| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-01-04 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-01-23 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session January 17, 2006 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, McDaniels Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Carol Carstensen at 6:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Bill Keys, Lawrie Kobza, Ruth Robarts, Shwaw Vang (arrived 6:16 p.m. and left at 9:11 p.m.), Johnny Winston, Jr. (arrived 6:16 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Juan José López
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
PRESENT: Connor Gants (left at 9:11 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Freddi Adelson, Jennie Allen, Mary Gulbrandsen, Bob Nadler, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Attorney Clarence Sherrod, Lisa Wachtel, Nancy Yoder, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Ruth Robarts to approve the minutes of the Special meeting dated December 19, 2005 as distributed. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
2. WrightMiddleSchoolCharterSchoolContract
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel (1/12/06) and the charter school contract. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Bill Keys to continue the charter contract for Wright Middle School in accordance with the memorandum from Legal Counsel dated January 12, 2006. Motion unanimously carried with Juan José López, Shwaw Vang, and Johnny Winston, Jr. absent.
Shwaw Vang and Johnny Winston, Jr. arrived at this time.
3. Proposed Policies regarding Animals in the Schools
(Packets included five documents: overview, findings, and recommendation from administration; draft MMSD policy of animals on school premises; draft classification and health and safety issues; request for animals on school premises; minority report; Power Point presentation on draft policy. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Sue Abplanalp, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools, noted that the charge asked that the committee address health issues so six community members were invited to give their advice. The committee consisted of six teachers, four administrators, six community members in the health or animal field, and four parents. At the end it was given to the administrators. There were four meetings and the committee members are listed on page 2. The committee did not want the student to be put in the position of deciding.
Jennie Allen, Elementary Lead Principal, indicated that the process was difficult. The committee did not come to consensus after meeting since August. Eight drafts later, they have a proposal. The value of animals was understood, however, part of the charge was to address students and staff with allergies. She added that objective data shows a health concern, that students must feel safe and secure, and that this was not an anti-animal issue but a pro-health issue.
Freddi Adelson, Health Services and ADA Coordinator, shared information about asthma and allergies due to exposure to pets. The district has about 2,250 students with allergies or 2-3 children per classroom. She talked about the wide range of symptoms and missed school days.
Dr. Robert Lemanske, Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics; Head of the Division of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology at the School of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, talked about having to deal with children who have allergies, children who have a genetic predisposition, and treating people who have this kind of allergic response. He added that the issue to consider would be that children have the potential to develop these diseases and that he was trying to prevent and treat it. Rodents are particularly potent at producing an allergic response.
Jennie Allen, Nancy Yoder, and Sue Abplanalp presented the draft policy, procedures, and a list of prohibited animals on school premises. It was noted that animals must coincide with the curriculum. Lisa Wachtel, Science and Environmental Education Coordinator, reviewed the draft classification and health and safety issues. The vote was 11 to 7 with 1 abstaining. The biggest difference was the whole social/emotional piece; some committee members felt very strongly about animals being around to teach responsibility and calm stressed children. The charge was to look at allowing animals on school premises but addressing the health issues. It was almost impossible to address the charge because there are 2-3 children in each classroom who may develop these diseases.
Discussion: Prohibited list only leaves fish, some reptiles, and insects. The variety of animals included in the science material center that are directly linked to the science program. Health certificate costs. Cost of a veterinary visit. Emotional issues with animals that look more human vs. those that do not. No animal policies in neighboring districts but many have lists of prohibited animals that are extensive and others just said no animals. Children have a difficult time telling their parents if they are exhibiting symptoms because they do not want to be responsible for removal of the pets. Potential seriousness of allergic reactions. Letting teachers exercise their judgment about how to accommodate all their students. Anecdotes about some shocking decisions that teachers make. Difficult to test and hard to track better health results as a result of removing every animal on the prohibited list; every individual reacts differently and the length of time an animal has been in the classroom does have a bearing on its impact. Fundamental disagreement about what is the safest thing for the children; no middle ground. Getting public input. There was general agreement about the procedures but the major issue is what is on the prohibited list.
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Shwaw Vang to suspend the rules to allow the Board to take up Item 3 on the agenda after public appearances. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Connor Gants arrived at this time.
4. Public Appearances
Alex Osborn brought his walking sticks to school and told his classmates about them. The next day he was told he could not bring them in and about the 13 steps. He pointed out that walking sticks cannot be given a shot and the vet would not sign a certificate of health. Approval for insects only takes 4 of the 13 steps but he did not know why people would go through all that. He asked if insects count and what category they fit in. He wanted the policy changed.
Marino Algorta said that class pets are helpful, that much can be learned from them and how to take care of them. The students can play with them and almost everyone wants one. He asked that they be allowed to bring them back.
P. J. Grimmer indicated that people in California are trying to legalize ferrets and their effort is still going on. He noted that 16 sets of parents and students want to let pets back in. They had petitions, signs, and wrote letters to the newspaper. He wanted classrooms to be more fun by allowing the students to observe the behavior of animals.
Zabrina Bernal thought it was wrong to enforce this school rule and that tons of children would be disappointed. She felt that children with allergies could take their medication before they come into the classroom.
Chloe An stated that she has been at Crestwood for three years and she never had class pets. She was excited about her new class because there were ferrets. But now there are to be no pets. She wrote letters to get them back but received no replies. They wrote to parents and passed a petition around. She understood that there are children who are uncomfortable or have allergies but she wanted life in the classroom. She asked that the policy be reconsidered.
Lauren Johnson distributed a flyer entitled, "Top Ten Reasons Ferrets Make Good Pets" (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes). She talked about a program for adopting pets and that 22 out of 25 parent surveys indicated they all wanted pets in the classroom. Ferrets can be trained; there is nothing left but fish. She asked that the policy be changed.
Jadyn Donahue-Scully talked about a survey that was conducted at Crestwood of 53 students and teachers. Most voted "yes"; some voted "no." The survey of all the grades of 354 students and teachers indicated that only 18 voted "no." She understood that all children needed to be represented but wanted the Board to listen to the majority and create a fair policy.
Lauren Strub said their pets were taken away. The 4th and 5th graders wrote letters to the principal and the Board of Education. They were very disappointed with the lack of response. She wanted to see the pets again and said that some of the 13 steps could be done but not for all insects. She asked that the Board reconsider changing the policy.
Madda Udvari-Solner, 5th grader at Crestwood, supported class pets and spoke about why they should be allowed.
Emily Stephenson, student at Crestwood for five years, received much education from class pets. She sent letters but received no reply from the Board or the principal. More than half decided they wanted class pets. She realized that some people needed to be protected but thought there was some way to change the policy so everyone would be happy.
Kyla Brountie, 5th grader at Crestwood, has asthma. Noted that the ferrets were brought in the classroom in 2004 and they slept while the students worked. They never snipped at anyone. Now they are gone. Many hearts are broken. She did not know why pets would be taken away that had been there for years. She thought the Board should make things better.
Kate Lyman showed a Wisconsin Public Television videotape. She stated that her name was on the report but she was only invited to two of the meetings. She did not feel that any of their suggestions were taken into account. They have the alternative policy. They had very little time to put it together and objected that they had not been given time to present their policy. They did try to compromise. She was really dismayed at the way things worked out.
Marisue Horton sent e-mails. She highlighted some of the process. She commented on a lack of trust when the process was not followed. Six additional community members were added and she wondered if they should have the same voting status. The policy that allows for pets did not reflect their input. She was invited to only one meeting. No student was defined and they lost that opportunity. She did not want the report sold as a committee unless the committee provides input. She talked about a vote of 7 to 6. She was very disturbed that the data is being misinterpreted and could not be correlated to the classroom. Supervision on school premises lies on a different plate than the animals in the classroom.
There was some discussion about the discrepancy in voting results related to a legal decision about people having to be present to vote; differences between a Board committee and an administrative committee. The approach was to have people react to it.
Peter Plane, Crestwood teacher, had had a variety of animals in his classes over the years. Many were brought through the MMSD program. The district supported those programs. He noted that one of the rationales is to make classrooms safer. He stated that any fear comes from lack of knowledge. It has been a very positive experience for his students. He thought that the animals could be removed without letting students know who has allergies. Most students are enthusiastic. He asked that the second policy be considered.
In response to a question, Mr. Plane responded that he had never had a pet act aggressively.
Molly Plunkett, parent not on the committee, said it seemed like there were some flaws in the process and that the Board should be looking at that. She spoke to the value of animals in the classroom and that the proposed policy is virtually a ban. She thought there had to be ways that this could be addressed. Children can be notified and exposure can be limited instead of so many experiencing a great loss.
Mary Powell brought a frog that has lived in her classroom for 8 to 10 years. As a member of the committee she wanted to state that she was invited to two meetings to comment on the policy. Her comments were not included in the policy. She was surprised to have her name included. She has had many pets in her classroom over the years and no one has developed an allergy. She suggested taking them out but the parents did not want that.
Written registrations included 11 in support of animals in the classroom.
Item 3 was taken up again.
3. Proposed Policies regarding Animals in the Schools
Discussion: First meeting participants were all suggested to Ms. Allen and all were in favor of not having animals in the classroom. She then asked for teachers who were on the other side. Multiple drafts were then sent back and forth. They could not include all the feedback because the policy would not make any sense if the charge was not kept in focus on the health issues. The minority report was presented because the vote was so close. Management Team concluded that there were two very opposite positions. Both sides are valid. Ten percent is too high and a child should not have to take medicine to go to a class. Majority does not make a decision like this when the safety of a child is at risk. Policy does not exclude dogs and cats. Minority report writers did not have time to gel with the K-12 guidelines. Board should give specific instructions on what it wants to see, who is responsible, and how to deal with cleanliness.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to direct the Administration to reconvene the Animals in the Classroom Committee as a committee, including the experts with respective voting rights, to consider developing recommendations regarding health improvements and safeguards, in light of the guidelines from the National Science Association, that might be needed in the district's K-12 guidelines for the use of animals in the classroom.
Discussion: They thought compromise was unlikely. Current policy says no pets on the school grounds; can have animals for instructional purposes that are not pets.
Ms. Robarts stated that she would accept a friendly amendment to ask the Committee for a majority vote rather than consensus. She confirmed with the Superintendent that if the Board took no action and Policy 4233 stays the same, the principals could be told that the Board does not want all classroom pets excluded or an animal ban. The policy does not define resident animals. Administration has interpreted Policy 4233 as prohibiting animals in the classroom unless there is a clear instructional purpose.
Ms. Wachtel explained that the science document is being more broadly interpreted. The information about the personal property was put in there because the Science Learning Center puts out information about care. It is an old document and was part of the minority report.
Discussion continued: Two issues—going forward and what exists in the interim. Asking the committee to focus on making whatever animals are in the classroom safe for the kids. Moving the animals and not the child.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Ruth Robarts that the Board deem that animals that reside in the classroom during the last year have an instructional purpose until a new policy is adopted.
Discussion: Teachers have been told that the animals are prohibited incorrectly. Taking the animals out then putting them back in; should not allow animals back in until the policy is known. Making the new policy effective at the end of the school year. Variance among the schools and lack of enforcement of the policy. Interpreting the policy as it had been for many years for the interim. Change in interpretation was enforced because parents were complaining about it. Have to be consistent across all the schools. Make policy effective next year.
Student Representative advisory vote was nay. Motion carried 5-1 with Bill Keys voting no and Juan José López absent.
Recessed at 9:11 p.m.
Shwaw Vang and Connor Gants left at this time.
Reconvened at 9:23 p.m.
5. Announcements
There were no announcements.
6. Administrative Position Reductions and Other Administrative Changes for 2006-07
(Packets included a memorandum from the Superintendent detailing the administrative changes for 2006-07 (1/12/06) and a graph of administrative position trends from 2001-06. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Mr. Rainwater reviewed each of the administrative changes.
Discussion: Total savings. Every administrative contract will get extended or renewed if the Board does not act by January. Put administrative contracts on the Board agenda before the end of January.
Mr. Rainwater reviewed the trends over the last six years as presented in the graph. He noted that they have worked hard to reduce administrators.
Discussion: Reducing thoughtfully rather than non-renewing the contracts. Trends have resulted in everyone doing double-duty. Level of administration needed to take care of things. Significant change for next year. Importance of every employee to have the expectation of having a job. Need a plan. Need to be competitive. At-will employees who perform supervisory jobs. Non-union professionals not on the administrator salary scale.
FOLLOW UP: Schedule a meeting to take up administrator contracts. Provide comparative information on salary and benefits for administrators with other school districts. Provide list of all employees in the non-union professional category and their salaries.
7. It is recommended that the Board direct that the vacant Administrative position of Executive Director of Teaching and Learning be filled from within the existing Administrative Staff
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. that the vacant administrative potion of Executive Director of Teaching and Learning be filled from within the existing administrative staff.
Discussion: Avoids adding an administrative position. There is a person in the district who is qualified to be the Executive Director and the math position. Cannot just promote the person; have to post the position. Not the intent to preclude someone in the district from applying who has a 10 certificate. Continue current practice to post externally to see what is out there. Posting could be re-worded. Cannot say something where someone is already residing.
Bill Keys withdrew his motion and Johnny Winston, Jr. withdrew his second.
No action taken.
8. It is recommended that the Board approve an amendment to the eligibility requirements of the Administrator Retirement Plan (ARP) to allow an administrator to be eligible to receive administrative retirement benefits under the ARP if such administrator turns 55 on or before August 30 of the year in which the administrator retires
(Packets included a background memorandum and the Administrator Retirement Plan with the recommended amendment (1/12/06). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to table this item to an executive session.
Discussion: Today was the deadline for ARP applications; it is time sensitive. Trying to complete for the school year and bring in line with TERP requirements. This not about an employee but changing procedure. Treats current administrators more favorably where one year ago it was inflexible.
Motion failed 2-3 with Lawrie Kobza and Ruth Robarts voting aye.
It was moved by Bill Keys and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to approve an amendment to the eligibility requirements of the Administrator Retirement Plan (ARP) to allow an administrator to be eligible to receive administrative retirement benefits under the ARP if such administrator turns 55 on or before August 30 of the year in which the administrator retires. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
9. It is recommended that the Board authorize the transfer of $6,200 from the Fund 80 Reserve for Contingency to the Media Production budget for the purpose of paying for televising Board meetings and Board Committee meetings throughout the remainder of this fiscal year
(Packets included a spreadsheet showing the projected cost of televising all of the Board's committee meetings; the cost for equipping Room 103 with remote cameras (12/21/05); and the balance of the Reserve for Contingency Account 2005-06 (1/12/06). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Ruth Robarts to authorize the transfer of $6,200 from the Fund 80 Reserve for Contingency to the Media Production budget for the purpose of paying for televising Board meetings and Board Committee meetings throughout the remainder of this fiscal year. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Discussion: Whether $6,200 will cover all the meetings. President, Vice President, and Superintendent will decide jointly which meetings will be televised and which will not.
Motion unanimously carried by those present.
10. Other Business
There was no other business.
11. Adjournment
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 p.m. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
bl
Previous: 2006-01-04 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-01-23