| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-09-18 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-10-16 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session September 25, 2006 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Johnny Winston, Jr. at 8:35 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, Mary Gulbrandsen, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Art Rainwater, Marcia Standiford, Ken Syke, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the Equity Task Force: Christa Bruhn, David Cohen, Lisa Cuevas, Paul Kusuda, Thomas Mertz, and others
1. Public Appearances
There were no public appearances.
2. Announcements
In June, the Board voted unanimously to go to referendum. Using the 2007 home assessment average of $239,400 for the City of Madison, the total property tax impact for 2007 is $29.21. The actual cost to taxpayers will vary, based on the property's assessed value. From 1996 to 2006, the school property taxes on the average-priced home in Madison have increased less than 1% ($14), while the average-priced home has increased 80% in value. The referendum is Tuesday, November 7. Information is available on the District's Web site: www.mmsd.org.
3. Showing a Videotape Recording of Factual Information regarding the November 7, 2006 Referendum Election
The videotape was viewed.
COMMENTS:
Ø People are being directed to the district's web site for more information on the referendum.
Ø People seem to appreciate the video and are giving very positive feedback on the amount and clarity of the information.
4. Equity Policy 9001
(Packets contained Board Policy 9001 - Equity; an executive summary and detailed report of An Analysis of Board Policy 9001 and Current Practice (9/25/06); Elementary School Equity Needs Index (ENI) Weights; Questions and Answers relative to the Equity Resource Formula (ERF); and a PowerPoint presentation on the ERF dated 1999. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
The Superintendent reviewed the materials included in the packet. He went into some detail about the Educational Needs Index. Resources are then distributed based on the Equity Resource Formula (ERF).
DISCUSSION:
· East Side PTO proposed that the district use the ENI/ERF combination of factors as part of the base allocation.
· If everything stays the same but used the ENI/ERF (assuming no cap on supplemental staff) numbers to give supplemental staff commensurate with educational needs in the school, what kinds of additional dollars and staff?
Probably would have taken that approach if not under the revenue caps starting in 1996. Current structure is self-limiting. Could do a mock-up of what that would look like.
· Two issues: 1) what kinds of review and reporting are required by that policy that should be done; 2) many districts have looked at ways to have the budgets be based primarily on the needs of the kids in particular programs and not on formulas that accumulate when there are resource problems. ENI is good but the districts cannot deliver that much.
· Existing policy only specifies that schools with populations of 15% of the district's average for free and reduced lunch be identified and noted. The MMSD has nine schools that exceed 15% which now would be 53% based on last year. Wright is the only middle school and no high schools are over 52%. Using this as a marker, the focus is on the elementary level.
· Language has desegregated language because it was formulated at a time when the superintendent was developing a magnet plan. It was to be used later when students were transferred for diversity. Also, 15% was part of the district's agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) when the pairs were created and would be monitored. One of the things that came through fairly quickly was that it was important to have smaller schools where there were high percentages of low-income students.
· Do not have other resources to set aside for higher needs schools. Formula may not take this into account. Need to talk about what kinds of resources are needed to be effective across the board. Need a process for dealing with revenue caps that is equitable. Goes beyond issue of class size because other resources are also factors in building the school community.
· Motion last week was to look at what happens between now and when the Equity Task Force makes recommendations. Current policy has two different objectives under one heading—creation of racial diversity and socioeconomic (SES) challenges; they are not synonymous but policy behaves like they are. Not sure that 15% over districtwide average is a reasonable methodology because populations at elementary levels are very different. Need to think about how children come through the system and how schools change over time. Would like reports that review and prioritize things for each of the schools with an eye toward that exceptional need threshold and what it means for the budget as changes are made. Reporting does not necessarily have to be on each school but those that have extreme challenges; what the Board should be thinking about as cuts are considered.
· Equity policy can be interpreted many ways but it indicates that there should be a district focus on the neediest schools. Concerned that the needy schools do not get extra attention; tend to look at the district as a whole. Over time, neediest schools have gotten less and less attention. Report should include how many supplemental allocations are made and how that has changed over time.
The Superintendent responded that when the district went to SAGE, one of the issues was how to fund it. An analysis was done of what supplemental allocations were used for (primarily for lowering class size). At the time, it was used as a way of funding SAGE. Situation is different now.
· At that time, the neediest schools were eligible for SAGE first. That program was expanded to schools in the middle range so now it goes from 21-65% low income. There are full and partial SAGE programs but shifted from neediest schools to those that were not. Needs to be recognition to work on neediest schools. Equity policy is not great but it can work the way it is. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
· Not sure that in today's MMSD that 15% above defines all the needy schools. It is very difficult when entering into subjective judgment about what schools need. Not everyone will agree.
· With regard to the annual report profiles and appropriate recommendations, the Board does not have the information to answer some of these questions because it has not required these kinds of things. They are available in binders and Board members can review them; Board role is missing. Would like the Equity Task Force to tell us to go forward with this or something else.
· Very hesitant to change things now and make decisions based on reporting if the Board is now asking the Equity Task Force to recommend something. Agree that the Board needs objective measurements for how it supports each of the schools. A formula of some sort is needed. Can supplement that with information from reports after the fact. Believe it is the Board's role, together with the administration, to come up with a formula.
· Board can give its opinion by determining the formula. Board should work with the task force to come up with a way to implement this policy in a way that has not been done before. Had we voted last week to implement this policy, do not know how administration would have acted. Should direct the Equity Task Force to be more specific than this policy.
· Out of the nine schools, seven are small. Teacher experience is a very critical factor. There are some non-quantifiable components. Formula/process has to be productive for the Board and give direction to administration but not stigmatize a school or community. School profiles have a lot of information; good place to start looking at individual schools.
· Question becomes are resources following the needs of the child. If reallocated, what happens to the other schools.
Administration looks at overall resources that each school gets. The effect of this would leave three schools that do not have SAGE or Title 1 with no resources other than classroom teachers. For other schools there would be some SAGE but nothing else either. It would increase the resources available at the highest end of resource need.
· Have to recognize those areas where there is high mobility. Trust that the Task Force will be able to come up with a policy and also, based on what currently exits, give the Board ideas for resource allocations too whether or not the Board agrees.
Mr. Winston asked the Task Force members in attendance if they talked about the ERF and what their thoughts were:
Discussed at second and third meetings a little bit. Talked about general introduction to budget. The effort to provide supplementals was
respected. They liked some of the
measures being used. There was a sense
that .25 and .5 were inadequate. It was
suggested that a more realistic formula would account for more factors like single
parent/person households, struggling diverse test scores, diverse graduate
rates, discipline, etc.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED:
· Concerns with what happens between now and when the Equity Task Force finalizes its deliberations.
· Helpful to have all the information in one place, in one annual report, and prioritized by the people closest to the schools.
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Ruth Robarts to direct the Administration to follow the current equity policy to the best of their abilities until such time as the Board amends or rescinds it as recommended by the Task Force.
Discussion on the motion:
ü Would require the district to follow a normal process and pay attention to all the numbers and the signs of a struggling school.
ü Unsure of the intention of the motion. Need an objective way to identify schools and to be proactive. Policy does not get to that.
ü What is administration's interpretation of this motion if it passes:
Reporting part: administration could provide goals, objectives, strategies, timelines, part of each school's SIP, all of the test scores by school 3-8 and 10 (whether the Board wants that early snapshot or over time), and possibly include a report on suspensions (expulsions are not school specific), climate surveys, attendance. Obstacle - different data comes out at different times (e.g., attendance makes sense at the end of the year, test scores come out in April for the year before, SIPs are usually finalized in October). Administration reviews all these things and takes them very seriously and intervenes with the resources that are available. Should be able to put more resources in those schools but do not know where to get those.
ü Motion would not have financial implications for this year.
ü Uncertain about whether the Task Force will resolve questions at the point where it may affect next year's budget.
ü There was informal agreement than an annual report would help the Board:
Pros:
o Would not look at the reporting as a way of allocating resources but just as an idea of what is going on in the district.
o Some value in accumulating school by school, value as a reference guide.
o Valuable to have administration say how they want to approach things.
o Some things are already being reported (Board's three priorities).
o Do not see big issue with having a presentation.
o Allowing schools to come before the Board to say they disagree with the Superintendent and letting the Board respond.
Cons:
o That has not been the approach of the Board in the past; identifying schools that need help and those that are doing well and making a public statement.
o Very concerned about stigmatization.
o Some of these things are not easily identifiable.
o Value in waiting for a full report from the Equity Task Force.
o See some positives on reporting on individual schools but not before the Board for a public beating.
o Caution about inviting the public to lobby the Board for resources. Some people cannot or will not lobby the Board. Some people are not represented. Creates a situation, at a time when the district is under revenue caps, where schools are placed in competition with other schools.
Question was called by Lucy Mathiak.
ü Annual report would be in addition to the report that is currently done on the Board's three priorities. Timing of the annual report would be preferred prior to final decisions on the budget. Report will be a mix of school years because of the way things come out.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion carried 6-1 with Carol Carstensen voting no.
Items 5 and 6 were taken up together.
5. Equity Task Force Interim Report relative to an Equity Policy
6. Next Steps for the Madison School Board relative to Madison School Board's Equity Policy 9001 and the Equity Task Force
Mr. Winston asked the Student Representative and the Board members for their feedback regarding the Task Force's proposed definition of Equity: "Equity assures full access to opportunities for each MMSD student, resulting in educational excellence and social responsibility."
DISCUSSION:
· Hoping to ask the Task Force for some very specific recommendations about implementing their view of equity in this district.
· Definition focuses on equity rather than diversity; may want to come back to a diversity policy at some point. Would like the Task Force to give us their thoughts on factors/indicators that affect equity, not just the dollars, and what are some objective measures of need.
· Equity definition is very good.
· Task Force has heard Board concerns but looking for them to tell the Board what we should do and not to mold it around what they think the Board wants to say.
· Should go out for public comment in the name of the Task Force.
· Full access, social responsibility for the student, good improvements will roll into whatever type of equity policy results, policy may be improved or replaced, equity and equal are not the same, want it to tie in with the 17 implementation strategies.
Task Force plans to get community input on the 17 proposed strategies. Goal is to create "equity mindedness." They want to hear different interpretations.
· May get higher scrutiny on two of the implementation strategies: should not lead people to believe that Early Childhood education will be funded by the district and, with reference to mixed ability classrooms, issue has not been clarified at all levels.
There was some discussion about putting the Board's concerns in writing and whether or not the charge to the Equity Task Force needed to be amended.
The Task Force was looking for some consensus on the part of the Board that they could take back to their group.
It was the view of one of the Equity Task Force members that they were appointed as a Task Force and that their responsibility is different from administration's responsibility. What they want to do in terms of the charge is to suggest the basics for which a policy can be written. They are not experts in writing policy and should not have that responsibility. They are providing ideas, perhaps guidelines, and some thoughts that could be included in the policy statements. Policy has to be written by administration together with legal advice. The Task Force should not be involved in the nitty gritty of looking at allocation formulas because they are not experts in that area. They will get information from the public on how the public perceives equity in MMSD operations. The Task Force sees their role as policy advisory.
The Board was asked to be aware of the different sentiments on the Task Force as they formulate further clarifications. The Task Force thus far has operated by consensus, but they may not be able to as they go forward.
Board responses:
§ More than satisfied with your response to the original charge. We are looking for more. If you do not want to take that on we need to know that.
§ Agree not to have the Task Force writing policy. Agree with recommendations going back to legal counsel and the administration. Recommendations should be areas that the Board can look at for prioritization; factors that should be considered and weighed. No formulas.
§ Board will make final decisions.
§ The 17 items are not implementation. Looking for an ERF if that is what the Task Force decides to do. Board needs guidelines to implement.
§ The Board did not come to consensus about putting something in writing that was clearer nor did they feel they necessarily should modify the charge to the Task Force. Each member had different views.
The Task Force was asked to proceed with the final report based on the feedback from tonight's meeting.
FOLLOW UP: Administration can research and create a matrix of different types of formulas that other districts have used and strategies for implementation.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to adjourn the meeting at 11:14 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2006-09-18 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-10-16