1.
APENDIX
B
Meeting
Minutes
of
SIT
Workshops
April
11
–
May
9,
2013

2. Meeting
Notes
Roosevelt
Education
Facilities
Subcommittee
Thursday,
April
11,
2013
Participants
Angela
Johnson
(former
Roosevelt
STAY
parent)
Jane
Batista,
alumni
(concerned
about
adequate
space
and
facilities
for
the
arts)
Maurice
Edwards,
alumni
(wants
to
see
science
education)
Mary
Fillardo,
Public
school
advocate
Don
Gregory,
Architect
Barbara
Haymer,
Roosevelt
STAY
Student
Kedeska
(don't
have
last
name),
GSA
Staff,
Education
Specifications
Chuck
Simmons,
alumni
Jerome
Patterson,
Current
employee
(LEAP
program,
special
ed
emphasis)
Cynthia
Prather,
alumni
Agenda
included
selecting
roles,
reviewing
the
education
specifications
document,
discussing
topics,
and
deciding
topics
to
be
discussed
during
the
next
meeting.
Role
Selection
Roles
were
agreed
as
follows:
Moderator:
Jerome
Patterson
Scribes:
Cynthia
Prather
and
Mary
Fillardo
as
backup
Liaison:
Chuck
Simmons
Role?:
Maurice
Edwards
Reviewing
the
Education
Specifications
Document
Subcommittee
members
received
the
contents
page
of
the
Education
Specifications.
the
contents
page
included
Introduction,
Proposed
Capacity,
Overview
of
Planning
Concepts,
Summary
of
Space
Requirements,
Academic
Requirements,
Special
Education
Space
Requirements,
Media
Center
Space
Requirements,
Visual
Arts
Space
Requirements,
Performing
Arts
Space
Requirements,
ROTC
Space
Requirements,
Family
Support
Center,
Physical
Education
Requirements,
Administration
Space
Requirements,
Student
Dining
Space
Requirements,
STAY
Space
Requirements,
and
Maintenance
and
Custodial
Space
Requirements.
Since
there
were
not
copies
of
the
entire
document
available,
subcommittee
members
were
asked
to
download
and
review
the
entire
document
before
the
next
meeting.
M.
Fillardo,
who
already
had
a
copy
of
the
document
and
had
reviewed
it
carefully,
expressed
concern
about
the
lack
of
specifics
in
the
overall
plan.
She
distributed
questions
that
she
had
concerning
various
aspects
of
the
plan
(see
Attachment
A).
For
example,
she
was
concerned
about
how
the
special
education
spaces
could
be
designed
without
knowing
what
the
autusim
program
is
and
what
is
done.
She
distributed
an
education
specifications
document
from
School
Without
Walls
as
a
sample
(See
Attachment
b).
There
was
not
time
to
review
either
of
those
documents.

3. C.
Prather
expressed
a
need
to
allocate
a
certain
amount
of
time
for
each
topic
on
the
Table
of
Contents
in
order
to
discuss
all
of
the
topics.
Don
Gregory
suggested
that
the
subcommittee
discuss
the
ones
for
which
there
was
little
discussion
and
then
discuss
the
others.
The
group
decided
to
discuss
special
education
as
the
first
topic.
Special
Education
Ideas
that
were
shared
are
as
follows:
1/3
of
the
school's
current
population
is
special
education
the
school's
goal
is
to
diminish
the
labelling
and
separation
of
special
ed
and
support
OT
and
PT
would
like
to
see
some
open
spaces
with
breakout
areas
generally
would
like
to
remove
the
stigma
of
separation
between
special
ed
and
non
special
ed
students
do
not
want
a
separate
wing
for
special
ed
need
areas
where
teachers
can
collaborate
RISE
children
go
to
art,
music,
and
gym
special
ed
and
non-­‐special
ed
eat
lunch
together
special
ed
students
need
access
to
various
school
amenities
the
school
also
will
need
some
self-­‐contained
classrooms
for
low
functioning
special
ed
students
some
quiet
spaces
will
be
needed
Kedaska
from
GSA
indicated
that
the
specifications
plan
does
address
some
of
the
issues.
P.
9
supports
concepts
of
inclusion
and
integrated
programming.
Starting
on
p.
62,
there
is
information
about
spaces,
flooring,
class
size,
etc.
Individuals
can
get
drafts
of
the
document
on
internet.
Subcommittee
members
should
review
and
be
prepared
to
discuss
next
week
what
they
think
needs
to
be
changed
Discussion
Topic
for
Next
Week
Arts
Education
Prepared
by
Cynthia
Prather,
Scribe

4. Meeting
Notes1
Roosevelt
Education
Facilities
Subcommittee
Thursday,
April
18,
2013
Participants
Jane
Batista
(alumni),
Maurice
Edwards
(alumni),
Mary
Filardo
(Public
school
advocate),
Don
Gregory,
Architect,
Kidest
Albaari,
(educational
facility
planning
consultant
to
DGS)
,
Chuck
Simmons
(alumni),
Jerome
Patterson
(current
employee,
LEAP
program,
special
ed
emphasis),
Cynthia
Prather
(alumni),
Ron
Hampton
(RHS
staff),
others
Agenda
Discussion
topics
included
Special
Education,
Arts,
and
Academics.
Time
for
the
meeting
is
6:00
-­‐
8:00
pm
• Ms.
Eichelberger
passed
out
notes
that
the
Roosevelt
staff
prepared
describing
the
educational
program
and
curriculum
at
Roosevelt,
to
be
included
in
the
educational
specification
document
to
guide
the
architects.
• Mary
Filardo
passed
out
the
table
of
contents
of
an
educational
specification
to
use
as
a
model
for
input
into
the
draft
educational
specifications
for
Roosevelt.
• Cynthia
Prather
provided
copies
of
the
notes
from
the
April
11th
,
2013
SIT
meeting,
educational
specifications
committee.
Special
Education
The
group
continued
the
conversation
started
last
week.
In
response
to
a
concern
that
there
is
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
meeting
the
needs
of
special
ed
students,
Mr.
Patterson
commented
that
even
general
education
students
benefit
from
accommodations
for
disabled
children.
Facilities
for
the
Arts
Visual
Arts
Jane
Batista
presented
her
concerns
for
the
visual
arts
facilities.
The
presentation
and
discussion
surfaced
the
following
ideas:
• art
teachers
should
belong
to
a
professional
organization
• teachers
should
be
involved
in
getting
the
room
up
• room
should
have
large
sink
and
natural
light
(not
a
ground
floor
room)
• committee
should
visit
schools
that
have
been
renovated
(visits
can
be
actual
and/or
virtual
tour,
i.e.,
on
line,
as
suggested
by
Kidest
Albaari).
Committee
said
that
virtual
tours
should
be
in
addition
to
actual
visits.
• seating
tables
with
chairs
(as
opposed
to
stools,
where
they
have
no
back
support)
• video
equipment
• 3D/2D
1
Note that Cynthia Prather arrived at 6:30 pm.

5. • doesn't
have
to
have
access
to
the
outside,
since
the
class
could
go
outside
even
from
an
upper
level
floor,
when
needed
• space
for
ceramics
• kiln,
water,
plumbing,
ventilation,
tile
flooring,
stainless
steel?
• storage
-­‐
store
room
• place
to
dry
and
display
art
Other
issues/comments
included:
Is
one
art
room
for
800
students
enough?
Kidest
responded
that
this
is
the
recommended
amount
for
a
student
body
of
this
size
where
each
student
is
only
required
to
take
one
9-­‐week
art
course.
The
group
had
a
long
discussion
about
art
space
for
disabled
children.
Emotionally
disturbed,
autistic
children
can
benefit
from
art
therapy.
Art
is
a
great
way
to
involve
special
ed
students,
and
some
are
great
artists.
The
school
might
need
a
second
room
for
severely
handicapped
children
-­‐-­‐
a
room
with
plenty
of
space
where
children
can
get
messy.
GSA
commented
that
there
are
already
other
special
education
resource
rooms
in
the
plan
where
sinks
could
be
added.
These
could
be
multi-­‐functional
spaces.
One
commented
on
rooms
in
other
schools
(e.g.,
CSAC
and
Capitol
CARE),
where
they
have
motion-­‐sensitive
walls,
interactive
boards,
and
other
sensory
stimulants.
Maybe
the
OT/PT
classroom
could
be
enlarged.
GSA
will
consider
these
ideas.
Performing
Arts
The
draft
specifications
for
the
performing
arts
space
requirements
include
the
auditorium,
1
instructional
room,
1
choir
room,
1
storage
space
for
instruments,
and
4
individual,
sound-­‐proof
practice
rooms.
Mr.
Dickerson,
Roosevelt's
current
music
teacher,
presented
his
vision
for
the
music
space,
which
is
based
on
the
current
program
and
his
plans
for
the
future.
His
program
now
includes
general
music,
beginning
band,
advance
band/jazz
band,
and
various
after-­‐school
activities:
auxiliary
band,
drum
line,
flag
girls,
majorettes,
and
dancers.
I
also
heard
concert
band/orchestra,
big
band,
interim
band,
jazz
band?
He
estimated
that
there
were
50/60
in
the
marching
band
before
homecoming.
He
noted
that
DCPS
now
has
no
funding
for
elementary
or
middle
school
music,
so
many
of
his
students
are
starting
at
the
beginning.
Dickerson
stated
that
he
was
told
to
ask
for
the
world
so
he
did.
His
wish
list
included
the
following:
• the
auditorium,
• band/orchestra
practice
room
(now
sized
for
60,
but
he
wants
it
to
hold
100-­‐150
people
(about
60
musicians,
40
percussion,
and
auxiliary
groups).
(Dickerson
actually
wants
to
the
program
to
grow
to
200
members)
The
music
program
will
follow
the
4-­‐year
model,
with
9-­‐
12th
grade.
Dickerson
also
mentioned
that
Davey
Yarlboro
at
Duke
Ellington
suggested
that
students
who
don't
get
into
Ellington
might
consider
Roosevelt
as
a
fallback.
Eastern
High
School
has
that
kind
of
room
• percussion
ensemble
room,where
drums,
e.g.,
timpani,
snare
drums,
bass
drums,
etc,
could
be
stored
and
where
they
can
practice
• 4-­‐6
modules,
with
space
for
3
students,
or
marinda,
an
upright
piano,
and
a
set
of
drums
(60-­‐
80
ft
each)
• practice
studio,
with
dance
studio
next
to
it.
• stage
production,
lighting,
sound,
noise
control
• digital
studio,
where
students
can
learn
recording
and
production
• adaptive
technology
• small
theaters
where
children
can
perform

6.
Planners
noted
that
the
current
plan
is
for
the
dance
studio
to
be
in
the
PE
wing.
Architect
Don
Gregory
asked
about
how
many
students
are
scheduled
for
the
advanced
band?
Dickerson
estimated
100-­‐150
for
this
current
year
and
hopes
to
grow
the
program
to
200
members.
He
needs
guidance,
human
capital,
facilities,
and
counseling
to
keep
all
of
these
components
running.
Gregory
wants
facilities
to
be
there
for
the
program
to
grow.
They
do
already
have
some
of
this
in
the
specifications.
Academics
Science
Alumni
Maurice
Edwards
would
like
to
see
modern
equipment,
interactive
boards
for
biology
and
space
for
biology,
chemistry,
physics,
and
biotechnology.
Kidest
noted
that
current
specification
call
for
3
wet
labs,
physics,
and
lab
Davia
Walker,
the
Academic
Pathways
Coordinator,
reported
that
the
science
team
is
the
newest
team
at
Roosevelt.
They
are
starting
at
"ground
0"
and
designing
based
on
the
Chancellor's
goals
to
improve
student
achievement,
increase
the
graduation
rate,
help
struggling
students,
increase
parental
satisfaction,
and
increase
enrollment.
The
approach
is
project-­‐based
learning,
with
different
guideways
in
science,
beginning
at
9th
grade.
The
overall
mission
is
project-­‐based
learning,
with
about
15
minutes
of
lecture
and
lots
of
hands
on
activities.
She
agreed
to
send
a
powerpoint
of
her
presentation.
Each
teacher
needs
dual
certification
so
teachers
can
teach
biology
and
chemistry
for
example.
The
team's
proposed
schedule
for
developing
the
program
is
as
follows:
Years
1-­‐2
build
up
the
science
program,
including
get
students
access
to
higher
level
science
classes
at
Howard
University
Year
3
include
honors
courses
offered
for
each
science
Year
5
include
AP
course
for
each
science
course
Roosevelt
will
start
the
improvements
next
year.
Thus,
they
will
need
sufficient
lab
space
at
McFarland
while
Roosevelt
renovation
is
underway.
They
can
cover
the
content
without
the
labs,
however,
if
necessary.
Most
students
access
textbooks
electronically
now.
School
plans
to
use
digital
textbooks.
Science
and
English
are
the
two
most
expensive
sets
of
texts.
The
school
wants
all
parents
to
use
the
online
communication
hub,
Now
only
55%
of
parents
are
connected
to
the
school
online.
Want
to
make
sure
its'
feasible
to
have
Roosevelt
is
a
Title
1
school,
so
some
funds
will
be
available.
They
hope
that
funds
can
go
to
electronic
and
computers.
Each
teacher
in
the
science
department
will
be
required
to
write
grants,
which
should
help
to
bring
funds
to
expand.
Last
piece:
partnerships
with
Howard
University
(for
AP
course
on
Howard's
campus
in
Biology,
wants
it
to
ramp
up
in
3
years)
and
GW
(social
Studies
component)
Right
now
they
teach
French
and
Spanish,
Levels
1
and
2
Plan
is
to
partner
with
Howard
U
for
Levels
3
and
4
of
each
language.
Miscellaneous
Comments
• Would
like
display
spaces
• Classes
may
need
to
be
larger

7.
Areas
for
Potential
Problems
with
Current
PE
Design
Athletics:
11,000
sq
ft
as
is.
Not
now
competition
size
Community
access
to
facilities
Weight
room
Day
care
center
Roosevelt
may
have
three
special
ed
autism
classes
next
year.
They
would
like
all
ot
roomsants
all
near
kitchen.
If
that
many,
the
school
will
need
a
rich
program.
Next
Steps
Open
meeting
next
week,
to
be
held
in
the
main
library,
6-­‐8
pm
Will
open
the
floor
for
questions.
1
hour
for
the
groups.
Discussion
should
include
implications
of
academic
requirements,
science
facilities,
and
media
rooms
for
facilities
and
also
the
PE
space.
The
plan
is
to
meet
weekly
until
this
is
done.Tthe
committee
wants
a
cohesive
draft
of
everything
by
May
10
(not
a
drop
dead
date,
but
a
deadline)
Week
of
May
13-­‐17
-­‐-­‐
want
to
organize
tours
-­‐-­‐
to
Wilson,
maybe
Eastern
Need
to
discuss
School
Safety
and
Security
Meeting
planners
noted
that
both
of
the
subcommittees
seem
to
be
discussing
similar
things.
We
might
consider
meeting
together.
Prepared
by
Cynthia
Prather,
Scribe

8. FUNDING
AND
PLANNING
FOR
ROOSEVELT
Ms.
Eichelberger
welcomed
the
group
and
asked
Ms.
Reilly
to
report
on
the
DC
Council
hearings
earlier
in
the
day.
Ms.
Reilly
testified
for
Roosevelt
among
other
high
schools,
explaining
that
the
school’s
modernization
is
in
step
with
the
Master
Facilities
Plan,
guidelines
and
principles
recently
released
by
the
office
of
the
Deputy
Mayor
for
Education.
Roosevelt
is
in
Cluster
18,
which
has
been
identified
as
one
of
those
most
in
need
of
more
and
better
school
facilities.
The
MFP
further
prioritizes
facilities
at
the
middle
school
level
which
would
be
in
keeping
with
re-­‐opening
and
modernizing
MacFarland.
She
urged
people
to
contact
council
members,
especially
Ms.
Bowser,
Mr.
Catania,
and
Mr.
Barry
as
well
as
Chancellor
Henderson.
At
the
hearing,
council
member
Barry
referred
to
the
International
High
School,
a
proposed
consortium
of
four
dual-­‐language
charters
as
being
in
discussion
for
location
at
Roosevelt.
Evidently
these
charter
supporters
have
approached
the
Chancellor
as
well.
They
are
elementary
schools
searching
for
a
middle
school
and
high
school
continuity
for
their
programs
and
they
would
like
to
move
forward
very
soon
as
they
are
limited
at
5th
grade
currently.
Ms.
Bowser
is
understood
to
be
in
favor
of
restoring
Roosevelt’s
original
funding;
Coolidge
High
School
has
had
funding
restored;
Garrison
Elementary
and
the
Montessori
Elementary
at
Logan
have
been
moved
up
on
the
facilities
schedule
with
funding
increased.
Mr.
Hampton
will
make
sure
the
Roosevelt
PTA
is
aware
of
the
situation.
Roosevelt
could
use
support
from
the
feeder
schools:
Barnard
Elementary
and
Truesdell
and
West
PS-­‐8th
grade
schools.
A
draft
of
the
revised
justification
and
demographic
section
for
the
educational
specification
was
handed
out.
This
had
been
prepared
by
the
21st
Century
School
Fund.
It
outlined
how
Roosevelt’s
feeder
schools
were
not
nearly
sufficient
to
build
enrollment
without
a
healthy
middle
school
at
MacFarland
as
the
Truesdell
and
West
PS-­‐8
schools
only
had
about
50-­‐60
students
in
8th
grade
between
them.
With
MacFarland
closing,
Ward
4
now
has
no
DCPS
middle
schools
but
it
has
a
rapidly
growing
school
population
at
the
early
childhood
levels.
Consequently
the
document
proposed
the
re-­‐opening
of
MacFarland
as
well
as
expansion
of
Roosevelt’s
program
capacity.
Discussion
continued
with
some
expressing
concern
that
Roosevelt’s
modernization
not
be
confused
with
any
move
to
re-­‐open
MacFarland
-­‐
-­‐
they
thought
that
focusing
on
strengthening
Roosevelt’s
program
would
be
the
best
strategy.
They
thought
discussion
of
re-­‐opening
of
MacFarland
would
best
wait
until
DCPS
goes
into
discussion
of
feeder
patterns.
Others
were
not
opposed
to
having
another
school
take
the
place
of
the
co-­‐location
with
Hospitality
but
not
if
the
idea
were
to
supplant
Roosevelt
itself
rather
than
merely
sharing
space.
People
who
are
interested
in
coordinating
discussions
with
the
council
should
contact
Ms.
Reilly.
The
educational
specification
group
and
the
facilities
group
then
divided
to
discuss
department
areas
in
depth
with
the
former
taking
CTE
programs,
foreign
language
programs,
and
ELL
and
the
latter
Jr.
ROTC,
Security
and
safety,
and
core
classrooms.
REPORT
OUT
FROM
THE
FACILITIES
DISCUSSION
GROUP
Mr.
Edwards
reported
that
Jr.
ROTC
wanted
to
keep
the
drill
area
in
the
armory
so
there
is
a
large
open
space
available
-­‐
-­‐
ROTC
functions
need
to
be
in
the
same
area
rather
than
scattered
through
the
building.
The
weight
room
should
move
from
the
armory
back
to
the
gym
area
as
should
fitness.

9. Elevators
-­‐
There
is
need
for
at
least
one
large
freight-­‐type
elevator
in
addition
to
a
second
elevator
to
get
people
up
to
the
fourth
floor;
elevator
access
to
the
pool
is
another
necessity.
Nurse
and
Health
Suite
–
This
area
needs
further
clarification.
The
nurse
was
concerned
that
a
reception
area
be
available
and
visible
from
the
health
office.
Security
-­‐
Front
door
access
is
required;
metal
detectors
built
into
the
door
frames
seems
appropriate
and
preferable
than
a
scanning
x-­‐ray
machine.
Security
officers
in
the
lobby
could
want
and
monitor
any
people
who
might
set
off
an
alarm.
The
intrusion
of
security
should
be
minimized.
Cameras
should
be
utilized
well
and
possibly
a
turn-­‐style
as
well.
Attention
needs
to
be
paid
to
eliminating
“dead”
spaces.
Two
separate
entrances
are
needed:
one
for
students
and
one
for
visitors
to
avoid
log-­‐jams
at
the
main
door.
Core
Academic
Classrooms
–
In
addition
to
a
full
complement
of
required
academic
courses
students
should
have
art,
music,
athletics
and
other
electives
available.
There
seem
to
be
only
four
classrooms
available
for
ELL
but
what
is
the
projection
of
students
who
will
need
ELL?
Cubicles
for
individual
study
(learning
pods)
might
be
considered;
reading
labs
for
9th
graders
may
be
good
to
have.
Vocational
programs
such
as
drafting,
electronics,
computer
IT
training.
Career
and
College
Pathway
-­‐
Either
Ms.
Eichelberger
or
Mr.
Flynn
will
make
a
presentation
on
this
very
robust
and
important
program
at
the
next
meeting.
REPORT
OUT
FROM
THE
EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM
GROUP
CTE
–
The
group
recommended
that
Roosevelt
retain
and
strengthen
the
Culinary
Arts
program
as
well
as
Business
and
Finance.
They
asked
that
the
current
space
allowed
for
Culinary,
with
the
Chef’s
workroom/library
and
serving
area
be
compared
to
what
is
proposed
to
ensure
that
there
is
enough
space
available;
bringing
in
daylight
would
be
a
huge
plus
here.
Business
and
Finance
(and
entrepreneurship)
might
be
supported
with
some
project
space
designed
with
workspace,
storage,
possibly
a
sink
and
workstations
for
students.
Since
STAY
is
expected
to
continue
with
barbering
and
cosmetology
in
the
evenings,
the
idea
was
to
allow
Roosevelt
students
to
use
the
labs
during
the
day,
making
it
possible
for
them
to
finish
certification
with
only
one
or
two
more
classes
after
graduation
from
Roosevelt.
Roosevelt
might
consider
eliminating
Hospitality
as
not
sustainable.
Hospitality
had
been
dropped
because
there
was
not
enough
interest
in
it
and
the
feeling
was
that
the
hotel
industry
preferred
to
specifically
train
employees
on
their
own
systems
and
procedures.
However,
DCPS
central
office
has
indicated
the
possibility
of
a
substantial
hospitality
partnership
with
Marriot
that
would
be
expected
to
involve
internships
for
students.
Roosevelt
would
not
want
to
give
up
electives,
but
determining
what
size
student
body
the
program
is
being
built
for
is
important
in
trading
off
CTE
for
the
possibility
of
more
varied
electives.
Cafeteria
and
Kitchen–
The
group
asked
that
special
attention
be
paid
to
acoustics
here
as
modernizations
at
Woodson
and
Wilson
have
resulted
in
cafeterias
that
are
too
noisy
to
be
used
as
additional
meeting
space.
Re-­‐opening
the
cafeteria
to
natural
light
and
the
courtyard
was
considered
a
given.

10. Kitchen
space
in
the
ed
spec
calls
for
400
square
feet
whereas
the
current
space
is
very
much
larger
and
prepares
meals
for
the
surrounding
elementary
and
PS-­‐8
schools.
This
is
definitely
a
production
kitchen,
cooking
a
large
number
of
meals
from
scratch.
Whether
that
is
planned
to
continue
in
the
future
is
something
that
has
to
be
verified
as
well
as
how
that
function
will
be
carried
on
during
Roosevelt’s
construction.
Foreign
Language
-­‐
It
was
not
clear
whether
the
four
classrooms
designated
for
foreign
were
also
those
provided
for
the
ELL
classes.
If
students
were
to
be
able
to
take
four
years
of
world
language,
or
more
languages
beyond
Spanish
and
French,
as
a
more
ambitious
program
would
expect,
then
more
classrooms
would
be
required.
Core
Classrooms
–
Classrooms
may
be
considered
at
several
different
sizes
including
the
possibility
of
having
some
like
the
new
classrooms
at
Woodson
which
have
a
retractable
wall
making
it
possible
to
sometimes
use
the
space
as
one
very
large
classroom.
Special
Education
–
Both
a
quiet
room
and
a
sensory
room
would
be
required.
NEXT
STEPS
The
SIT
is
expected
to
meet
again
next
Thursday,
May
9
at
6:00
to
finalize
recommendations
for
the
education
specification.
In
addition
to
information
on
the
College
and
Career
Pathway,
it
would
be
good
to
cover
the
auditorium,
the
day
care
center
and
the
family
support
center.
Ms.
Eichelberger
will
request
a
copy
of
the
SIT
participant
list
from
Mr.
Pressley
as
the
group
needs
to
move
quickly
and
share
draft
documents
before
the
next
formal
meeting.
People
did
not
object
to
the
idea
of
sharing
their
e-­‐mail
addresses
with
the
other
participants.
The
draft
of
the
proposed
justification
and
demographics
should
be
shared
electronically;
Ms.
Reilly
is
preparing
a
short
list
of
recommendations
which
the
group
may
want
to
be
able
to
consider
before
the
next
meeting
as
well.
The
SIT
is
still
planning
a
site
visit
to
Wilson
sometime
the
week
of
May
13th
but
arrangements
have
not
been
finalized.
Participants
Kidest
Albaari
Ed
Spec
Contractor
for
DGS
Renard
Alexander
DCPS
-­‐
Office
of
Chief
Operating
Officer
Kamili
Anderson
State
Board
of
Ed,
Ward
4
David
Bennett
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Jane
Bettistea
Alum

11. Ray
Michael
Bridgewater
Assembly
of
Petworth
Kelly
Coble
DCPS
Kenneth,
Dr.
Dickerson
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Maurice
Edwards
Alum
Tracy
Eichelberger
Roosevelt
Chief
of
Transformation
Robin
Gerber
Temple
Sinai
-­‐
WIN,
Wash.
Interfaith
Network
Christoffer
Graae
Cox
Graae
and
Spack,
Architects
Don
Gregory
Cox,
Graae
and
Spack,
Architects
Ron
Hampton
Roosevelt
FCR
center
Nancy
Huvendick
21CSF
Mike
Ivey
Neighbor,
Ward
4
Council
on
Education
Jalila
Miller
Roosevelt
Student
Cheryl
Miller2
DCPS,
Roosevelt
Parent
Jerome
Patterson
Roosevelt
Special
Ed
Dept.
Chair
Cynthia
Prather
Alum
Cathy
Reilly
SHAPPE
Chuck
Simmons
Alum
Millison
Toye
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Kyle
Whitley
DGS
-­‐
DCPEP

12. Ms.
Eichelberger
welcomed
the
group
and
thanked
them
for
their
participation.
There
were
questions
on
how
the
SIT
discussions
would
come
together
to
make
changes
to
the
Ed
Spec.
Ms.
Eichelberger
indicated
that
they
would
send
out
the
notes
compiled
by
the
faculty
on
the
educational
specification
as
well
as
the
materials
distributed
last
week
on
the
justification
and
demographic
information
and
the
section
provided
covering
the
STAY
program.
This
information
would
go
through
Kyle
Whitley,
project
manager
for
DGS,
to
Deanne
Newman
the
DGS
contractor
responsible
for
the
Education
Specification.
Her
point
of
contact
at
DCPS
would
be
Anthony
de
Guzman,
Chief
Operating
Officer.
Ms.
Newman
expected
to
revise
the
document
and
return
it
to
the
SIT
Team
in
two
weeks
to
be
available
in
advance
of
the
SIT
meeting
on
Thursday,
May
23rd
.
(Note
that
this
meeting
date
has
been
changed
to
the
23rd
from
the
regular
last
Thursday
of
the
month.)
Mr.
Alexander
noted
that
he
had
shared
the
justification
and
demographic
statement
with
higher
administration
at
DCPS
with
its
proposed
increase
for
the
capacity
of
the
building.
They
removed
the
stipulation
that
certain
parts
of
the
building
would
be
demolished
and
other
parts
not
modernized.
This
will
give
the
architects
an
opportunity
to
design
to
the
revised
educational
specification.
Thus
the
expectation
expressed
by
the
group
that
the
square
footage
providing
for
Roosevelt’s
complex
and
ambitious
program
will
remain
flexible
until
the
architects
have
a
chance
to
work
with
the
more
complete,
revised
Ed
Spec
anticipated
later
in
May.
Mr.
Graae
of
Cox
Graae
and
Spack
indicated
that
the
architects
will
follow
through
with
their
due
diligence
on
Ed.
Spec.
changes;
they
have
not
been
directed
to
remove
any
portion
of
the
building.
The
1970’s
infill
and
the
windowless
addition
is
a
substantial
portion
of
the
building’s
square
footage
now.
The
concern
was
that
the
architects
not
be
hampered
in
their
determination
of
what
would
function
best
for
Roosevelt’s
current
complicated
program
requirements
and
allow
for
future
growth.
Ms.
Eichelberger
reminded
people
to
return
feed-­‐back
quickly
to
herself
or
to
the
21st
Century
School
Fund.
The
group
split
in
two
for
discussion
with
the
educational
program
group
to
cover
Day
Care
and
Family
Support
Space,
and
the
Media
Center,
and
with
the
facilities
group
to
cover
Career
and
College
Preparation,
and
the
Auditorium.
The
entire
group
toured
the
auditorium
before
coming
back
together
to
share
their
separate
discussions.
Discussion Group Reports
Ms.
Prather
reported
first
on
discussion
of
the
Auditorium.
Community
access
was
very
important
as
it
is
now
used
for
meetings,
Black
History
Month
presentations
and
festivals
as
well
as
graduation
for
Roosevelt
and
the
nearby
middle
schools
and
elementary
schools.
They
were
concerned
that
the
phrase
“As
Is”
on
page
96
of
the
Ed
Spec
would
be
too
limiting.
They
would
like
it
to
be
available
to
theater
groups
for
performances
with
a
full
complement
of
up-­‐to-­‐date
sound
and
lighting
properties.
Retaining
as
much
as
possible
of
the
historic
fabric
of
the
space
was
important
including
the
lobby
and
ticket
booth.
It
was
not
clear
whether
an
orchestra
pit
space
is
available,
but
that
might
be
an
important
feature.
It
would
also
be
good
to
investigate
the
projection
booth
to
determine
if
it
could
be
used,
updating
in
some
way
its
original
purpose
or
put
to
a
different
purpose.
Acoustics
are
very
important.
The
original
wooden
seats
were
renovated
a
few
years
ago.
They
discussed
the
possibility
of
finding
another
space
in
the
building
for
a
college
lecture
hall
space
possibly
to
accommodate
distance
learning.
Similarly
they
discussed
finding
a
way
to
incorporate
a
black
box
type
theater
in
addition
to
the
auditorium
to
accommodate
smaller,
more
informal
performances.

13.
Roosevelt
faculty
and
staff
still
have
a
vision
for
teaching
drama
and
dance
even
though
they
are
offered
currently
through
afterschool
programs
(by
the
LAYC
-­‐
Latin
American
Youth
Center).
Facilities
to
accommodate
dance
and
drama
might
better
be
located
near
each
other
rather
than
have
dance
as
part
of
athletics.
Ms.
Reilly
reported
the
discussion
about
the
Day
Care
and
Family
Support
space.
Eastern
High
School
might
provide
a
model.
A
parent
center
for
the
larger
school
requires
a
location
near
the
main
administration
so
parents
can
find
it
easily;
it
should
not
be
paired
with
the
Day
Care
as
that
necessarily
needs
to
have
its
own
separate
entrance
with
immediate
access
to
outdoor
play
space
which
isn’t
likely
possible
near
the
main
administration.
New
Heights
offers
services
to
students
who
are
pregnant
or
who
have
small
children
and
it
currently
requires
considerable
storage.
New
Heights
is
separate
from
the
Day
Care
Center
which
needs
sinks
and
a
kitchenette
in
addition
to
adult
and
child-­‐sized
toilets
and
enough
space
for
infants
and
toddlers
(up
to
three
years
old)
as
well
as
the
number
of
adults
required
for
infant
care.
Outdoor
play
space
should
be
ample
with
shade
and
water
available
-­‐
-­‐
it
needs
to
be
a
pleasant
place
but
secure
and
lockable.
Storage
for
the
day
care
is
very
important
with
requirements
for
storing
large
outside
play
equipment
and
space
to
house
the
strollers
that
children
may
arrive
in.
It
is
important
that
the
day
care
facility
be
built
so
that
it
can
be
licensed.
The
expectation
is
that
day
care
will
be
managed
by
an
outside
contractor.
The
group
briefly
discussed
the
need
to
determine
the
policy
around
who
has
access
to
day
care
services:
clearly
students
have
first
priority
but
the
question
was
whether
it
should
be
limited
to
students
or
whether
faculty
or
others
could
use
it
as
well.
STAY
students
would
also
want
to
use
the
facility,
possibly
later
in
the
day
and
possibly
for
older
school-­‐age
students.
The
Media
Center
discussion
focused
on
the
requirements
of
a
video
production
area;
was
the
800
square
foot
classroom
type
production
space
sufficient
also
for
editing
and
production
of
a
student
newspaper
as
well
as
video
production
on
site,
beyond
editing
extraneous
video
footage.
This
area
and
the
media
center
proper
require
secure
lockable
storage
especially
as
equipment
is
getting
smaller
and
more
easily
subject
to
theft.
The
media
center
needs
natural
light
and
good
acoustics
so
it
can
be
used
as
an
alternative
meeting
space
-­‐
-­‐
in
this
way
it
should
be
easily
accessible
to
the
public
after
hours.
Ms.
Newman
indicated
that
the
DCPS
central
office
library
specialist
would
provide
a
media
center
narrative
of
the
program
for
the
Ed
Spec.
People
asked
that
there
be
ample
space
for
people
and
books
in
the
media
center
as
several
new
school
libraries
had
proved
to
be
too
cramped.
Signage
so
that
it
can
be
used
for
a
community
meeting
space
was
also
noted.
The
group
recommended
that
the
Ed
Spec
incorporate
notes
from
the
ELL
faculty
about
their
program
which
is
substantial
but
did
not
seem
to
have
been
provided
for
specifically
in
the
current
Ed
Spec.
There
are
100
ELL
students,
five
dedicated
teachers
and
four
ELL
content
area
classrooms
in
this
program.
The
group
would
like
to
see
a
fuller
description
of
ELL.
Ms.
Bruno,
one
of
Roosevelt’s
ELL
teachers
asked
that
the
bilingual
counselor
be
located
in
the
area
near
ELL.
Ms.
Reilly
referred
to
a
short
summation
of
the
main
recommendations
from
the
SIT
team;
these
will
be
sent
to
everyone
electronically.
The
largest
issue
is
the
proposed
capacity
and
square
footage
of
the
modernized
school,
which
is
now
understood
to
be
open
to
increase
as
required
to
properly
encompass
the
enriched
program
and
increasing
enrollment
envisioned.
.
The
planning
concepts
also
included
the

14. recommendation
to
re-­‐open
MacFarland
Middle
School
to
provide
a
direct
feeder
into
Roosevelt
that
can
sustain
the
larger
high
school.
Recapping,
some
of
the
additional
points
the
recommendations
included
were:
• Include
both
a
sensory
room
and
a
quiet
room
for
special
education
and
add
a
third
autism
classroom
• Expand
foreign
language
offerings
at
Roosevelt
• Fitness
center
should
accommodate
some
of
the
physical
therapy
space
for
special
education
• Career
and
Technical
Education
needs
to
be
clarified;
the
recommendation
is
that
Roosevelt
offer
Business
and
Finance
and
Culinary
Arts.
The
sense
was
that
people
wanted
vocations
represented
that
would
provide
students
with
high
level
skills
for
entre
into
21st
century
careers.
• There
is
a
strong
sentiment
that
there
should
be
two
art
rooms
and
two
art
teachers
with
storage
areas
for
the
STAY
program.
• Physical
education
requires
both
a
fitness
center
AND
a
separate
weight
room
that
is
equipped
specifically
to
provide
weight
training
for
student
athletes.
The
gymnasium
needs
more
spectator
space
and
two
full-­‐size
practice
courts
as
well
as
the
exhibition
space.
It
is
understood
that
it
will
be
difficult
to
expand
the
gym
but
practice
space
might
be
managed
separately.
Ms.
Eichelberger
asked
people
to
e-­‐mail
additions
to
the
recommendations
to
Ms.
Reilly.
Roosevelt’s
kitchen
currently
serves
as
the
production
kitchen
for
a
number
of
the
surrounding
elementary
and
PS-­‐8th
grade
schools.
Whether
it
will
continue
to
do
so
and
if
so,
how
many
meals
are
to
be
produced
daily
is
something
that
has
to
be
verified.
Plans
are
currently
predicated
on
the
idea
that
it
will
continue
to
be
a
production
kitchen.
Ms.
Newman
indicated
that
the
architects
would
employ
a
technical
consultant
who
will
work
with
DCPS
central
food
service.
Mr.
Alexander
will
bring
these
questions
to
the
central
office
and
try
to
have
someone
from
food
service
address
the
next
SIT
meeting.
Arrangements
had
not
yet
been
finalized
for
a
tour
of
Wilson
High
School,
a
recently
modernized
building
that
is
very
similar
to
Roosevelt;
that
re-­‐design
was
done
by
the
same
team
that
is
working
on
Roosevelt.
The
tour
will
require
about
90
minutes.
The
group’s
first
choice
for
a
tour
is
next
Thursday
at
6:00
pm
with
a
secondary
preference
being
next
Tuesday.
Ms.
Eichelberger
will
contact
people
when
the
time
and
day
have
been
secured
-­‐
-­‐
the
group
is
to
meet
at
Wilson’s
front
entrance.
Mr.
Patterson
thanked
the
SIT
committee
for
their
support
for
Roosevelt.
Participants:
Kidest
Albaari,
Ed
Spec
Contractor
for
DGS
Renard
Alexander,
DCPS
-­‐
Office
of
Chief
Operating
Officer
Jane
Bettistea,
Neighbor,
Alumni
Yolande
Bruno,
Roosevelt
Faculty,
ELL
Angie
Christophe,
Neighbor,
Ward
4
Council
on
Education

15. Dori
B.
Cook,
Consultant
-­‐
Bibb
Cook
Group
Terry
DeCarbo,
DCPS
Instructional
Superintendent,
Cluster
11
(Sp.
Ed)
Tracy
Eichelberger,
Roosevelt
Chief
of
Transformation
Mary
Filardo,
21st
Century
School
Fund
Robin
Gerber,
Washington
Interfaith
Network
Chris
Graae,
Cox
Graae
and
Spack,
Architects
Donald
Gregory,
Cox
Graae
and
Spack,
Architects
Ron
Hampton,
Roosevelt
Family
Community
Resource
Center
Nancy
Huvendick,
21st
Century
School
Fund
Mike
Ivey,
Neighbor,
Ward
4
Council
on
Education
Larry
Juhans,
Roosevelt
PTSA
President
Haregewoin
Kefyalew,
St.
Miriam's
Church,
14th
and
Buchanan
Cheryl
Miller,
DCPS,
Roosevelt
Parent
Deanna
Newman,
DGS
Contractor
Bernadine
Okoro,
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Jerome
Patterson,
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Cynthia
Prather,
Alumni
Cathy
Reilly,
SHAPPE
Jeff
Standish,
ANC
4C03
Commissioner
Millison
Toye,
Roosevelt
Faculty/Staff
Kyle
Whitley,
DCPEP,
Project
Manager,
DGS