Special Meeting - Open Session - October 16, 2006

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session October 16, 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 6:05 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lawrie Kobza, Lucy Mathiak (left at 8:25 p.m.), Ruth Robarts (left 8:24 p.m.), Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang (arrived 6:07 p.m.), Johnny Winston, Jr.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES

PRESENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Pam Nash, Doug Pearson, Roger Price, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary

OPEN SESSION - Auditorium

1. Approval of Minutes

There were no minutes to approve.

2. Public Appearances

Barb Schrank (no registration slip was submitted) referred to the Superintendent's proposal made last spring for the music program that involved restructuring grades K-5 and changes to the instrumental portion of the program. She understood that the Board rejected parts of that proposal that would have reduced in 2006-07 and then eliminated strings in 2007-08. She thought the decision was made to go forward with instrumental two times per week in the 5^th grade and also pilot a program at Emerson, which is underway, for instrumental and general music. She came to learn recently that there is a planning group underway with the title of "Elementary School Design Team." She stated that all of the membership of the design team are general music teachers (some may have joint licenses) but she felt the information shared with the team should have gone out to some instrumental teachers and did not. She added that the first piece of information that was shared at the October 13 meeting was a review of elementary level strings program data.

Shwaw Vang arrived at this time.

The Superintendent responded that there is a design team looking at the general music program. They are looking at the structure of general music program. It has nothing to do with strings at all. Generally, he does not restrict what the teams look at. He was not part of the meeting but would look into why the team was looking at enrollment data because everyone takes general music and why they were bringing the strings program into the discussion at all.

Discussion:

· If it is true that the redesign team includes no instrumental music people that would say that this activity is not in line with the Board's decisions to continue these programs and evaluate them carefully and try the one-year pilot.

· Concerned about this going forward when the Performance and Achievement Committee is going forward with a task force to look at fine arts at all levels.

· Who is on the team, who is not, and why off.

· Also concerned that internal design teams have the impact of shutting out the Board until all things are analyzed - do not know what is under discussion. That process is very likely to leave the Board where it has been year after year. Bothersome that this is where the committee would start. Who is on it, what is its charge, and what is the Board's role?

· The Superintendent indicated that he saw this as the same process as with the Middle School Design Team interim reports. He pointed out that it would be difficult to make changes as a staff that need to be made with the purview of the Superintendent going through this every time. The Board can initiate everything or direct the Administration on what to do. How the District is going to approach curriculum change and instructional pedagogy change needs to be decided. The Board can define that role.

The Design Team will report back on what to do with general music and not strings. The purpose is to focus on the general music program. Triggers can come from anywhere with the staff but generally come from the data. The documents will be modified to clarify that the team is assessing general music only. There are representatives who have multiple licenses and who come from the middle and high school levels.

The Performance and Achievement Committee will be looking at the broader fine arts curriculum. This design is team looking at a specified smaller part. Both of these will be going on at the same time.

3. Announcements

There were no announcements.

4. Financial Transactions

It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Arlene Silveira that the proposal of $19,840.00 from Solar Mining for a solar water heater at Lapham Elementary School be approved with funding from the State Focus on Energy Grant, MSCR, and the General Operating Budget.

Discussion:

· Last meeting discussed who should be paying for the pool - MSCR or the district.

o MSCR pays $7,800 and District's operating costs are $4,600.

o MSCR use 3-8:30 p.m. 800).

o Uses: MSCR's use, infant use, therapeutic pool.

o Importance to Lapham community.

o Ideas for ways to increase use.

o Cost of collecting fees for the use of other district facilities, e.g., stadiums, softball diamonds, etc.

o Staff after schools close; no change year round. Custodial requirements for approved permitted events. Moved 7.5 custodial positions onto Fund 80 to cover after school events. Cost of pool does not include extra custodial fees; based on square feet of cleaning.

A substitute motion was made by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Ruth Robarts to fund the solar water heater at Lapham Elementary School in the amount of $19,840.00 from Solar Mining with funding from the State Focus on Energy Grant and the remaining costs to be funded by MSCR. Motion unanimously carried.

FOLLOW UP: Administration will provide a daily schedule for use of the Lapham pool.

5. Superintendent's Goals Report

(Packets included the report dated June 29, 2006. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

The Superintendent had presented the report in some detail at a prior meeting. More information was given on Goals 2-4.

Goal 2 - How the District proposes to improve progress on the math goal, including ways to measure annual progress at specific elementary and middle school grades, as well as 9^th and 10^th grades.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

· Math coach concept. Areas of expertise.

· Budget with and without hiring a math coordinator.

· Report from National Math Council misconstrued by newspaper.

· Administrative Leadership - Opinions about approaches to teaching math and hiring people who understand what they are going to teach and the research-based pedagogy.

· Teachers do have access to other kinds of curriculum.

· Culture - does not require additional staff. Describes the District's approach in the classroom and kinds of supervision.

· Summer school is self-supporting.

· Report on how prepared students are after high school for higher education mathematics.

· Discussion of debate on math pedagogy.

· MMSD math program is standards driven; balanced approach. Strives for consistency across the schools.

· Teaching and Learning Department roles - approach and teaching teachers.

· Support of proposal for next year's performance goals if hard data supplied that shows CGI is making positive changes, that math coaches are effective and the District should have many more of them, and improving progress towards the algebra completion goals by the end of 9^th grade by ESL, Special Education, low-income students, African American, and Hispanic students.

· Key - consistent testing over the last three years (state test kept changing). This is the first year having math coaches. Not much debate around staff development itself.

· Skepticism relative to training all teachers in a particular method.

· Perception in the community and the district about math coaches as "cops." Not necessarily well received but feel reassured to have more neutral and broad-ranging assessment for the transition periods from 8^th to 9^th grade and elementary to middle school.

· District needs to prove it is right; needs evidence in this report. There is pressure to go along with the curriculum that some people do not find effective. Hear that there are different ways to get at the transitional changes. Would like to include people who are critical of the approaches. Do not want to stop this, but there are lots of opinions on campus. Would like to set up a mutual and broad-ranging evaluation of the math program.

The Superintendent was glad to respond and asked for the names of the people the Board members are hearing from. Volunteers would be most welcome (district has no ability to pay anyone). He also noted that it was important to stay the course. The administration has been intimately involved with some of the top math researchers in the country.

There was consensus to schedule an executive session meeting for the Board to discuss the Superintendent's Goals Report and goals of the Board Members for the Superintendent and the District.

FOLLOW UP: Provide copy of statement from Wisconsin State Journal regarding report from the National Math Council.

Goal 3 - A Proposal for an Administrative Intern Professional Development Program.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

· Really straightforward. Appreciate the way two high school incidents were handled today.

· No cost related to the people; voluntary program.

· Possibility for participants to get credit for this in the administrative certification depends on the university they are working with and they would probably have to pay the tuition (the district does not pay the tuition).

· Additional time with full-time position at a school - 9.5 days out of the classroom.

· Very much the same as the Grow Your Own Principal (GYOP) program in terms of identifying candidates, qualifications, etc.

· Importance of leadership in the schools. People of color are encouraged to apply in order to increase this representation.

· Summer school goal of having at least two minority administrators has been successful so far. People must be willing to do it. There is a rotation set up now.

· Current principals came after the GYOP program. Most came up through the ranks.

· Would add "...at the discretion of the Superintendent...." at the end if the candidate has not yet earned the 18 hours.

· Any amendments can be made if the Board decides to implement.

Goal 4- Partnerships

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

· Reviewed at the previous meeting.

· Add to the mid-year report the school-level partnerships and try to be little clearer about criteria for a partnership.

Lawrie Kobza and the staff left at this time.

Recessed at 8:15 p.m.

Reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

6. Superintendent's Goals for the 2006-07 School Year

DISCUSSION:

· Set some goals but no parameters for goals; have several alternatives for many of them that the Board will still have to discuss. Evaluate the extent to which this document meets the Board's expectations.

· The letter of the goals has been met.

Ruth Robarts and Lucy Mathiak left at this time.

· Importance of moving forward. Agendas are very filled. Concerned about keeping this out even longer.

FOLLOW UP: Mr. Winston will try to get this item scheduled as soon as possible.

7. Other Business

There was no other business.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

8. Evaluation of the Superintendent's Performance

Item deferred to another meeting.

9. Adjournment

It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Shwaw Vang to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Motion unanimously carried by those present.

Previous: 2006-09-25 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2006-10-30

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2006-09-25 \|\| Special Meeting - Open Session \|\| Next: 2006-10-30