Special Meeting - Open Session - January 22, 2007

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session January 22, 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 6 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lawrie Kobza, Lucy Mathiak, Ruth Robarts, Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang, Johnny Winston, Jr.

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith (arrived 6:03 p.m.)

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

LEGAL COUNSEL PRESENT: Attorney Clarence Sherrod

STAFF PRESENT: Susan Abplanalp, Jennifer Allen, Lisa Black, Shelby Floyd, Mary Gulbrandsen, Doug Johnson, Pam Nash, Art Rainwater, Ken Syke, Lisa Wachtel, Ann Wilson-Recording Secretary, Nancy Yoder

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carol Carstensen to approve the minutes of the Special Meetings dated November 20, 2006; November 27, 2006; December 4, 2006; and December 11, 2006. Motion unanimously carried.

2. Public Appearances

Bryan Grau- Provided suggestions for the Board of Education about how to communicate and provide guidance for future charter school developers. Crucial questions will be answered and budget negotiated if both parties work together cooperatively. Proposals should be advanced cooperatively.

Susan Hedrick - Although a strong supporter of the MMSD, not all children learn in the same way. Madison has a strong commitment to providing the best education possible, and the Reggio Emilia philosophy provides a wonderful place for children to grow.

Eric Howland - DANEnet is communicating with Studio School representatives about how this service might be a way to provide technology instruction. They are interested in working together and perhaps creating a test place for technology.

Ray Allen - Supports the Studio School, as he supported Nuestro Mundo, which has been very successful. Technology is tremendously important, and the funding decision becomes one of setting priorities.

Lauren Cunningham - Spoke to concerns about equity and how they might be met. She noted that interest in the school has been very positive and that research shows diversity improves every year.

Cliff Cunningham - Noted the variety of choices he makes every day but has no choice in child's education. Other districts provide choice. Choice shows no cultural or ethnic balance; parents choose schools they believe are best for their children.

Kristina Navarro-Haffner - Supported new avenues for student learning. Equity aligns with the concepts of the Studio School but has to begin on a small scale; should not stop innovation. Success of Nuestro Mundo compels expansion and creation of other opportunities.

Jennifer Conn - Studio School is an innovative partnership that can foster more partnerships with community organizations. Money is available for an opportunity that is otherwise lost. Will serve all children and could attract new families.

Debora Gil Casado - Concerned that budget is so difficult to understand. Hard to identify costs of an imbedded school. Part of the purpose of an imbedded school is to cut costs. Movement of children in the school would result in the only extra costs being for the Studio School staff. Transportation costs are dependent on which area the district wants to open; parents would be responsible for their own transportation.

Kim Stalker-Herron - The Studio School approach is not already implemented in the district schools. Some teachers may use some of the methods, but the process is different. Is an approach that respects children and helps them learn to think. Needs to be observed to be understood.

Kristin Forde - Consensus from people she has talked with across Madison is that the district needs to innovate. There is a cultural gap between the school system and the community, particularly the community of color. The Studio School model offers a potential bridge, an opportunity from which the district can learn.

Brenda Baker - representing Madison Children's Museum - Spoke about how the Reggio Emilia approach is incorporated by the Museum and that it is commonly used by Museum schools. Children with artistic sense would thrive under this type of approach.

Karin Wolf - Expect to hear from Board members concerns about budget and research. Do not expect receptive attitude or open-minded response. Hope Board members make the effort to visit Reggio Emilia programs and talk with administrators of K-5 Reggio schools.

Sigrid Shoepall - Read a statement for Mary Hoefferle, doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, who shared her struggles as an art teacher with curriculum and schedules. With all the cuts to the arts, the Studio School could demonstrate what might happen with an emphasis on the arts. Without progressive ideas and schools, communities cannot grow.

Lisa McGuffey - Read a statement of support for the Studio School from an arts education staff member from the Sheboygan school district.

Senn Brown - Executive director of the Wisconsin Charter School program - Many parallels with early concerns about Nuestro Mundo - too costly, lacks research. Also a difference - the Board does not have information yet about the future of the state budget but has the ability to change the date in board policy for reporting intention to the state department.

Peter Munoz - Share the pain of budgets, but it is important to make sound educational decisions. Great value in finding niches for students and the community. Try to find avenues for children who do not fit the norm. Have the potential to channel bright students to projects beneficial to society.

There were 13 written registrations in support of the Studio School charter school proposal.

3. Announcements

Johnny Winston, Jr. congratulated La Follette High School senior, Denise Jackson, for advancing to Hollywood to compete on the television show, American Idol. He also congratulated award winners, participants, organizations, students, and community members for participating in Martin Luther King, Jr. birthday celebrations and for keeping Dr. King's dream alive.

4. Proposed StudioCharterSchool

(Written materials provided in advance of the meeting: Memorandum from Art Rainwater dated 1/18/07 re: The Studio School Proposal; an Administrative analysis of the Studio School (1/18/07); Board of Education Policy 1000 - charter Schools (3/10/03); a chart of elementary recommended instructional time (1/04); proposed Studio Charter School 5 year expense budget (1/16/07); a proposed Studio Charter School 5 year revenue budget (1/16/07); and Studio School proposal assumptions and questions (1/16/07). Materials used at the meeting but not distributed - PowerPoint presentation—The Studio School: MMSD Administrative Analysis and Recommendations (1/22/07) - all attached to the original copy of these minutes.)

Art Rainwater stated the document presented represents the Administration's analysis and recommendation based on the Studio School proposal as submitted. In response to comparisons made by speakers during the public appearances portion of the agenda to the proposal submitted for the Nuestro Mundo charter school, he believed that each charter school proposal should be evaluated on its own merit and not in comparison with other charter proposals. However, because those comparisons are being made, he noted that important differences between this proposal and the Nuestro Mundo proposal are: the Nuestro Mundo proposal was very detailed and complete, substantial research exists for dual language immersion programs, there were no concerns about curriculum, and the district's ESL staff believed the curriculum represented a good approach to learning. The administration originally had concerns about whether the prescribed program enrollment could be maintained over the long run (five-year program), and the cost (not originally designed as an imbedded program). The Studio School proposal was not submitted with the charter school as an imbedded program and was analyzed by staff on that basis. The recommendations of the administration are: (a) to not implement a Reggio Emilia model in a K-5 elementary school until more research supports this pre-school model as a viable K-5 program; (b) not to begin another charter school in the MMSD at this time because of budgetary constraints; and (c) not to begin or implement the proposed Studio School until recommendations (a) and (b) are considered and many required components of a charter school proposal are fully described or provided.

Elementary Assistant Superintendent Susan Abplanalp presented the administrative analysis and recommendations (a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached to the original of these minutes). She reviewed the major components of the proposed charter school and provided detailed information about challenges faced by the district in implementing the proposal. These challenges were in the areas of the research base, administrative staffing, instructional staffing, admission of students, budget, and components of the plan yet to be developed.

DISCUSSION:

· DPI and teacher collective bargaining waivers are components to be developed for Studio School charter. No waivers were requested for Nuestro Mundo charter.

· Potential obligations for transportation if the school location is changed in the future. Not certain whether substitutes will be required for teacher planning time.

· Concern about meaningful access (allocation too low to be effective) for support staff. (M. Gulbrandsen--Support staff are allocated in a similar way across the District; the same situation appears in many schools).

· Not certain whether any current district staff members are Reggio Emilia trained; some have expressed interest in learning about the approach.

· Concern about space availability in elementary schools and the possibility that long range planning discussions may result in changes in the amount of space that is currently available. (S. Abplanalp, M. Gulbrandsen - space may continue to be available at Emerson, probably certain at Lowell.)

· Budget scenario is different now than it was when Nuestro Mundo was being considered. Superintendent's responsibility is to analyze and present recommendations. Believe proposal could be changed if Studio School and administration worked together. Becomes an issue of priority and what the Board believes are in the best interests of the district.

· Agree with budgetary concerns and the importance of sharing a thorough analysis with the community. Need to work with the community; innovation can bring support, and financial support. Fundamentals of district responsibility are the same for all charter proposals; hear overwhelming response from the district about reasons for not approving this proposal. Only way to resolve is to direct administration to work with Studio School representatives to develop a plan that minimally could be implemented and, at the maximum, might generate revenue. An appropriate way to go forward would be to bring back a list of agreements that cannot be reached. Consideration needs to be given during this process to space in schools and potential shifts in those situations.

· See an adversarial relationship between district staff and charter school proponents. At minimum, proposal must reflect neutral cost; it cannot represent any added cost. Currently looking at class size reduction proposal; can't take allocation away from schools to give to a new school.

· Budget is of most concern. Agree innovation is important, but budget responsibility supersedes that. Need to provide for the majority of students.

It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. that the Board of Education direct the administration to work with Studio School proponents on a report to be presented to the Board in February on a plan that must include these components: (a) maximum revenue that could be generated by aspects of the proposal, (b) process for inclusion and involvement of the full range of students (low income, students of color, English Language Learners), and (c) both a proposal for a plan that is cost neutral and one that is close to that. The report also must identify those areas in which the parties cannot come to agreement.

DISCUSSION:

· Have not asked current staff to submit their dreams and planning because there are no resources to support their requests. Are faced with decreasing allocations for small class size and increasing loads for specials. Can't in good conscience consider a charter for a small number of students. Should focus on needs of all 25,000 students and providing resources so that current staff can do their best job. There are lots of exciting ideas - expand Nuestro Mundo, provide foreign language, increase specials allocations and integrate with classroom teachers. Difficult to make any commitment until state and district budgets are known.

· Concern about approving a plan that results in lowest student/teacher ratio of all schools. Would like to see collaboration between district and Studio School that brings staffing ratios into alignment with district schools. Would like to see siting plan that makes a long-term commitment to the district. Need a revised plan that includes costs for substitutes and transportation. Need to see fiscal plan beyond first two years.

The chair asked Ms. Robarts whether she would consider suggestions to include more information about the site for the proposed charter school and any associated costs and information about bringing student/staff ratios into alignment with current district ratios in the report to be prepared by the administration as a friendly amendment. Ms. Robarts responded she would not consider that a friendly amendment. Her purpose for making the motion was to answer some "threshold" questions. The site for the charter school in the future would be addressed by ongoing decisions coming before the Board of Education about the future of the school. Other questions would be addressed by the development of a cost-neutral proposal. Ms. Robarts indicated she would accept as friendly an amendment to include in the motion that the proposal for a plan also address bringing teacher/student ratios into alignment with district elementary schools of similar composition. The seconder, Johnny Winston, Jr., also accepted this as friendly.

DISCUSSION:

· Concern that by making proposal cost neutral, proposal may lose innovative aspect. Need to preserve model.

· Feasible for one principal to serve both the district and the charter school, particularly in an under capacity school. Principals are capable of learning and supporting new curriculum.

· Dual reporting is difficult. Instructional leader must fully understand and be fully committed to make the program successful.

· Not acceptable to compromise program. Full discussion of the value of the curriculum needs to be woven in the decision-making process.

· Cannot support reducing administration.

Ruth Robarts called the question. Student representative advisory vote - aye. The main motion as amended carried 6-1 with Carol Carstensen voting no.

FOLLOW-UP:

· Attorney Sherrod recommended action at the next meeting to change the language in the Charter School policy so that the Board of Education would notify the State Superintendent of Public Instruction by March 1 (instead of February 1) of its intention to establish a charter school for the following school year.

There was a break from 8:15 to 8:20 p.m.

5. Superintendent's Math Goal for the MMSD

(Written materials provided in advance of the meeting: Memorandum from Art Rainwater dated 1/19/07 re: Implementation of Superintendent's Goal for Mathematics - Revision; Draft Charge to the Task Force on Reviewing the District Mathematics Instructional System, Formation of a MMSD/University Partnership to Advise the Superintendent, and a Proposal to NSF for Research Support dated 1/17/07 - all attached to the original copy of these minutes.)

Due to shortness to time, the Superintendent did not present or discuss the information provided in the written materials. In response to a question, he provided information about what a National Science Foundation study would entail and that the purpose for applying for a grant for such a study would be to cover the cost of experts who would agree to serve on the Task Force. The Board of Education would make all decisions about the scope of the study (e.g., who would serve on the Task Force, a preliminary outline, the timeline, etc.).

Mr. Rainwater noted the draft of the charge to the Task Force. In light of the development of the possibility for a NSF grant, he requested that the Board of Education extend the Superintendent's first goal for the 2006-07 school year relating to a study of the District's mathematics program to include the 2007-08 school year.

DISCUSSION:

· The goal - analysis of math achievement data for MMSD K-12 students, including analysis of all math sub-test scores disaggregated by student characteristics and schools - would not be met if the timeline was extended into next school year. If the analysis is not provided within the timeline of this one-year evaluation, the analysis would not be useful. No report or information will be provided for this year about how district students are doing in math.

· Represents a change in focus from a school district evaluation to a national level study. This goes beyond the fundamental issues about how school district students are performing and brings the study to a much larger setting that is not of concern. Need to assure that all MMSD students are learning the math they need to learn. Concern that advice would be given by university faculty who already support the current curriculum. Not prepared to extend the timeline for the study but, rather, to proceed with review and assessment of the district's math curriculum as articulated. Amenable to conducting a NSF study on the side, but not as part of the goal. Strong objection to goal being manipulated; not the process that was discussed. Not an independent and neutral study when spearheaded by direct advocates for district curriculum.

· An in-depth study would provide more specific information that may be useful. There is value in being able to draw conclusions from data that is presented. There could be a look at subtests and development of questions that would interpret data. It would provide the framework for funding research to answer questions asked by the Board.

· Extension would not be at the expense of the original goal. Always good to have additional data. See advantage; opportunity to get much more information.

Superintendent Rainwater responded the proposed plan is designed to meet the goal in question - analysis of math achievement data for MMSD K-12 students, including analysis of all math sub-test scores disaggregated by student characteristics and schools - and in fact goes much deeper and provides a more valuable analysis. The district would, regardless of this study, provide the school-by-school, standard-by-standard results of WKCE testing as soon as they are available. It was not provided in the past because this will be the first year it is available.

Mr. Rainwater reviewed the series of events that led to the idea of seeking a National Science Foundation grant (as described on page 2 of the memorandum from Art Rainwater dated 1/19/07 re: Implementation of Superintendent's Goal for Mathematics - Revision, attached to the original copy of these minutes.) He said that he, in good faith, approached Professor Millar because of his experience in designing a NSF proposal that would provide funding for the study. He did not propose that Dr. Millar or anyone else be selected to participate on the Task Force. Mr. Rainwater indicated that he would be willing to withdraw the proposal for a NSF study, waive his right to select any Task Force member, and complete the evaluation within this school year if that is the desire of the Board of Education.

It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Ruth Robarts to approve the revised plan for implementation of the Superintendent's 2006-07 goal to initiate and complete a comprehensive, independent, and neutral review and assessment of the District's K-12 math curriculum as presented at this meeting, including extension for completion of the evaluation to the 2007-08 school year. The Board of Education shall receive a report in 2006-07 with analysis of math achievement data for MMSD K-12 students, including analysis of all math sub-test scores disaggregated by student characteristics and schools in addition to reports in subsequent years. Student representative advisory vote - aye. Motion carried 6-1 with Lucy Mathiak voting no.

6. Other Business

There was no other business.

7. Adjournment

It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.

Previous: 2007-01-16 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-01-29

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2007-01-16 \|\| Special Meeting - Open Session \|\| Next: 2007-01-29