| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2004-12-16 || After School Task Force || Next: 2005-01-21 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for After School Task Force January 7, 2005 |
Hoyt Building 3802 Regent Street, Room 21 Madison, Wisconsin |
|
task force meeting was called to order by Co-Chair Sue Abplanalp at 8:37 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Janet Dyer, Laurie Frank, Liz Fritz, Fabiola Hamdan, Sara Jenny, Wendy Rakower, Ed Sadlowski
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Barb Lehman - Recording Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Laurie Frank and seconded by Wendy Rakower to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2004meeting as distributed. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
2. Public Appearances
There were no public appearances.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. After School Program Enrollment Report
Ms. Abplanalp distributed the updated enrollment report (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes) and noted that the far right column included the percentages she gave last time. The report would be used to see if there are comparable populations and as a reference as the charge statements are answered. Some adjustments to the data were noted: CASPER (Collaborative After School Program of Education and Recreation) programs are now combined with the numbers at Lapham and Marquette; Crestwood needs to be included by site and ethnicity; Leopold should not be there for Allied; After School numbers for Leopold and Thoreau are not listed.
5. Proposed After School Program Evaluation Form
(Packets included proposed forms for parent(s)/guardian(s) and the principal(s). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Some further revisions were made to the proposed forms: Principal one needs to be changed from "My child" to "Children," take out capital "S" in "School," "I" under parents should be parents, add "Individual" to "Special Needs," additional questions for principals should include "The program provides me with information."
Fabiola Hamdan arrived at this point.
Take out #10 then make the changes under the Parent form. Include four-point rating scale and "Not Applicable." Research and Evaluation (R&E) will Scantron the results of the scaled questions. If each of the providers wishes to add something more, they can do so using a separate page which they can disaggregate themselves. Principals can get copies of the summaries of the comments if they choose.
One idea might be to set up an advisory committee for after school programming that looks at these. An advisory committee would make things more consistent and help with implementation. Could include in the recommendations when an advisory committee would look at these, along with the principals, and how often. Should also consider when the climate data goes out from R&E. The month of May might be a good "wrap up" time. Timing depends on the use of the data. It was confirmed that all forms would be translated into Hmong and Spanish.
FOLLOW UP: Work with Research and Evaluation to get the forms into an electronic format. Add the creation of an advisory committee to the next agenda. Ms. Rakower volunteered to find out what the committee was called in the past and who was on it.
6. Proposed Parent Concern Form related to After School Programs
(Packets included a proposed parent concern/comment sheet. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Discussion: The Safe Haven forms and Wisconsin Youth Company forms could be incorporated into one. Forms are not used frequently; more verbal interaction and tweaking are used to resolve issues. Providers would not necessarily have to use the same form but there has to be a process for handling formal complaints. The role of principals and their right to documentation would have to be defined when a formal complaint is received. Information should be shared. Evaluations should capture any problems that have not been resolved. Principal documentation could be part of a different process and/or the evaluation process. Principal and provider meetings should result in some documentation; need to spell out how to make those meetings happen. Changes in programs at a school need documentation. If the principal is thinking about changing a program, if there were complaints, the provider should have an opportunity to correct the situation. We are talking about a system-wide, due-process for organizations that have been providing care and suddenly are not. This process could be the jurisdiction of the joint advisory committee. That kind of process is contained in the old guidelines and could be changed to include daily documentation. The process should not come down to one person making a subjective decision. Quarterly principal and provider meetings can be scheduled at the beginning of the school year and require a form. The bigger issue is who makes the decision and how do they go about it. The guidelines should include something that the program providers and principals will keep reasonable documentation and share it at their meetings. A general complaint form already exists for any issue in the district; after school issues could involve personnel, space, program accessibility, etc.
FOLLOW UP: A form will be developed for the next meeting.
7. Proposed Work Plan to Address the Charge of the After School Task Force
Ms. Abplanalp reminded the members that they would be going back to the original charge statements and creating new guidelines from them. She gave some history about how the charge came about.
#1: "Should the District provide after school care for all low-income elementary students in the District? If not, how many and what should be the role of private providers in providing after school care for low-income students?"
Discussion: District guidelines state that the provider will strive to serve a diverse population of children reflecting the student body of the school. Guidelines should hold true for all providers. There are financial considerations involved in answering this statement. There should be equal access but every program is going to be limited by space. Programs should operate on a first come, first served basis regardless of income. High mobility has to be considered for some schools. There is a need for process for handling waiting lists. The district should support many options like access to Fund 80 funds. Many people in the community do not have children in the district; district should not be the only entity providing funds. Agencies should work together. Issues are further complicated when there are two programs in a school. There is a national problem with child care relative to what direction the school districts get to give and what services they can get if they subsidize outside programming with the use of buildings.
Proposed response to charge statement #1: The district and the providers will strive to ensure access to all elementary students who need after school care that is reflective of the school population, including socioeconomic status, special education, English language learners, etc.
Discussion: Have to keep in mind those people who can go somewhere else. Need an educational process for those who would settle for latch-key kids. Space and money have to be provided. Boundary changes have to be considered as well. The advisory committee can address these issues. Current practices have to continue to be supported, e.g., club activities, etc. There was some discussion about sites that are currently subsidized for child care and the information provided in the earlier meetings. When a waiting list exists, there should be options for a provider to provide funding or create a separate program. Best situation is to have one program at each school.
If a waiting list exists, the principal and provider should collaborate to resolve the issue. If it is not resolved at the school due to lack of funding or space, etc., then the issue should be brought to the Advisory Board.
Discussion: Development of a pool of funds similar to that raised by the Foundation. Applications for mini-grants for after school programming scholarships. Solicitation of funds by the Advisory Board.
FOLLOW UP: Provide a list of current after school activities. Find out if there could be a branch of the Foundation devoted to after school programming.
#2: "Should the District partner with the community child care providers to provide after school child care? If so, how?"
Include on the next agenda the formation of an Advisory Board, including representatives, terms, scope, etc.
#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? If so, what is the recommended process?"
Discussion: Should be considered when a decision is being made about how best to serve that school. Should be one of the purposes of the Advisory Board. Cost should not be the only consideration. Consider the factors around cost: paying salaries, subsidization, etc. Proposals to the Advisory Board have to include fiscal responsibility but cannot compromise quality for cost. The district should consider both having its own program and supporting community organizations. The district should have some ability to direct programming if it provides funding. The Advisory Board has to guide the interests of the School Board.
Build on charge statement #3 at the next meeting.
Start time was changed to 9 a.m.
8. Proposed Guidelines for Establishing After School Programs
No discussion.
9. Other Business
There was no other business.
10. Adjournment
It was moved by Wendy Rakower and seconded by Janet Dyer to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2004-12-16 || After School Task Force || Next: 2005-01-21