| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-08-28 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-09-25 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session September 18, 2006 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street Madison, Wisconsin |
|
"Times New Roman"'>The Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Johnny Winston, Jr. at 6:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lawrie Kobza, Lucy Mathiak, Ruth Robarts, Arlene Silveira,
Shwaw Vang, Johnny Winston, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Steve Hartley, Jack Jorgensen, Kathy Lyngaas, Pam Nash,
Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Equity Task Force Members: Christa Bruhn, David Cohen, Lisa Cuevas,
Paul Kusuda, Thomas Mertz, Glenn Parks, Wendy Sauve, Beth Swedeen,
Jackie Woodruff
OPEN SESSION - McDaniels Auditorium
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Ruth Robarts to approve the minutes of the Special meeting in open session dated August 28, 2006 as distributed. Motion unanimously carried.
2. Public Appearances
There were no public appearances.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. Equity Task Force Interim Report regarding the Development of an Equity Policy
(Packets included the PowerPoint presentation. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Jack Jorgensen recognized the members of the Task Force. Christa Bruhn, Lisa Cuevas, and Thomas Mertz were designated by the Task Force to field questions from the Board. Mr. Jorgensen highlighted the key features of the interim plan: charge, process, guiding principles, definition, implementation strategies, evaluating outcomes of equity efforts, questions the Task Force had for the Board of Education (see the attached presentation).
DISCUSSION:
· The current policy and resource allocation formula were reviewed at the first meeting of the Task Force; members were overwhelmed. They retreated from that and tried to define equity and went from there.
· Jack Jorgensen and Mary Ramberg spent time with the group on the equity formula and policy and found a mismatch. It was their belief that it was not their charge to delve deeply into the various resource formulas but to provide an overarching definition and make recommendations for implementation.
· In response to a question about how the recommendations fit with the formulas, the task force members said they could look at those again to better answer this question.
Jack Jorgensen asked the Board to clarify whether it wanted the Task Force to examine the various allocation formulas knowing there are many.
Board member responses:
o Anticipated something specific to the Board equity policy. The policy exists but has not been enforced. Has many good things in it. Do not think formulas address those issues. Look at current policy and say whether it is consistent.
o Look at what it would mean to fully implement the policy. Very good definition and list of things that might be done. Equity formulas do not work. There has been no demonstration that the equity policy does not work; may be some things that are worth keeping. Need some implementation guidance.
Mr. Jorgensen noted that the Task Force would be forwarding their report to Legal Counsel who would create a draft policy from that input.
Board member responses:
o Very comfortable with definition of equity. Many implementation strategies are currently being done to varying degrees of success. Not sure how to take the 17 large projects and turn them into a policy.
Task Force responses:
Ø Confusion about scope of role and how far they are expected to go. Who should be involved and how to measure results.
Ø District is already doing many good things that are being suggested by the task force. Remember the role as enforcing the good things that are going on and giving a little push to those things that need a little more and asking the board to push the staff a little.
Ø See it as an implementation problem; new concepts but results are not being achieved.
Board responses:
o Task force has carried out what the board asked for; from that will flow more specifics. Task force emphasized every child getting what they need without robbing others; any thought given to who has to track the district and the board?
Task Force responses:
Ø Saw the Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Race and Equity as the person for tracking. Coming to consensus on how to do it was the most difficult thing. Interim report is much less specific than other things because there was no consensus. Some preferred expanded school climate surveys asking specific questions about this. Also discussed teachers and staff but can add to administrators' evaluations.
Ø How does the task force know what it should be looking at and who will track it? They did go through the exercise of how to measure this. District has people with experience. Want to make the connection between what the task force set out to do and why it is not happening.
Board responses:
o Distributing resources based on student needs is the board's responsibility when there is less to go around. Before the community can really comment, the task force may need to go back to what is on the books. Board may have to evaluate plans for every school every year and, when things are outside of that formula, move resources. How does the Task Force see the current policy and what could change or be different between moving away from that policy and going with the list.
Task Force responses:
Ø Think we can, as a group, raise that at our next meeting. How is this new and different; that is a good question.
Ø We did take the current policy at the beginning but it would be good to consider it now.
Ø Should we consider this discussion as an amendment to our original charge?
Board responses:
o Would like to improve on current policy. Charge was broad enough to cover Board members' different perspectives on this. Do not have to start at zero. Do not believe the charge needs to change.
Task Force responses:
Ø Hearing that we need more specific guidelines for implementation and need to consider the formula. Would you like more specifics or are the guidelines sufficient?
Board responses:
o Board should hear advice first. Then the Board has to take this and do something with it and oversee it.
Task Force responses:
Ø Part of the Task Force's charge was to make recommendations for an equity policy - to chart new waters.
Ø Difficult to assess a policy that has never been implemented.
Board responses:
o Complex issue. Everyone seeks equity for every child. If you need input outside the board and staff, do not think there are limitations to that. Tension was around the allocations and how needs are defined. Would like the task force to look at the formula and make some recommendations.
o Task force is urged to go further. Encourage not just looking at ways to implement new policy but why the old policy is not being implemented or revamping the old policy.
o Do not think the charge needs to be amended. Interested in the results of the task force's review. Okay with taking the current policy off the books and showing the community the task force's proposal.
o Guiding principles are very good and strong. Take those and go back to the existing policy and evaluate what is and is not working. Bring that to the community. Task Force has followed its charge. Implementation strategies would be expected at that point once the task force looks at the current policy. Those would then come back to the board to refine before getting community input.
Task Force responses:
Ø Approach them with who, what, when, why and how?
Board responses:
o That is a discussion with the board. Have to prioritize the 17 items and define the implementation strategies.
Task Force responses:
Ø We talked about prioritizing them. Glad we did not.
Board responses:
o Interim report is very helpful.
o Implementation strategies - see these as very broad statements, not steps on implementation. That is what the Board needs to know is how to distribute the resources. Current policy includes something that is not a formula but that the Superintendent will look at schools with higher poverty and give some ideas to get more equitable results. Support all 17 items as goals but do not see that they help inform the board as to how to do this.
Task Force responses:
Ø Discussion very helpful. It is about resources. Tried not to stop there. Task force can talk about it as a group.
Board responses:
o Focused on dollar value of resources. Literature talks about quality also. Some things they are asking for are extremely difficult and contentious. Issue is how you define equity and we have not really talked about it that way. As you get into the specifics and how to balance the needs of poverty and race and special education and TAG, someone will have to give something up. Take what you have done and lay out current policy against it. Develop implementation strategies and not try to conform to what the task force thinks the board wants to hear. Task force is becoming more expert than the board. Board needs the task force's best advice.
Board responses:
o Board will take up equity on the 25th.
Recessed at 7:34 p.m.
Reconvened at 7:43 p.m.
Other staff joined the meeting: Steve Hartley, Joseph Hill, Clarence Sherrod, June Wilson, Luis Yudice.
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Ruth Robarts that until such time as the current equity policy is removed or amended, direct the administration to implement and enforce the policy.
Motion was ruled out of order by President Winston.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to overturn the ruling of the President.
DISCUSSION:
· Proper legal notice was not given; motion is not germane to the discussion. Cannot suspend the rules to violate the law.
· Offer to withdraw the motion to overturn was given if the topic would be noticed next week. This offer was rejected.
· Correct to expect that the administration is implementing that policy, but that has not been the practice.
· Places superintendent in a bind. Administration uses the equity resource formula. Policy requires the Superintendent to review the schools 15 percent above but does not require anything else. The policy is implemented through the formula.
· What happens if composition of schools changes, then they said there is a formula. That was years ago. Heard discussion that said we do not really do it. Asked for the vote because I would like clarification. If do not care about it, let's take it off. Do not know when the Equity Task Force will come back. In the meantime, the policy is not in play.
· Need to discus as a board; not here and now.
· Are we implementing the policy as it is now?
· Equity policy requires the Superintendent to review schools who are 15 percent or more above the district average. Are we doing that? Yes. Every school. Policy does not have any way of distributing resources. That is the equity resource formula.
· Trying your best to follow the policy. Agree with Ms. Robarts would like it give the time it needs. Not ready to vote on the motion now. Could have the discussion on Monday.
· Never heard the explanation that I have heard tonight about implementing that policy. There are other things required by the policy. Board should adopt School Improvement Plans for every school for every year. Cannot agree that we are implementing to best of our ability.
· Need to discuss existing policy before giving guidance to the Equity Task Force.
· Less concerned about this year's allocations than about what we do as we move forward. Need to articulate what happens in the meantime.
· Critical issue for the board. Superintendent's explanation of the policy is indicative of the conversation that needs to take place.
President Winston agreed to include the item on the Board's agenda for next week.
Ms. Robarts withdrew her motion to challenge the ruling of the President. Ms. Mathiak withdrew her second.
5. Data related to the number of students who have been expelled from the MMSD from 1994-95 to 2005-06, Board Policy 4045 regarding the expulsion of students, and the other processes and procedures that apply to students when they are recommended to be expelled from school
(Packets included a timeline for board discussions relative to responses to student behavior in the MMSD; Board Policy 4045; an outline of pupil expulsion procedures and rights; a memorandum relative to early readmission; a timeline for expectations for students in the expulsion process; a memorandum regarding off-campus programming; a memorandum regarding the expungement policy 4047; a packet of all letters, forms, and materials sent to students and families in the expulsion process and to the Board; a flowchart illustrating the expulsion process; and a PowerPoint presentation. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
The Superintendent explained that this was the beginning of a series of discussions regarding how MMSD staff responds to student behavior. He referred to the timeline included in the packet. Tonight would be the expulsion policy and process itself, not the Code of Conduct. Next month will cover what is being done inside the schools in terms of changing behavior. November and December would be devoted to the Code of Conduct. Community forums will be held with students, staff, parents, and specific service providers to receive their concerns. The Code will then be revised.
The Superintendent then gave the presentation - highlights: relevant board policies, expulsion data, responses to serious misbehavior, expulsion process and procedures, early readmission, timelines expectations for students in the expulsion process, off-campus programming, expungement, board issues and concerns. Assistant Superintendent Pam Nash explained what happens at the school level before she makes recommendations to the Superintendent. Joseph Hill explained the activities that occur once the Assistant Superintendent reviews the evidence.
DISCUSSION:
· Time between serious misbehavior and recommendation is 24 hours.
· Where the conditions for return to school are sent.
· Concerns for those students who appear to be heavily gifted and those with special needs. Statute limits the district. There is a manifestation determination. IEP teams may come back and make recommendations.
· The board has 30 days from the date of the hearing to review the examiner's decision. Expulsions are grouped together as much as possible.
· Greatest number of days between the time a student is recommended for expulsion and board review is 50 days, depending on the circumstances.
· Concerns about getting the students back into school as soon as possible.
· Documents reflected the changes made to streamline the process.
· Board documents usually include explanations for cases that take an unusually long time to process.
· Off-campus, neutral site programming has been very valuable for some students. District is not required by law to provide such programming. Came about in response to the lag time issue.
· Random lottery process for choosing hearing examiners.
· Board could discuss modifying current policy to allow the same hearing examiner to deal with similar cases to facilitate consistent decisions. Would be some drawbacks.
· Cases cannot be joined.
· Some cases involve hearings in a hurry; schedules might be a factor.
· Readmission process begins on the day the hearing is held.
· Most providers do not charge for assessments but may seek reimbursement if there is health insurance.
· Board comments are included in the case files and shared with the expulsion committee. Board comments are considered as the IEP team makes its decision.
· Expulsion Committee meets every other Tuesday.
· Not aware of any time when a student has not been admitted early once the conditions of the expulsion have been met. The committee monitors progress on the conditions. Seventy-percent of the expelled students take advantage of early readmission and no one's has been revoked to date. There is no obligation for the student to apply for early readmission. Administration tries to get the students connected before they have been expelled; families do not always schedule the appointments immediately.
· Board has no leverage to get cooperation on assessments or other conditions if there is suspension.
· Getting appointments with governmental entities are harder due to budget cuts; others are not. No non-governmental providers do pro bono work.
· In cases where the conduct falls short of expulsion and there are no suspensions, it is a matter of law. There is no law or process for students who are not in the expulsion process; no leverage.
· Restorative justice can be done in other ways. District's Legislative Liaison was asked toe explore changing the law.
· A series of meetings will focus on the Code of Conduct and the current pilot program.
· District is trying to compress the time as much as possible.
Special Education cases: Jack Jorgensen referred to the detailed information in the packet. He noted briefly that the timeline involved if a student is suspected of an impairment or already has a disability can conflict between the need for an expedited evaluation process and preserving its integrity. They have compressed where they felt they could. With regard to the issue of integrity and the number of students of color, they are working very hard to introduce nonbiased procedures. Labeling children is taken very seriously. They are not going to compromise that to speed through and get results. They were able to find some places where they could tighten things up and took a 60-day process down to 20 days for students who are suspected of having a disability. For those who already have the causal relationships, the discussion is more complicated if there is an indication of additional impairment; results in additional evaluation.
General Discussion:
· Much more at stake than whether the student is expelled or not; changing civil rights. Integrity has to be protected.
· Specific situation was recalled - same incident, regular education and special education students involved. Regular education student went back to school the day after the board met. The other student did not get a hearing until March or April (6 months later). It was suggested that the students go back to school while continuing with the assessments.
· The Superintendent offered to send the reasons to the Board when the timeline exceeds 20 days.
· If it is found that the student's behavior is a manifestation of their disability, they are not expelled. Roughly half these cases that were recommended for expulsion had their cases dismissed.
Off-Campus Programming: Steve Hartley noted that the forms were changed to identify the key contact people. They are also asking teachers to have reading and math, self-contained, age-appropriate curriculum materials. His office receives complete reports that go to the board. He stated that these reports can be made more factual than subjective. Future plans include establishing curriculum, community center options, and on-line options, and connecting back to the schools.
· Need to improve communications, particularly around times when the students are not getting their homework.
· There are about 10-12 substitute teachers who are specialists in working with the expulsion cases, unless there is something unique about the particular child.
· Teachers' comments affect Board decisions.
· Teachers spend two hours each day with the students at a site in the community; almost never at the student's home.
· Time for getting homework is outside the time spent with the student. Electronic means are used as much as possible to obtain homework. Principal is ultimately responsible for getting the homework.
· More work is being done to improve the process.
· These students are very much on the principals' radar. Standards-based report card system will allow people to plug right in. There are not very students at one time who are under expulsion.
FOLLOW UP: Provide new version of the flow chart of the process in larger font and/or as a PDF file. Ten-year-old report on the effect of the expulsion process will be updated and evaluated and shared with the Board by Legal Counsel, including whatever information the district has access to (e.g., those who are incarcerated).
6. Board Policy 4047 - Expungement
(Packets included current policy and procedures (#4047) and impact criteria on students and recommended changes to clarify, address impact, and streamline the process. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
June Wilson explained the current policy and procedure for expungements. In response to the Board's request, proposed revisions were made to the policy so that expungement should occur without the student being required to petition the Board. Information was also made available on the other criteria that must be met prior to a student being eligible for expungement.
It was moved by Ruth Robarts to approve the Administration's recommendations as presented under Tab 6 of the report dated September 14, 2006.
Discussion on the motion:
· Bar is raised very high for the students. If they do not get there, they have a mark on their record. Have to consider the population of students who are affected.
· Proposed changes make the process easier for the Board, not the student, and provides one additional notice to the student.
· Process should make it easier for the student who does not necessarily have a good record and does not have family support but is trying to graduate.
· Would like to consider things like military experience; maybe the bar is too high.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Discussion:
· Issues involve economic status, access to attorneys, how to get the information to those for whom it is applicable, underlying criteria, etc.; all appropriate for the Performance and Achievement Committee.
· Using the expungement as a motivator to follow through once the student returns to school; a privilege to be earned.
FOLLOW UP: Mr. Vang agreed to take up the issue of expungement in the Performance and Achievement Committee.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
Recessed at 10:25 p.m.
Reconvened at 10:32 p.m.
MEETING CONTINUED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
Previous: 2006-08-28 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-09-25