they
are supposed to do.
Participant: We=
had a
question on number 4, data collection. What do you want to collect? There i=
s so
much.
There are some themes that emerge. We have things in p=
lace
but still lose so many students. Maybe we need to ensure that if we come fo=
rth
with recommendations that they are being implemented.
Participant: Al=
ong
with that, who collects the data?=
Susan Lieberman:
It depends on the data you want to collect. Right now =
it is
very broad. We need to focus on one area. Then we can look at how
interdepartmental connections can be made.
Participant: Are
policies connected? Who is reviewing that and finding them?
Susan Lieberman:
Great questions.
We were looking at what is in place to help students
successfully transition. Some that are in place are good, but only for a sm=
all
population, and it does not reach all we are talking about. As we ask quest=
ions
about what we need to know and what we know, then we can start to see if th=
ey really
exist and where they fall apart. =
I hope that if there is jargon you don't know everyone=
can
work through that. I think I heard your group talking about that. It is suc=
h a
complex issue, and you all have so much expertise.
Participant: I =
didn't
know what MEDMS was until last time.
Participant: I =
think
there is an assumption that we are all in education.
Susan Lieberman:
Maybe later we can have someone write it down and hand=
it
out to all.
Kathy Markovchick:
I think we need a data dictionary, as there is so much=
of
it.
Participant:&nbs=
p; I
think MEDMS has the potential to affect a lot and we need to understand it.=
Participant: I =
think
we need to put it under 4, maybe 3.
We will give you two heart stickers soon. Put your hea=
rt
sticker on what you think are the two most critical areas. Then we can star=
t to
integrate the rest into is.
Participant: We
should consider 1, 3, and 4. They are distinct things and other topics fit
under them.
You will get a vote. If there is something missing...<=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Participant: Th=
is
seems to target kids in the system; I work with many who aren’t. They=
are
too young.
Participant: Th=
ey
don't appear on anyone’s database.
Susan Lieberman:
They may be if they are there at grade 6 but not 7.
Participant: Da=
ta by
omission.
Participant: It=
is
tracked twice a year.
Participant: Bu=
t six
months is a huge chunk of time for them.
Any other topics that emerged?
Participant: Th=
ere
were comments about policies in place that are not followed or tracked. It =
does
not seem to fit under our themes.=
Susan Lieberman:
We need to look at policy, and then focus in. It is an
element of that.
This is saying that these children are experiencing
disruption, it gives us inside information. Any time we look at it and fles=
h it
out and look at all the elements, we need to look at all parts and bring it
back to the group. Other ideas that came up? Broad topics?
Susan Lieberman:
Is there anything you want to add?
Participant: Th=
ere is
a large population that is not even seen in school, we need to find out whe=
re
they are being seen. We assume they are seen in high school but they may not
be. They may be at Boys and Girls club, or a homeless shelter, or bowling
allies. Where are they and can we track them?
I think of the superintendent who shared her challenge=
of
having students at a school where they don't have to be accepted. It seems =
that
maybe we are narrowing too quickly. We need to look at enrollment policies.=
We
may find that the other group is looking at that. If a child can be enrolle=
d is
something we need to look at in transitional planning.
Participant: The
girl’s story last time was a great example.
Participant: We=
may
want to add it to transitional planning. There are many examples. We may ne=
ed
to talk about narrowing which transition we are talking about.
We may want to look at broadening it if we decide it is
different.
Susan Lieberman:
We need to focus in so we can have more in-depth talk =
about
it.
I will put these out and you will get two hearts, plea=
se put
those on the items you think are most important.
(Chart on=
the
wall- see Themes Identified)
Clarification:
Additional Topics:
Susan Lieberman:
We are looking at the categories piece. Jaci is coming=
in to
talk and we will look at that also.
Participant: I =
am
still confused about the heart.
You each get two; you put one by the themes you think =
are
the most critical. I see the emphasis on the kids in the system. We will lo=
ok
at kids both in and out.
Kathy Markovchick:
So we will keep the themes on the wall.
Participant: I think =
you
spoke about consolidating.
And we can do that. We will review it as a group. It i=
s not
the final.
Participant: Th= is is to give us a first scan to see where the energy is.
(Group breaks for lunch at 11:45.)
Post-Lunch Session
Susan Lieberman:
I would like you to introduce yourself to Jaci. She is= from the PreK-16 council.
(People are introducing themselves.)
Jaci Holmes:
I have been with the department for 18 years. I have b=
een a
liaison to
At Pineland today there is the first of a number of re= gional discussions to see how preschool programs are working and how we can integr= ate them seamlessly into school. We look at the first goal of getting four-year-olds ready for school that is underway as we speak.
There are early guidelines that are in place and are b= eing used. (Reading from pamphlet.)
There is a public hearing on October 16. There will be= work on getting kids into the public school system. Probably more than 60% of children under the age of five are in some kind of childcare. We need a way= to get information about them from their care providers, as that information w= ould be beneficial to their kindergarten teachers.
Looking at Item 4 on your chart, Quality Assurance, we= are looking at different activities in different areas. You can look at the web site. There are series of recommendations on care and settings.
I know you are interested in empowering students and g= etting them ready for college. As you may have seen, the Commissioner has been in talks about No Child Left Behind. We have shifted 11th grade assessment from the MEA to the SAT. It has had overwhelming support. A number of families w= ho might otherwise not have prepped students for college are now doing so. Also students who want to may take classes at a college level by leaving their h= igh school setting.
I know Becky and her staff have looked at adult educat= ion and talked about dovetailing it with Special Ed. We are looking at a lot of cross-department teaming and how we are all working together.
(Reading pamphlet, "Empowering All Students to= Earn a College Degree”) I don't know how much is done one on one, but = the director meets with the chancellors to look at the working relationship. We= had Henry Bergeron and others look at this too. We intend that a lot of this wo= rk will be looking at all students having the ability to achieve. It dovetails with getting all students to succeed.
We are one of about 20 states that have undertaken a P= reK-16 council.
Susan Lieberman:
Would you continue on with this?
Jaci Holmes:
We just finished submitting a revised highly qualified teacher application. We have looked at areas where we have shortages and a number of them are Special Education and foreign languages, so we need to l= ook at how to address these needs. As you look at different ways of creating a = high school environment, you maybe need to have a teacher in one area that is accessible to many students.
The other piece is if there is a way to look at if we = can develop a certification process. We are increasing our population but it is retirees, and is there a way to use their expertise to help address the shortages.
The commissioners are creative and thinking outside th= e box. That is what we are trying to work on. This is used in many sub-teams, so I think it is moving forward. When a council forms, I think they will take ti= me to look at where we are and build on that, not build from scratch.
Susan Lieberman:
Questions? Comments? We talked about students with disconnect.
Are they looking at targeting the transition from high school to college?
Participant: I work on that. It is ages 14-25. They were asked to do a high school exit su= rvey and we collect the data.
Participant: I’m struck by the dis-connect between the plan from this morning and the realit= y. We are talking about all kids and the reality is that kids are getting lost= and I don't see how the presentations are addressing these kids.
Susan Lieberman:
Do you want to comment on that? This is an issue that = keeps coming up.
Participant: Craig is in the field and is seeing things that don't seem to be acknowledged in = the department.
Jaci Holmes:
I am not in secondary education, but we have tried to address the credit issue. There needs to be recognition that there are mobi= le families in the state, and how do the credits get tracked. And with more homeless and homeless special education students, we now have the MEDMS to track them.
I asked a similar question last year, this year I got a whole different level of information. We now know where more kids are. There are increasing efforts.
Participant: This morning Susan was talking about the assessment piece and focusing on the fo= ur core areas. I think you are talking about a broader approach than she was talking about.
Jaci Holmes:
Participant: I think that is the frustration you are hearing here. Another part of my job = is the low-income college scholarship piece.
Jaci Holmes:
I think as we become more fiscally challenged, people = have to think outside the box about how we can move this work while maintaining = our obligations to federal challenges.
Participant: I heard this morning that by raising expectations from our students we keep t= hem from being successful at school. I disagree. I think when graduation is the goal, standards get lowered. The challenge is to change that. The goal is n= ot the diploma; it is what they do after that.
Just raising the standards and limiting the concentrat= ion areas without engaging the youth...one challenge is that we don't get the d= ata back. It is an unintended negative aspect. What are the strategies that we = use to get past the dis-connects? What are the other pieces? With No Child Left Behind, what is challenging is that there are layers of assessments but no money to do these and to make sure that teachers have the strategies to implement.
Students have the choices to leave the school but the = school may not have the resource to implement what they need. We need to improve t= he educational system.
Jaci Holmes:
Part of our decision to not use No Child Left Behind assessment was that we did not want it to be used as an accountability meas= ure.
That really changed the conversations in schools. Ther= e are many issues coming up.
Participant: Are there identifiers in place to follow a child from Pre-K through school, so = that you can identify a child that may have a hard time transitioning from home = to school, so we can help keep them in school?
Jaci Holmes:
I know of home visitation pieces with the intent being= that the child needs education but there also needs to be a connection with the family. I don't know now embedded it is in the system.
Susan Lieberman:
We hope to have a definition of MEDMS for you next tim= e.
Jaci Holmes:
And how can there be a way for data systems to talk wi= th each other? The issue is confidentially.
Participant: In many cases it is too late by the time they get to high school. The real integrated approach would be to identify the child early.
Participant: There are significant barriers. We are limited in what we can do.
Participant: How can we think outside the box and share the data? I’m frustrated by the fact that we can't. Can we do something about it?
Participant: The challenge is to do it within department as well as between departments.
We are not reinventing the wheel, but we do have youth= who don't have access to that. We are looking at them. That becomes our work, to see what we can bring to the table. You want to build on existing work.
Participant: I know you can't go into homes and families because of privacy, but I know th= ere are identifiers that you can get from the Pre-K teacher to help you. You can set these criteria to see how many days they came to school, etc.
As we start to identify them...we have some questions = that Jaci can see.
Susan Lieberman:
And we have other questions from the other group. Are = you ready to move on?
(On board)
1. Remember all are individ= uals; learning needs to be taken into account.
2. What will break this dow= n to the middle school to help them in high school?
3. How does this fit in wit= h what we are doing now?
4. Is there talk about chan= ging the calendar?
5. The commissioner said ML= R must be met- what about adult programs? Barriers for adults?
6. If each high school foll= owed the core courses, would it eliminate different district requirements?
7. Role of media literacy? =
Any other thoughts or comments about this or for Jaci?=
Participant: What was the recommendation?
Participant: A recommendation to extend the school year, adding five more each of student = and teacher days. That would be 185 days, which is the national average.
Participant: When will the council be named?
Jaci Holmes:
I need to check, but it will be soon.
Any other questions? Thank you for coming in.
Jaci Holmes:
Thank you. I will send you another book that builds on=
the
work on
Susan Lieberman:
That would be great.
In terms of this afternoon, we have a couple things identified to do. One is to get our focus in where we are going and also to delve into this pamphlet more. We come up with process and strategies, how = do we broaden it to help students we are talking about?
The first piece is to have a conversation about this. = Our group has overcome quite a few challenges. We had a talk about clarificatio= n. We may be thinking about broadening some pieces. Jaci was talking about data sharing, maybe we don't bring data but we bring expertise. Also we can cons= ider the quality assurance and the building on existing or emerging evidence. Wh= at do we put in terms of recommendations to make sure it is high quality and addresses the students we want it to? What are some practices that would help us? I want to have a conversation to make sure that there is...
Participant: I think a PLP is encompassed in the others. It is the same issue as a transit= ion plan. Are there other needs, what is the action plan, what are the goals?
Participant: I have a question on 1, when you talk about students of all ages, are you tal= king about birth to five, and maybe students older than 18?
We use the term youth.
Participant: We have been using the term students. The focus was the study on ages 16-19 who are not working or in school. Some of what we have been talking about will affect them when they reach that age.
I think it is important to clarify. Here is our target= , but we can't get there without talking about younger students. We really need to focus on transition. You can't just talk about the senior year. We know the target population, but we need to be clear on our intent. In order to ensure that the students have a smooth transition, they need to have felt successf= ul from early on.
Susan Lieberman:
It also includes kids not in school, so it is school-a= ged.
Participant: I also do family literacy; we are talking about helping the family, not just = the child. A lot of these will be students who are disengaged by age 10.
There was talk about students who are not just in this= age.
Participant: In adult education I see students who may come back at age 25. What does the design for high school do for adult education?
Participant: Thinking back to the student at lunch, we are missing the mark if we look just at ol= der students.
I have an activity to do, but one thing in looking at = this document is that although our work targets this age, patterns are set in pl= ace before this. We want to establish a clear and articulate reason for where we are going. What do we know? We work from what we know. What is in place now, what works and what does not. Does it require a new design or a target to f= ocus on?
Susan Lieberman:
We need to move on.
Participant: On number 3, I have a question. I have a sense that this is focused on educati= on and I don't hear a lot about community. Transition planning needs to go with community. We need to remember there is a community in which kids are engag= ed, either positive or negative. I don't want to lose that. We call them studen= ts but they are not just that.
We can call them youth.
Participant: I don't want us to lose that.
We don't want to lose the community piece.
Participant: We
have programs out there for the youth. Adult education,
That is why our work is so challenging. We are looking= at work, community, others. Jaci talked about a ready school, etc.
One group can flesh out number 1. When we talk about transition planning, what are we talking about? Is there another way to describe what we are talking about? What are the other things we need to consider, and whom do we need to engage with? Then Susan and I can target resource around transition.
Susan Lieberman:
Think about what is out there that we can use and expa= nd for all youth. Those connected, somewhat connected, and not connected at all.
Participant: I just transitioned a young man, the program needed to go with him. He had a = hard time. There was one program designed for him but five days into his school = year they eliminated it and it pulled the rug out from under him. Some of this sounds global but we are talking about individuals. He has mental health is= sues and now will graduate in three years, not two. He needs a service to successfully maintain so that he graduates.
That fits under here. How do we build that in? Also as= that child transitions, that school may not know how to do it.
Participant: That is why I think you need 1 and 3 together.
Participant: I
also see 3 as going beyond that. Sharing data, integrating.
Participant: I think that falls under 4, college data.
Susan Lieberman:
Don't get stuck on the words, put it where you need to= .
Participant: If you look at where youth has disruption, you can trace it back to earlier events.
Participant: We’re back to process. I don't think we can do it in two small groups.
We talked about target population, and that has change= d. Who is our target and how have we decided to expand it? That has come up. Target population: we know it is youth experiencing disruption, how do we see it as expanding?
Participant: It
has to encompass years that they are in high school, potentially. Maybe the=
re
is a core target area for programming. At least 14, and in
Participant: I like the idea of a core and then other ideas that expand it.
Participant: Why do you say 14?
Participant: Traditionally they enter high school in the 14th year.
Participant: We deal with ages 12 and 13 who don't go to school.
Susan Lieberman:
And someone made a comment about the third grader.
Participant: So maybe younger.
Participant: To engage them and wait until they are 14, it seems late.
Participant: I do worry that it is easy to give recommendations that become undoable. I am= not sure that if we come out with a list that people will feel that we did our work.
Let's do a round robin.
Participant: Ideally I would like to target all students, and I think it needs to be done. But I think we are tasked to look at high school based on what we are doing and w= hom we have heard.
Participant: From what I have heard, I think that both kids in school and those who aren’t… I think it is important to target them.
Participant: I would be willing to bring it down to 12 or 13, and having a core with expansions.
Participant: All youth and whether we want those who are engaged in a program or not, whatev= er stage they are in.
Participant: It seems to me that we formed because of the percentage of youth not going on = to work, and I think we need to look at a broader age group. We start earlier.=
Susan Lieberman:
I agree. We need to start earlier to impact later. I t= hink it is important. It is a larger area and it needs to happen earlier.
Participant: I am happy with whatever age. The part about engagement, we need to talk about all students, no matter what the age. It needs to be systemic solutions. We have lots of programs for small groups with different problems, so I am in favor of systemic solutions. I think there should be access. I think it sho= uld be all kids.
When you look at transition planning, as you think abo= ut strategies, are there ones that are age specific? Is that what the general = flow of a good transition plan is going to be?
Participant: When we talk about plans, the core element of the one I work with is the goals. = That does not work well with a four-year-old; it is the adults’ plan for t= he child. But in early adolescent there is a problem with what the child wants= and what the parent wants. You need to find out what the child wants.
We talked about many things. You can look at when a st= udent can become actively engaged in their planning. I think you want to look at = this when you flesh it out.
Participant: I think I will throw this out. When I talk and work with kids, it is along the idea of having a vision. If he charts his own life, I think of guiding principles that he needs no matter what age he is. Having marketable skills= , a healthy start, a safe place, caring parents. Where are the caring adults, w= hat is the marketable plan? That to me covers all kids.
I have been putting up your ideas. I don't know if we = want to put up a draft of what we’ve talked about now, Susan and I can do = that for next time. There is a process whereby we can put together language for = you and you can tear it apart and put it back together as you want it. Is that something you would like, for us to draft it for you?
Participant: We can do it by E-mail too.
So that is a yes?
I know we are a small group, but it is important to fl= esh out this part. I would like to take 10 minutes to work on this and then bri= ng it back to a larger group. So one group would flesh out transition planning= . Is there information we need to find, people we need to talk with? The other w= ould be communication. They are not that distinct from each other but they are t= wo main foci. That is three people in each group. We can do it here.
Susan Lieberman:
We can do it in the sitting area.
If you would, brainstorm out the elements that we need= to start this.
(Chart on board.)
TARGET POPU= LATION
Encompass high school 14-2= 1 years
Recommended to expand to a= ll ages
Engagement- All/systemic s= olutions
Student voice
Guiding principles
(Participants brainstorm ideas.)
We were talking about transition planning in terms of
looking at defining and expanding it. There was a sense that it is
educationally focused and not looking at mental health or community issues.
Today there were lots of education components that came up. We need to start
new thinking as early as possible. (
(Chart on board)
Susan Lieberman:
I like the idea of facilitator as guide as opposed to a manager.
There are connections between these. One thing mention=
ed is
a conference in
Participant: They developed a youth line that youth actually used. Adults designed it and you= th would use it to connect with help. There are also youth-only career centers= . They talked about how intimidating it was to walk into an adult center.
Susan Lieberman:
Do you have that written material?
Participant: It was actually a study...
Susan Lieberman:
I was wondering if there was a printout we could all h= ave.
We want to see what models are out there and what we c= an use. I want to prepare our next steps. We know we want a communication piec= e as well as quality assurance. In terms of next steps, Susan and I will draft language for our target and send it out to you. We will try to get it out within two weeks. What are some other things? If maybe you can each do some= web research on holistic models, I think we are on the cusp of moving ahead.
Participant: I am happy to contact regional support for models.
Participant: There
is one in
Susan Lieberman:
If we get it earlier we can make copies.
Participant: I can E-mail it.
Susan Lieberman:
Does it also work with kids who are not in school? = (Yes)
Models are a good place to start, but we can modify ou= r own. We can learn as we start to develop our own strategies. We want to look at = our target population and we want to make sure it goes on beyond school. We wan= t to connect to community and business as well as school.
Susan Lieberman:
We may want to look at how it affects policy.
We can do some searching on that.
Participant: If there is legislation behind it...
If you would ask the policy question when you contact = others that would be good. We will E-mail out the "to do" list.
Susan Lieberman:
Are there any adult education policies you can think o= f?
Participant: I am trying to think of some. We are overwhelmed with youth now, with the num= bers coming to our programs. We used to serve older people, now we see a lot of those in their 20s. We are having some success, but not as much as I would like.
Participant: We need to get the MEDMS piece.
Participant: Does anyone have an acronym list?
Susan Lieberman:
I will get the draft of service.
In terms of DOL and DHHS, is there information that we should get? I am thinking that DOL can connect us with the labor piece.
Participant: What type of information? We are just starting to track with JMG.
Susan Lieberman:
When you get some data that would be interesting to sh= are.
Anything else?
Participant: With DOL I could research youth programs.
If you get it before the next meeting, we could copy i= t and get it out. I will E-mail this list to you. When we get together next time = we can focus on this and look at the models. Any other thoughts?
Participant: I know Leslie’s staff can do a lot.
Would you oversee that? Other thoughts or questions? D= o you feel we are making progress and gaining direction? I want it to be your process. Do you feel the focus is correct? You are the people saying how th= is connects to the community. How are you feeling?
Susan Lieberman:
I want to add that maybe next time we can do the backw= ard planning, to see what the end result is so that we are working toward a specific goal.
I want to make sure we don't miss any really great stu= ff on the way.
Participant: I think the process is hard because although you have a vision, we are just stepping into it. I think we are going in the right direction though.
Participant: It is overwhelming at first. I felt most of the day like I was playing catch u= p. But it feels like things are moving forward.
Participant: I feel better than I did last time.
Participant: I think we are moving in the right direction.
Participant: I have felt in the last hour that we are moving forward. I am still unsettled= by this morning.
Kathy Markovchick:
I think that behind that, the assessment, there is a c= ore of good teaching that will come out of that.
Participant: I mean that we didn't address the conflict.
Susan Lieberman:
I would like to address that. We knew there was someth= ing going on, we wanted to speak with her, have her here, and have her answer s= ome of the questions. I think we need to keep looking at it.
Participant: As a group process issue I didn’t like that we did not do anything with = it.
We will get the questions to her.
Susan Lieberman:
The question is if we can get her back to talk about t= he issues.
Making sure that it goes back to that committee.
Susan Lieberman:
We wish Susan had been here when Craig was here.
Participant: Maybe the question is if Susan Gendron should have been here.
Susan Lieberman:
We have had that question.
Participant: Maybe she does not have the answers to some questions.
Participant: I am feeling okay with where we are.
Kathy Markovchick:
I want to throw this out, whether it is effective to m= eet once a month or whether we should take a day or two to hammer it out in a longer period of time. More like a retreat. Is the structure working? If we took two days… is it the structure that is leading the frustration?
The time constraints are hard.
Kathy Markovchick:
I felt if we had two days we might feel like we are ge= tting somewhere.
Participant: It is hard for me to get away from the office. But if you had me for one day b= ut all in one group, it would be better.
Participant: The other group may feel that way too.
Anyone else have a feeling about the two-day piece?
Participant: I just can't do it. It is undoable.
Susan Lieberman:
So it is really to construct the day to make it workab= le.
We need to go back to the other room.
(Chart on board)
Regional support = &nb= sp; Mike = &nb= sp; mode= ls = &nb= sp; 2 weeks
Model from
Youth pro-career centers Amanda &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 2 weeks
Acronyms &= nbsp; = &nb= sp; Kath &= nbsp; &nbs= p; make list &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; 2 weeks
Draft of service = &nb= sp; Susan
DHHS &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Danie= l &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; next meeting
(Group adjourns to retu=
rn to
main meeting room at 3:00PM.)