The meeting was brought to order at 2PM. Present at the meeting were the following individuals: (Note: We apologize in advance for any misspellings).

Name: Organization or School

Bindel, Rosalie Rapid City Schools
Chapel, Mitch Lead-Deadwood Schools
Creal, Tim New Underwood Schools
Downing, Holly Black Hills State University
Farrington, Dan Black Hills State University
Gaspar, Sandy Spearfish Schools
Hale, Becky Wall School District
Hensley, Janet Douglas School District
Hillberry, Joe Douglas School District
Immel, Angela LSC Project Evaluation Team
Lavoie, Derrick Black Hills State University
Roggenthen, Bill South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
Senne, Ron LSC Project Evaluation Team, Head
Slough, Steven LSC Project Evaluation Team
Swanson, John Bell Fourche
VanHorn, Kathleen Meade County School District

Not Present:

Hartman, Jo Kadoka schools

1. The meeting convened with brief introductions being made around the room. Following introductions the meeting was divided into two sections to consider the roles and responsibilities of the management team and the types of decisions that the team would be making. After initial discussion the following items identified:

Roles and Responsibilities of the Management Team

o Participate in grant management decisions as school representatives

o Attend PMT meetings

o Maintain program continuity over time

o Work with respective teachers on strategies and issues as part of the S-PDS team

o Assure quality of professional development training by gathering feedback and using it to help form management decisions

o Maintain records of BLAHST related expenditures at the school district level and send an itemized cost share letter to the PI twice a year.

Types of Decisions the Management Teams Can be Expected to Make

o Evaluate the addition of new districts to the LSC Program

o Evaluate any proposed change in scope or focus of the LSC program

o Provide feedback and planning inputs (referencing summer inservices)

o Performance Decisions (Such as changes in personnel)

o Approval of Budget Changes (but at what level is unclear)

2. The second item of discussion was an overview of the results of the New Project Orientation that the Black Hills Representatives and the Evaluation Team attended in Washington DC. Derrick Lavoie reported on this item. This led to the introduction and discussion of the role of the evaluation team and of Horizon Research Inc. During this discussion it was mentioned that evaluations would be conducted in K-8 classrooms, that evaluations are held confidential and are administered for the purposes of assessing the progress and effectiveness of the LSC program.

3. The next item discussed was the status of the grant. Dr Dan Farrington reported on this. Currently, none of the grant applicants has received notification of award. Dr Farrington pointed out that while we do not have the "official" letter we need to move ahead with planning and activities related to the grant.

The next item on the agenda was the proposal to add Rapid City Schools to the LSC Project. Lavoie introduced this topic, pointing out that this was a collaborative decision that would require input and agreement from all current members. Lavoie introduced Rosalie Bindel, Curriculum Director from the Rapid City District. Dr Bindel provided an overview of the Rapid City Schools and mentioned that they are currently revising their science curricula and this would be an excellent project to facilitate that process. She also mentioned that Rapid City would contribute around 500 or so teachers to the project. Lavoie mentioned to the group that the initial estimate of teachers participating in the LSC project had been high compared to actual count and that the addition of Rapid City would more than make up those shortfalls. He also mentioned that the addition of Rapid City schools would require the allocation of additional resources in the form of money, space, materials, and personnel. In the discussion that followed concerns were expressed seeking information on how the addition of Rapid City would affect the project. Discussions on the need for about one million dollars in additional funding were held. Several members expressed support for the addition of Rapid City while others asked for additional information to insure that all factors were adequately considered to insure a high quality project. Dr Lavoie and Dr Farrington related some of the content of discussions held on this subject with NSF personnel, mentioning the discussions concerning funding issues, the need for demonstration of the necessary managerial and staff infrastructure, and for group consensus. The possibility of adding the Meade District was also mentioned during this discussion. Meade is considering coming in as a Cohort B, (Second Year) district and would add about 137 teachers to the project. During this discussion several requests were made for additional information. One particular request was for a better understanding of the "vision" that we are heading toward.

The final portion of the meeting was devoted to an attempt to ascertain the numbers of teachers who would be participating in the summer in-services. Currently two sessions are scheduled as meeting the needs of teachers new to national curriculum kits and another single session is proposed for teachers who have used national curriculum kits for some time. This single session would focus on a particular content area of science that supports the teachers already using kits.

Several districts expressed a need for more information the content of the summer activities to help make these decisions accurately. It was decided that Dr. Charles Lamb would work with Sandi Gaspar, Joe Hillberry, and Bill Roggenthen to develop a content agenda for this summer's inservice activities in terms of scope, sequence, location, grade-level span and duration. Lamb will also work with Lavoie and Roggenthen to determine the content of the academic year seminars to be offered 99-2000.

It was determined that approximately 55-60 teachers would be attending this summer's activities. Lavoie pointed out that we have allocated our budget to cover 100-120 teachers and this does not match the commitment we made in the grant. It was subsequently pointed out that the addition of Rapid City teachers would give us the kind of teacher numbers we had prepared for.

Prior to adjournment at 4 PM, the next meeting of the LSC Project Management Team was scheduled for Thursday, 1 April 99, from 1-5 PM.

Items To be Dealt with by the next Meeting:

1. Articulation of a plan for professional development over the 5 year period.

2. The inclusion of Rapid City Schools in the project

3. Specifics are needed concerning the schedule and content of Professional Development for the coming summer and the following academic year. 

Note: These minutes are intended to summarize and record the proceedings of the meeting and are not intended as a verbatim transcript. Please address any additions to the minutes that you may have to:

Steven Slough
Recorder
642-6109 slsair@hotmail.com