| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2006-12-18 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-01-22 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session January 16, 2007 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Johnny Winston, Jr. at 7:40 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, Art Rainwater, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Arlene Silveira to approve the minutes of the Special meeting in open session dated November 20, 2006 as distributed. Motion unanimously carried.
2. Announcements
There were no announcements.
3. Positive Student Behavior in Safe and Secure Schools and the Impact it has on Board Policy 4502 - the Student Code of Conduct
(Packets included a memorandum giving an overview of the work over the last four years (1/11/07). A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Ms. Gulbrandsen reported that there have been very good discussions with the principals on all the concepts. Everyone agrees that the introduction to the Code of Conduct needs revision so they are looking at that. They also discussed re-categorizing the 79 behaviors into those that should be in school rules vs. policy and some that should be thrown out all together. As they come back to the Board, elementary will probably be different than secondary. The Board had suggested looking at the Wisconsin Sentencing Guidelines for when there is an expulsion or a serious misbehavior. A grid or matrix could be developed that would allow people to figure out a consequence. Standards they use are the severity of the offense, what kind of harm was caused, and whether there are any aggravating factors. They secondarily look at risk factors - age of the child, how many offenses they have, mental and physical health, and AODA issues. Administration will come back with a beginning grid. Does the Board want to use the WisconsinSentencing Guidelines or have the Administration look at it first? Ms. Gulbrandsen offered to share the matrix with the Board.
DISCUSSION:
· Would like more information on the nature and range of security and safety problems, serious misconduct problems that the district has at all levels. How many times police are called or how many times they come. Why principals are proposing these changes.
· Support the information request. Need direct connection with what is going on in the schools. Prefer that the administration pulls the information together. Invite some principals to the meeting when it is reviewed.
· Agree about the information. Matrix would help with expulsion decisions - sentencing guidelines. Staff should go ahead while the Board is reviewing the other information.
· Break down information by ethnicity and reason.
· Police report information needs to be culled down to incidents during the school day and only those related to student behavior.
· Agree that it would be helpful to have a matrix for expulsions. Want to recalibrate what it is that would qualify as kind of behavior for taking a child out of school for a period of time.
· Consider categorizing the behavior parameters. Might lend itself to the development of the matrix.
· Would like a summary of the climate surveys - do staff and students feel safe - different from one school to another.
· Things that are not rules and sanctions that could help. Hold public discussion about open lunch periods, etc. Get feedback from EROs. Generate ideas about other alternatives (e.g., surveillance cameras or people doing things differently, non-harassment codes, etc.)
FOLLOW UP: Provide last year's police report. Provide suspension report - reason and by school over time. Provide climate surveys and Dane County Youth Survey.
Sue Abplanalp, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools, reviewed the initiatives in the elementary schools around building positive student behavior support systems, redesigning the Code of Conduct for the K-5 grade levels, the professional development plan, and timeline for future work in the initiative. She described their "Guidelines for Schools," the model for "Above the Line," "Below the Line," and "Bottom Line" behaviors and how the schools develop school-wide strategies for teaching students to stay above the line. She also reviewed the "Fix-It" plans for the students to fill out and follow.
Joe Carlsmith left at this time.
She gave a status of the elementary schools and where they are with respect to the in-depth training with Ron Lott from Staff Development. Her goal is to have all the elementary schools participated in the team planning and have fully implemented systems by the fall of 2007. The initial work and future work of redesigning the Code of Conduct at the elementary school level will be brought back to the principal work group. This is where the categorization will take place.
DISCUSSION:
o Importance of categorizing the Code, keeping the children in school, and making the Code more applicable.
o Issue of giving more latitude to the principals on what they are suspending or expelling students for and building more disparity in the system, particularly for serious offenses. Needs Board discussion.
o Overall goal is to reduce the number of suspensions. Most expulsions are for very serious things. Moving from a punitive culture to one that is positive and teaches kids what good behaviors are and gives them the opportunity for restorative justice - and to be consistent across the district because the students are so mobile.
o Examples of when teachers feel unsafe are the Levels 3 and 4 of the Code, e.g., unprovoked pushing, fighting. Teacher dependent. Some sexual acting out too and bringing in controlled substances. Some kids are mentally ill and go into rages; different situation.
o Want to use rational, safe approaches; some are situational.
o Plan has to also address the disproportionate suspension of children of color; teacher training on the cultural aspect.
o How is buy in of staff - process starts out with what people believe in; the list is almost 98% true across the district right away. Allows for those kinds of conversations and consistency comes from that training. Sometimes it is the totality of the child around which conversation is needed.
o Vast majority of things on the Code of Conduct are handled by the teacher. A small percentage of teachers send kids to the office. Level 1s should be sent back to the classroom. It is a different situation at the upper levels.
Pam Nash, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, began the middle and high school conversations this summer. Conversations since then have gone along the lines like the elementary school principals. The principals thought it great to have a template around which to build, that it is very comforting to know the parameters, they are very interested in clarity and are focused more on rules as barriers to accessing education. Administration was very happy to hear positive response on the part of all of those groups and to have them recognize the developmental stages of kids. Want to look at reasons and relationships. Many have never sent a kid out of their classroom. These conversations will continue along those lines. There is high interest in something other than suspension (low level technology). As time permits, those conversations will continue.
The Superintendent added that it is important, particularly at the high schools; some of the suspendable behaviors get people fired in the work world. Students have an obligation to learn how you behave with other people where there will be authority figures. One of the keys things is that the classrooms are quite successful; it is the passing time, playgrounds, etc., that are more difficult.
DISCUSSION:
Ø Very encouraged. Two things - longstanding issue to what extent how are we teaching our staff to de-escalate. Those who are not having success with classroom control have issues with how they handle things. Also, still think there is a big issue of buy-in because it is around the issue of personal safety. Each staff person defines this differently.
Ø Until we do a better job of training, all staff will not get better.
Ø Not sure if data is available to us - teachers get harassment injunctions. Administration will provide that information. Goals are to reduce suspensions and make schools safer. Can measure what is imperiling safety - two things - number of fights decreasing as a result of working with kids and is recidivism decreasing. Would like to know the baseline now.
Ø Teaching kids a set of expectations very explicitly.
Ø Good that we are talking about discipline and no one is talking about metal detectors, etc. Littering has to do with price and self-respect. Bullying, truancy, and the glamorization of fighting require something bigger. Attendance is part and parcel of the whole thing. Are their discussions beyond the Code of Conduct? People's minds are expanding. Seem to come back to the education piece. That is where discussion is landing.
Ø Many changes have already been instituted in truancy.
Ø There will be some Code of Conduct work this spring - sanction matrix first draft in six weeks. Do not want to throw out the Code of Conduct. Safety and security have to come first. Hope to have the rules for the handbooks this summer. It will be ongoing with all principal groups. Staff development for the fall is all around race and equity for kids. May see a revised Code of Conduct for the different levels right around April.
Ø Expulsions of 50 students were for very serious things. Suspensions are where we are struggling and with insubordination the most. Need to figure out how to work with both adults and kids.
Ø Take a school that is doing better and look at that more broadly.
Ø Mr. Vang hoped to be in the conversations about suspensions before his term is up.
FOLLOW UP: Check in with Bert Zipperer at East and the exercise they did at East with the dots on relationship levels (some have done this exercise then the opposite trying to locate the isolate).
4. It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carol Carstensen that the proposed timeline for naming the new school at the LindenParksite be approved as presented in Appendix 1.
(Packets included a proposed timeline labeled Appendix 1. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
DISCUSSION:
§ Mr. Vang hoped to be able to vote on this item as well before his term is up.
§ Why does it have to go through the Long Range Planning Committee? It is Board policy.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to waive the requirement to go to a committee for recommendation of the Board and move the decision up so that Mr. Vang and Ms. Robarts can participate in the naming of the new school. The Superintendent's recommendation would come to the full Board on March 29, 2007. Motion unanimously carried.
5. Hiring a Consultant to Assist the Board relative to the Selection of a New Superintendent
Mr. Rainwater reported that he met with the Board Officers. The first step is to decide about whether or not a consultant should be hired. If the Board decides that they do, the Administration is in the process of preparing a request for proposal for the Board's review and request for qualifications. The Administration would prepare a process or ask the consulting firm to tell the Board how they would do it. A list could be developed of several firms to determine who the Board would want to invite to reply. Some time toward the end of February the Administration will get back to the Board.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Ruth Robarts to hire a consultant relative to the hiring of a new Superintendent. Motion unanimously carried.
DISCUSSION:
Ø Advantageous in this community to appoint a citizen advisory committee once the Board gets to the point of reviewing applications and conducting interviews and such. The consultant can help with this matter.
Ø Partly agree but one challenge is creating a process where participants and committee do not come away tainted. Can discus this issue with the consultant.
6. Other Business
There was no other business.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Shwaw Vang to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.
bl
Previous: 2006-12-18 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-01-22