Present: S. Heinrich, M. Morrison, T. Koenig, W. Morrison, C. Morrison, School Board liaison P. McGrath arrived
during the meeting.
Excused: J. Heinrich
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by S. Heinrich.
At 8:25 PM the committee met with Assistant Superintendent M. Chiafery and Middle School Science Coordinator S. Watkins to discuss the proposed Science Curriculum and things that should be considered in any new building plan in relation to science for grades 5 - 8. P. McGrath arrived during the discussion.
M. Chiafery presented an overview of the proposed schedule of science units to be taught in grades 5 -8. She noted that the proposed curriculum is reflective of national standards and the NH Curriculum Frameworks for science. She stated that the science curriculum committee is attempting to build a better alignment between the grades 7 - 9. She further noted that the proposed curriculum will mean that students will take Physical Science I in grade 8 and the continuation: Physical Science II in grade 9. Both courses would be a combination of physical and earth science. She indicated a need for teachers in both grades to participate and work together closely to provide for an alignment in the instruction given and ensure that the program meshes.
M. Chiafery noted that the make-up of the instructional space will be important. Science classrooms will multiple water sources, lots of electrical outlets, moveable furniture and adequate space. She stated that 6th grade science classes will need an outside fresh water source. She also stated that the Buker site is a "flora and fauna mecca."
Discussion turned to the difference between a science lab and a combination science lab/ classroom. There were questions about how/if the proposed curriculum would be impacted if grades 5/6 were part of an upper elementary school as opposed to a middle or junior high school, especially in regard to classroom dimensions. It was suggested that an upper elementary school might have some large multi-purpose classrooms might be useful for special science programs that required lots of space. It was further suggested that educators have suggested that all grade 5 and 6 classrooms would benefit from having one water source and multiple electrical outlets. M. Chiafery told the committee that science in Merrimack is 70% activity based and 30% direct instruction. There were additional questions about the technology needs of the science curriculum as well as the content and impact of some current long term projects, ex. White Pines Project.
Discussion turned to how an upper elementary school might be organized as opposed to a grade 5/6 middle school. M. Chiafery noted that two or three teachers might team teach certain subjects (science, math) which is currently done some of the fifth grades. She suggested that special studies that might be offered in grades 5/6 would be computers, art, physical education, music and world language. She also suggested that whatever space is built and/or renovated, it will provide the district with more and better space than it has now and the administration will make it work. S. Heinrich thanked M. Chiafery and S. Watkins for coming to talk with the committee. M. Chiafery and S. Watkins left the meeting.
Members of the committee discussed whether the new school proposed should be a 5/6 upper elementary or a 7/8 middle school. W. Morrison told the committee that a major piece to be discussed with an architect is what renovations are needed for each proposal and what the cost would be. C. Morrison asked about implementing water in most of the MMS classrooms. S. Heinrich stated that the proposal with the fewest renovations to MMS may be less expensive overall because renovations are often more costly than new construction. T. Koenig stated that the committee should build for the older children as they have greater space and technology needs rather than try to renovate MMS to appropriately meet these needs.
By consensus, the committee felt that the needs of the proposed science curriculum did not change the recommendation to build a grade 7/8 school. They agreed to include a section on rationale for building a 7/8 in the final report.
The committee set September 19th as their next meeting date to review and revise the remaining pages of the draft report. On a motion from T. Koenig, seconded by M. Morrison, the committee unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Last Updated: March 17, 2001 by Wayne Morrison