Community Partnerships - September 11, 2006

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Community Partnerships September 11, 2006		Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Room 103 Madison, Wisconsin

Partnerships Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Lucy Mathiak at 5 p.m.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lucy Mathiak, Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang (arrived 5:11 p.m.)

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None

CITIZEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Schrank, Carl Silverman

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen

STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Lisa Black, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Art Rainwater, Ken Syke, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary

1. Public Appearances

There were no public appearances.

2. Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carl Silverman to approve the minutes of the Community Partnerships Committee dated August 21, 2006. Motion unanimously carried.

3. Announcements

There were no announcements.

4. Parents as Partners

a. Information gathered through the School Improvement Plan (SIP) process

b. Communities to target for feedback on school/parent relations

c. Schedule for sessions regarding feedback relative to school/parent relations

d. Ways to engage administration and school staff in sessions regarding feedback relative

to school/parent relations

(Packets included a sample of a Title I School, Family and Community Partnership Plan, a list of schools participating in the first year of the school improvement planning process (SIP), a DVD copy of Franklin's African American parent group, a list of the Title I schools for 2006-07, and answers from Barbara Schrank to those questions posed at the last meeting. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Ms. Black reviewed the materials included in the packet. The first year of SIP includes central office support. About 90 percent of the schools are more than one year into the SIP process. (A list of the Title I schools was distributed and a copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

DISCUSSION:

· Set of questions that are used in the SIP - all the elementary schools are using the list this year. The check list is based on Epstein's six types of involvement. Is there anything that shows what has been learned?

· Northwest Regional Lab has a check list and thought process for laying a foundation for building trust with schools and diverse families, including strategies for engaging all families. It would be a good outline for saying "are we doing these things." FOLLOW UP: Ms. Silveira will send a web link tomorrow.

· Dramatic improvement in numbers of people involved has been shown where schools use parents as mentors for other parents.

· SIPs are updated every year.

· Objective is to improve student achievement by more actively engaging parents in the learning and education of children and the operations of the school based on needs of the school.

Shwaw Vang arrived at this time.

· Some partnership relations involve financial support, some human resources; could be either.

· Budget in Title I for parent involvement is a formula. Same dollar amount per pupil also goes to private schools as part of the No Child Left Behind act. At one time the children could not be served in the schools. Now there is one full-time teacher who goes out to provide services. The district also has to provide money.

· Discussions focused on volunteerism and getting parents to do something. Parents want more on how they are received in the schools and in their interactions with the teachers. Some parents are perceived more as a problem than a team.

· Focusing less on PTOs and more on caregivers who are not always the parents.

· Brainstorming about what parts of the city the district could use more input from in terms of school-parent interaction.

· Some people do not feel well received by the schools; others do not come to the schools at all or try to enhance the academic achievement of their children.

· Need for a multiple-pronged approach armed at the various subpopulations.

· Charter schools are an anomaly; they can do some things others cannot.

· Some models may have developed.

· Different ways to break down parent groups, e.g., autistic, Friends of West Soccer, etc.

· Separate issues for people who are new to the schools or making a transition.

· Barriers sometimes include economic or work circumstances.

· Difficult to isolate parent involvement to student achievement measurement.

· Could pick the panel members based on the emphasis on customer service.

· Much to learn from ESL staff who see the struggles.

· Could also interview those parents who are happy with their schools.

· Vast majority of parents do not have contact with their children's schools during the students' school careers and they are comfortable with that.

· Highest participation is at the elementary level and then extracurricular activities. Child drives some of this.

· Very positive feedback came from the 6^th and 9^th grade first day and evening registration.

· Concern is with the group of people who see the world differently but who are not understood or helped; that experience spreads.

· Goal is to try to find some best practices and share them.

· Hard to advance the goal of fostering a culture of respect and value for education at home.

· Having volunteers in the schools that can create a welcoming atmosphere.

· Teachers and parents should be able to communicate without fear of retribution.

FOLLOW UP: October meeting - panel with representatives from schools that have strong ties with their parents/caregivers of three to four people, keeping comments to 5-10 minutes, about what they have achieved.

5. Organizations and Programs Funded out of the Fund 80 part of the MMSD 2006‑07 budget:

Urban League Bootstrap Program

Schools of Hope Program

Centro Hispano

AfricanAmericanAcademy

Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN)

Kasjiab House

(Packets included a list of programs including funding, timeframes, and services provided. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

Deferred to next meeting. Will devote most of the meeting to the panel.

6. Set agenda and time of next meeting

October 9, 2006 at 5 p.m. in McDaniels Auditorium.

7. Other Business

There was no other business.

8. Adjournment

It was moved by Barbara Schrank and seconded by Arlene Silveira to adjourn the meeting at 5:57 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.

Previous: 2006-08-21 || Community Partnerships || Next: 2006-10-09

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2006-08-21 \|\| Community Partnerships \|\| Next: 2006-10-09