| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2004-11-12 || After School Task Force || Next: 2004-12-16 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for After School Task Force December 3, 2004 |
Hoyt Building 3802 Regent Street, Room 21 Madison, Wisconsin |
|
task force meeting was called to order by Co-Chair Sue Abplanalp at 8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Janet Dyer, Laurie Frank, Liz Fritz, Fabiola Hamdan, Sara Jenny, Wendy Rakower, Ed Sadlowski
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Liz Fritz and seconded by Janet Dyer to correct the minutes from the November 12, 2004 meeting as follows: page 2, #5 second paragraph: "Some After school programs are not representative of the school populations." The remaining two sentences are deleted.
Discussion: We do not yet have the data to make the statement that all programs are not representative of their populations. It was agreed that the statements about Allied children could not be summed up in a brief sentence or two and is not relevant to the topic, so they could be deleted.
The motion to approve the minutes as corrected carried unanimously with Fabiola Hamdan absent.
2. Public Appearances
There were no public appearances.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. Elementary School Space Utilization Report
(Packets included Wisconsin Administrative Code Department of Health and Family Services, Division of Children and Family Services, HFS 146 Licensing Rules For Group Day Care Centers (8/1/97); HFS 46 Group Day Care Centers for Children (6/01); elementary enrollment projections by attendance area (11/22/04); MMSD Third Friday enrollment data; and After School student enrollment by site and by grade (fall 2004). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Ms.
Abplanalp noted that the district has undertaken a detailed analysis of the
space needs for the district over the next six years, and that this may
influence the after school needs. The
district looked at all schools and available seats for students and then
arrived at a formula for the projections.
This table is the result. If it
is not possible to build at Leopold, the district will need to redraw the
boundaries. These projections would then
change.
There were questions about whether this task force could look at space
availability, as space is a limiting factor for after school programs. It was noted that space is a sensitive
issue. Ms. Abplanalp read language from
the district guidelines (Appendix B) as a starting point for future
recommendations: 2b Space: 1. Every effort will be made to utilize
additional available space within the building when enrollment exceeds the
allocated space requirements. No school should have a waiting list; 2.
Available space is that which may include rooms not typically used for child care
programs of the past (Art room, Music room, etc.). If storage space is needed
to make these spaces available, principals should contact the Assistant
Superintendent and develop a plan.
5. Process and Procedures to Create Consistency for All After School Programs
Questions from the last meeting were distributed to the providers and each had files of hard copy that was not easy to compare. It was agreed that each person responsible for their agency would compile their information and send it to Barb Lehman this next week. Ms. Rakower will call providers who are not on the task force to ask for the information.
Discussion: The question was raised about other data already collected about school demographics. The task force has a chart of the number of students in after school programs at each school. In addition there is a chart of all students broken out by gender, race, socioeconomic status, and special needs. It was requested that the task force also receive a break out by race, socioeconomic status, special needs, and ESL only for the students in after school programs at each school. This will help to see how after school programming reflects the student body at each school.
Ms Hamdan arrived at this time.
6. Proposed Work Plan to Address the Charge of the After School Task Force
(Packets included an updated project spreadsheet. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Ms. Abplanalp asked if there were any changes or
additions from the last meeting. The
following changes were made to Item #6 for
information needed. Quality indicators
should read:
Quality Indicators: resources for one-on-one, small group and
large group instruction, special needs, child teacher ratios, time to play,
social/emotional component, academic component, choices aligned with district
standards, home work club and enrichment, curriculum planning,
daily schedules, snack, outside play, parent involvement and communication,
developmentally appropriate, program should reflect a variety of interests,
races, and cultures.
Ms Hamdan noted that the Latino population is
growing, and there is a community-wide issue that these students and families
are frequently isolated from and don't identify with schools. This is probably also true for after school
programming. It was agreed that cultural
sensitivity and outreach to different communities needs to be included in what
we recommend.
Item #9: "What is the complaint process for parents and staff?"
Discussion: Ms. Abplanalp referred to the appendix B
Guidelines for possible wording:
2c: Conflicts
1. If a conflict arises regarding the after school program, the principal and after school coordinator will try to resolve the problem informally. A formal meeting will follow if the conflict cannot be resolved; 2. Formal meetings will be developed in coordination with the Assistant Superintendent and/or the MSCR Executive Director, the childcare program director, and the principal.
Ms. Dyer clarified the role of the MSCR director in this guideline because it involves a space use issue. It was also clarified that these guidelines are not board policy but used internally for administrators. It can be used as a beginning point for recommendations from this task force. Ms. Fritz noted that formal documentation is not included in this guideline and may be helpful to make a process more formal. This would aid in separating serious complaints from the need for parents to make their needs known. It was agreed that it is ideal to try and resolve any complaint at the lowest level first (the programs), and then have a process for making the complaint more formal (the principals). Mr. Sadlowski suggested having a parent complaint form separate from the administrative process noting that the process now can be confusing for parents. It was recommended that each program have a process for parent complaints and agreed to create a universal complaint form. Ms. Dyer will bring in a draft for the next meeting.
Item #10: "Should all after school child care provided in the MMSD be open and accessible to all children regardless of ability to pay?" and Item #11: "Should the District continue to use tax funds to directly provide after school child care?"
Discussion: Numbers 10 and 11 are directly related, with item #10 referring to outside providers, and item #11 referring to MSCR. Ms. Frank questioned how to compare the costs of outside providers to the Safe Haven costs? Given that all of these programs are tied into larger agencies with a diversity of programs and variations in attendance of after school students, it may be difficult to get a direct per pupil cost (this also relates to item #3). Ms. Abplanalp suggested that we could look at the teacher-to-student ratio and the number of students, along with the costs of programming, to get a per student cost. It was acknowledged that no matter what the task force recommends, it is dealing with tax dollars. The question is what is the best and most efficient use of those tax dollars? Quality and accessibility are priorities. It was also noted that item #10, if accepted in full, could mean huge waiting lists and needs to have some conditions placed on it.
Item #12: "Should the District continue to use tax funds to provide scholarships for children from low-income households to attend private after school child care located in MMSD space?"
Discussion: Currently the only program using this collaborative model is at Orchard Ridge Elementary with the YMCA. The District funds 30 scholarships while the YMCA reduced their rates. If this type of model were recommended by the task force, then conditions would need to be placed on the scholarships.
Item #13: "Should the District continue to use tax funds to subsidize private after school child care through reduced space rental costs?"
Discussion: It was suggested that items #10-#13 be considered together as they are all inter-related. It was agreed that items #10 - #13 could be answered "yes" in theory. The question remains HOW to do it. Mr. Sadlowski also suggested that item #3 ("Should private providers be used when they can provide the required after school child care services at less cost than the District can provide the same service through Safe Haven or a similar program?...") also be included with these as a whole with an emphasis on what "accessibility" means. It was agreed that it is best to avoid separate programs in one school with a focus on how to collaborate. We cannot simply look at the lowest cost because too much goes into it (e.g., ratios, needs, etc.) Quality is key, and every school has different needs and requirements. These are not simply "yes" or "no" questions. It was agreed to look at #10 with conditional access for all, define the rules for equal access, and create the conditions for scholarship (for both MMSD and providers). Ms. Abplanalp suggested we answer #3 with a "No" due to the cost vs. quality issue, and then refer to other charge statements to define what this means.
7. Proposed After School Program Evaluation Form
Ms. Abplanalp handed out the draft evaluation questions for Parents/Guardians and Principals created by the ad hoc committee. These questions were based on the City of Madison Elementary School Age Standards. The form for principals is the same as the parent/guardian form, but with added questions. Every program would use this evaluation. They could choose to give their own evaluation as well. Task force members were asked to review the questions and bring edits to the next meeting.
8. Other Business
There was no other business.
9. Adjournment
It was moved by Janet Dyer and seconded by Fabiola Hamdan to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2004-11-12 || After School Task Force || Next: 2004-12-16