In the discussion of portfolios, a "Reader" is a person, usually on staff, who assists the student by reading the paper as it evolves and assists in planning.
Be sure to stop by and see the new terraced steps on west side of the Science building that is part of this year's senior project.
Work should begin soon on the extension of the sound wall, essentially doubling the length of it. The problems with getting the aerial photos has been reported to the Better Business Bureau. That impacted the extension of the soundwall until we got a work around.
Current phone fiber-optic lines run where we need to excavate to put in curbs and widen the road for parking. Phone Company is thinking of moving the cables, Ken will see if they can do that soon enough for us to get on with road improvements.
Jan says the farm will be paid for eggs & produce, when the farm submits a bill...
There was an extended discussion of the marketing of produce from the farm.
In Ken's early days, SFS was seen (among eastern Friends schools) as the "Farm/pig school" -- so he worked to change the view of SFS to one of an academically good school, and downplayed the farm, rather than as a farm school. Now we can play up the fact that we have a farm as part of the school -- but we do need to recognize the double edged nature of that association.
Thanks to Belle for the work she did in getting the farm set up, and to Mark, for where he's been taking it.
We discussed the history of the loan and the gift in the Westwood Fund.
We approved the recommendation of the consultation committee to discuss the drawdown with the financial advisors and donor. The issue will be revisited in July.
We approved the following minute: Effective July 1, Sean Egan is authorized to exercise all financial and other signatory responsibilities currently exercised by Ken Hinshaw in his role as Director of Scattergood Friends School, and Mark Quee is authorized to exercise the financial and other signatory responsibilities currently exercised by Belle Hinshaw in her role as Scattergood Farm Manager.
After brunch, we met seniors and heard of their future plans.
Nadya Warthan, a senior, discussed her portfolio of slides of her artwork, that she used in her applications to college art programs. Beth Barrett, a junior, passed around her portfolio, also used in her college interview processes. Cyrus Peltier, a junior, showed his electronic portfolio -- a website.
Ken says heads of schools, in discussing their boards, were unanimous in recommending that the Director be involved in the process of choosing the board, as he/she will need to be able to work together with the board on an ongoing basis.
This is a tough year, economically, for many parents to commit to the tuition required at boarding schools.
Current enrollment for next year is about 44 -- with applications pending and some students still debating.
Historically, small boarding schools have the highest attrition rates, SFS is actually better than most in this regard.
There was a brief discussion of how to choose a Vendor. Dan Schlitt recommends developing a relationship with a single vendor on a continuing basis, as they become familiar with how much we spend. Uniformity among the equipment also eases the support problem, and gives the vendor an incentive to give us a good deal because of the volume. Ken pointed out that the vendors have significantly different ideas about what's a "big" order than we do. Also, different vendors have good deals at different times.
We need to be better at clarifying for ourselves, how we can make better connections with the staff and contribute, rather than just waiting until we're on campus and having the staff tell us.
There was some discussion, again, of keeping the plan as a historical document, making comments to reflect what has happened at particular times. For instance, for 2002-2003 the Academic Coordinator is responsible for section 1. At a later time, some other title may be appropriate, it can be added for that period.
Need to integrate the Technology plan with the LRP.
Ken's thoughts: working with the LRP will always be fairly messy -- it's where we are, where we've been, and where we're going. It's to the place we wanted it to be -- in the trenches, being used by the staff. We're now struggling with reviewing the plan as it gets updated. It seems like it should be a responsibility of various subcommittees to summarize key changes and point them out to the SC, so we can approve the plan as it evolves. There may not be significant changes in some area, and that can be recognized. It's important to recognize that Long Range Planning is a process, not a document. The document is merely a snapshot. It is not necessary that the SC check each goal individually to see that it's accomplished -- rather once each year the SC simply reaffirms the plan is appropriate for going forward during the next year or so.
Burt reviewed the purpose for which we started the LRP -- to perpetuate the school and assure it's financing. The SC worked for several years to approve 7 goals, and then developed the action steps under those goals.
The purpose of the annual SC review is to make it useful to the Director of Development -- so when prospective donors ask about the schools plans, we have a plan that has been approved by the committee as reflecting what the school is doing and where it's going.
Sean talked about the process he's used in the past. Spending a relatively short period (a month) pulling together a plan for the next year. He asked about outside evaluations of our performance. Staff pointed to ISAACs, and the seven-year cycle for reviewing the school. Next year we're beginning a new cycle, with a poll of our constituency, as to their view of the school and their satisfaction/not. That becomes the basis for a self-study, which becomes the input to the visiting review team.
We approved the current LRP as a working document going forward.
Burt suggests the committee devote more attention, going forward, to the external agenda.
The question was asked: What's happening with the Quaker Family Network? The work seems to be ongoing, but not under that name. For instance, the Family Weekend...
Pat Bassett recommended picking out, each year, what goals will be worked on in the following year. That sounds similar to what Sean was discussing.
SC members should come to the July meeting with recommendations as to what parts of the external plan we want to focus on for the coming year.
Evaluation of Committee work is deferred until July, come prepared.
There was a brief discussion of how to proceed with subcommittee self evaluation. It was noted that it has been difficult to do the evaluation in the past, largely because subcommittees haven't set goals for themselves and so they have nothing to judge themselves against. It seemed to make sense, given the way new members join the committee and subcommittees, that current subcommittee members decide on next year's goals by looking at relevant parts of LRP, select 2 or 3 to work on during the coming year, and inform the new members at the September meeting.
A small quilt/wall hanging.. black background tumbling block pattern...