Special Meeting - Open Session - April 16, 2007

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session April 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 5:07 p.m.

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

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE

PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Frank Crisafi, Mary Gulbrandsen, Steve Hartley, Pam Nash, Roger Price, Art Rainwater, Clarence Sherrod, Marcia Standiford, Ken Syke, Lisa Wachtel, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Members-elect Maya Cole and Beth Moss

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Shwaw Vang to approve the minutes of the Special Meetings dated March 12, March 28, and April 9, 2007as distributed. Student representative advisory vote - aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.

2. Announcements

There were no announcements.

3. Recognition of Retiring Board Members

Ruth Robarts and Shwaw Vang were presented with some gifts. People from the audience and the fellow board members expressed their gratitude for their years of service to the district. Some specific issues were mentioned and the roles played by Ms. Robarts and Mr. Vang. Ms. Robarts and Mr. Vang also made some parting comments.

4. Appointment of the Members of the MMSD Mathematics Task Force

(Packets included a background memorandum from Art Rainwater (3/29/07); a cover memorandum regarding the final proposal for funding and notice of the first two preparatory meetings (4/12/07); and the District Mathematics Instructional System Evaluation and Case Study to the national Science Foundation from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (3/07). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

The Superintendent introduced Mr. Lewis and Mr. Price as the people he would be recommending as co-chairs of the Math Task Force. He invited them to come to this meeting to give them the opportunity to provide the board with information about the district's current status with mathematics and to allow the board to ask questions and state what they would like to get out of the Task Force.

Mr. Rainwater explained that this began with the formulation of his performance goal related to looking at the district's mathematic curriculum and the performance of students on the district's current curriculum. This undertaking would be in-depth and very neutral study. The district has applied for National Science Foundation (NSF) funding to fund the Task Force. The members would be made up of people who are very neutral on this issue. He looked at it as much broader than the textbooks that are used but also to study what is being learned, issues around instruction and how children learn, assessments, and staff development. The approach is to be broad-based including mathematicians, math educators, and educational policy. The task force will determine where they go. The Superintendent and his staff would not be involved in the process, but Lisa Wachtel and Brian Sniff will be points of contract to get information from the administration.

The first part of the study addresses the superintendent's goals. The second part is a case study about why the National Science Foundation (NSF) will fund this Task Force work. The task force will look at the impact on the community and that will inform the national discussion. The Task Force will start with the charge from the Board. He saw it as a dynamic process and he has asked the co-chairs that wherever the data takes them that is where the need to go. He saw the board as active in that process. The co-chairs can come to the board at decision points, not the administration. They might add other people and they can recommend people as permanent members or consultants. This is a starting point.

Three board members attended the first two task force meetings and were invited to share what they learned.

The co-chairs described their credentials and concurred that all school districts are struggling with this now.

Jim Lewis, professor of mathematics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Merle Price, deputy superintendent for instruction for the Los Angeles Unified School District; were present to address specific research questions to be pursued to satisfy the charge to the Task Force. The Superintendent was recommending that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Price be appointed as co-chairs and was seeking board approval of the other members of the Task Force that had been identified and recruited.

Issues/Concerns/Questions:

Ø Mathematics curriculum approaches have to address all students, those who are very advanced to those who struggle with it.

Ø No other districts are involved in this project.

Ø Glad the co-chairs are interested in learning about the district's community and see their roles as facilitators.

Ø How the task force plans to work directly with students during the process rather than through the board.

It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Arlene Silveira to approve the following composition of the Task Force on Mathematics for the MMSD and still-to-be-named K-12 teacher and parent (names will be submitted to the Board of Education for approval when appointed):

Jim Lewis, co-chair, Mathematician

Merle Price, co-chair, Educational Policy

Norman Webb, Mathematics Educator and Evaluator

Martha Alibali, Cognitive Scientist

David Griffeath, Mathematician

Eric Knuth, Mathematics Education Researcher

Mitchell Nathan, Cognitive Scientist

Ken Zeichner, University Teacher Education Expert

Issues/Concerns/Questions (continued):

Ø Need to look at how much is invested in the theory of mathematics and mathematics itself.

Ø University parents come down hard on the district.

Ø Demographics changing so drastically hard to get a grip on educating kids in the classroom of very broad extremes. Do not want to select courses but do want to evaluate and assess and see where to put resources.

Ø When the grant is secure, the task force will craft specific research questions.

Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

Items 5 and 6 were taken up together.

5. Process and Procedure the MMSD Task Force may use to Reply to its Charge of Evaluating the Effectiveness of the MMSD Mathematics Curriculum and Other Elements of the Mathematics Instructional System Affecting Student Achievement

6. Superintendent's Performance Goal regarding the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the MMSD Mathematics Curriculum and Other Elements of the Mathematics Instructional System Affecting Student Achievement

v Look at high performing, high poverty, minority schools and the significance of the amount of time that students have to work on mathematics.

v Makes sense to look at type of curriculum and expertise of staff but constrained by time commitments to do math. Would you recommend different curriculum and time?

v Greatest constraint is trying to avoid being all things to all people. Is the Board willing to pay the price to cut something out?

v Understand economic and collective bargaining issues--how much time should be put into teacher training vs. time on task.

v Elementary and middle school curricula very language-based. Students having trouble with reading are hurting in math. Would be interested in seeing something about those ties and how curriculum fits with that.

v Would like to see an option for high school students to be separated for whatever they want to go on to do after high school. Different paths for different kids may be needed.

v Very important to have curriculum that addresses the achievement gap but not at the expense of high achievers or the middle group.

v Have to have something that determines the effectiveness of what we are doing - language or academic issue or whatever the case may be. Should track the effectiveness of our programs once the student leaves the district no matter what their path is. Different schools do things differently; have to weigh that when tracking how our programs are working right now.

v Would be interested in having a math program that is consistent so that when students transition into middle school they will be able to make that connection from 5^th to 6^th grade even if they go to a different school. Mobility is an issue in Madison. Also want to have some flexibility for different learning styles but want some consistency.

v Address high proportion of special education students and how successful we are being with that.

v District is looking at raising class size. Compare how successful those programs are and those that are still at 15:1 ratio.

v Look at role of math specialists.

v Look at how our students fare whether in traditional curriculum like algebra, pre-algebra or core-plus curriculum. How do they fare from middle to high school and also when they transition from high school to a post-secondary setting like MATC. See if there is any type of relationship between this and science performance; how does success in math and math concepts impact abilities to succeed in other areas.

v Science sequence at the high schools.

v Would like to create a culture in our district where math is not considered a "difficult subject" but something students and staff can succeed at and have fun with.

v Need community buy-in; up front is best.

v Clarification of the charge - overview of math curricula including Madison's own math curricula.

v Intent is not to focus on just what Madison does but other options that address our needs and to evaluate those other options.

v Show how Madison's curriculum compares to other curricula.

v Really looking for assistance from people who think about what kids need to know and how you effectively teach it and how these different models stack up. Helpful to know what the parents are talking about--strengths and weaknesses and ramifications when we adopt a particular approach.

v Unlikely that standards will fit with one text.

v Intent of the charge is to be open-ended. Need to know that we are on the right path.

v MATC good resource for you. They do have information on testing kids who come into the school. They also offer remedial math.

v Board can increase the number of classes that have to be taken. This is another version of time on task and would have fiscal implications.

v Qualified math teacher shortage is an issue.

v Hope these come out in the report in a prioritized way. What is the best approach, where does the current approach fit. Costs in "x" ways and how to fit that into a scale.

v We are in the beginning stages of a large grant with WCER group. This type of bridge program from 8^th to 9^th grade addresses mathematics and psychology around confidence in doing math and technology support with that.

v Hear from students at West that the program is specific to one type of learning style. Need to tailor curricula to different learning styles.

v Very interested in looking at kids post-secondary where they are going. Are we preparing them for successful life whatever that is.

v Need to invite whoever to the task force early on. Encourage you to contact business leaders and MATC.

v Have to address technology aspect of it (virtual learning). Do not want to get too far into that process without knowing what is best for us.

v How to assess professional development.

v Need to know where to put our resources.

v Interested in closing the achievement gap and what measures we can use when it comes to disaggregating the data.

v Need a policy in place for cases where a student takes a course but never completes it.

v Co-chairs were asked for how they saw interaction between community and teaching staff and how task force will interact with them. The response was that they have to survey students and parents and teachers but have to be very careful. Willing to invite critics to the table. Need an open process.

v We are in the process of looking at a high school re-design and one is on a block schedule.

v Would like very specific feedback on the block schedule at La Follette.

v Placement and testing from MATC, the UW and with the private college system in Wisconsin. Good resources for data by high school and by district. To what extent are the scores we are seeing reflective of access to outside resources or lack of resources. Parents are spending money sending kids to Sylvan, private tutors, or private classes, etc. Do not know how we get at that. Disenfranchising those who do not have that kind of access.

v Student completion of 9^th and 10^th grade algebra has gone up but data disaggregated saying a different story. What do we need to know from the completions.

v Comments from the board can be submitted to the superintendent who will forward to the Task Force. He cautioned that the board members should not respond to each other.

Recessed at 7:27 p.m.

Reconvened at 7:44 p.m.

7. Saleof La Follette Trades House

(Packets included background/recommendation from legal counsel (4/12/07) and the Offer to Purchase. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Steve Munson, teacher who heads the La Follette Trades House Program, was present to answer questions. He indicated that they just received an award for the most recent projection for its energy efficiency. This agenda item would accept the offer to buy the house. There was a cover memorandum that explained the Offer to Purchase. The District will show a profit in excess of $5,000 after all expenses.

Discussion/Questions:

§ Very dedicated group of students from other MMSD schools as well.

§ Super program - out of 17 students 10 want to go into the building trades arena. Very proud of the draw and focus on kids.

§ Fund will go toward buying materials for the next house and the lot.

§ More detail about the expenses was given.

§ Bidding process for other professional contractors was explained further.

It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to approve the Offer to Purchase the property located at 102 Venus Waybuilt by the La FolletteHighSchoolBuildingTrades Program in the amount of $294,900. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

8. Public Appearances

Don Severson, president of ACE, recognized that nothing could be done about the state funding issues but thought the board could reallocate funds rather than make cuts (a copy of their proposal is attached to the original of these minutes). There were 17 items on the handout and he briefly described each one. He felt all the items deserved closer scrutiny.

Michael Kraus advocated for retention of small class sizes where they exist now and hoped they could be expanded in the future as funding allows for it. He added that almost everyone agrees that all kids benefit and those that need the most benefit the most. He also thought there were other ways to find planning time than through the REACH program. He would support a well-planned operating referendum in the future. . He looked at as a long-term issue. He thought the district was scaring some people away. Politicizing does not override the educational issues.

Johnny Ly, UW student in political science and graduate of Madison West, was concerned that the board is possibly reconsidering the naming of the new elementary school at Linden Park. Spoke to the controversial article, the second-hand resources, and unconfirmed accusations. He wanted to return his diploma to the board because he did not want to be associated with an organization that was so easily swayed. Until the new school is named and built, he wanted the board to keep his diploma as a sign of the board's foolishness.

Mr. Winston responded that it is a tough issue and that the Board took a vote. He assured the speaker that the new school would be built and that one board member does not speak for the whole board. Several of the board members responded to Mr. Ly's comments regarding the naming issue.

9. Equity Task Force Report which includes a definition of equity, a statement of the MMSD's commitment to equity, guidelines for implementing an equity policy, and proposed equity policy

(Packets included the Final Report (3/5/07); amendments to the proposed equity policy (4/4/07); and a summary of the charge statements, where and how they are addressed in the report, and where and how they are addressed in the proposed Equity Policy, as well as additional recommendations and how they were addressed. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)

Due to the late hour, Mr. Winston thought the issue could be brought back for future discussion. No action was expected tonight.

Jack Jorgensen and Kathy Lyngaas co-chaired the Task Force. Mr. Jorgensen noted that work began on February 1, 2006. Those Task Force members present in the audience were recognized for their efforts. The Task Force also wanted the board to recognize Attorney Sherrod's work in crafting the proposed equity policy. A summary was provided of the plan to reference the major components of both the report and the proposed policy. He reviewed the three major charge statements and the definition of equity they developed that would become part of the policy.

Ms. Lyngaas affirmed the district's commitment to equity and referenced the different parts of the report and the policy. Their approach was anchored in the MMSD Educational Framework. The information included a chart on who is responsible for implementing each strategy and monitoring outcomes of equity efforts. It was their feeling that, to achieve equity, the MMSD must continually examine instructional beliefs and effect systematic change in policies, practices, and structures that perpetuate inequities. Negative or discriminatory behavior in violation of this policy should be challenged and addressed appropriately. The topics they touched on but were not incorporated into the body of the report were also captured in four addenda attached to the report that included possible evaluation or monitoring approaches for each strategy, a summary of community input, additional recommendations for consideration, and an analysis of current policy and a presentation about the equity resource formula.

Discussion/Questions:

· The Task Force would be looking for the board to take action on the three charge statements and to respond to the other recommendations that the Task Force advanced.

· If the board does proceed with a committee to look further, much of the additional information the Task Force provided would be of great value in that process.

· It was noted that the board needed to be aware of the two Supreme Court cases that have already been heard and from which a ruling would be expected during the course of this term that would impact how race can be used around these issues.

· The report contains information on discussions held about facilities and how those impact on learning. Could have some value as the board considers various options for consolidation, etc.

· Very dedicated group of people. Students played a significant role.

· Difficult to maintain commitment to equity in these difficult times.

· Took this very seriously. Shows that the task force system can be very successful.

FOLLOW UP: Schedule again.

10. Proposed letter to the media regarding changes necessary in the current K-12 school funding law to provide more resources to meet the WisconsinAcademic Standards

(Packets included a draft letter. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

Arlene Silveira noted that this is a follow-up to the meeting from March 29 with the community. The community was charged with lobbying the legislature. Ms. Silveira thought it would be good if the board took a leadership role and asked Joe Quick to draft a letter intended to be signed by the board to go to the media.

Discussion/Questions:

§ Student Senate has also organized a lobbying effort. Will be appearing this Thursday at the Capitol and doing interviews and then holding a press conference at Memorial High school.

§ Important to have an outside leader at this point.

§ A recent Isthmus article was mentioned titled, "Are Wisconsin Taxes Too High." It focused on long-term strategy comparing Wisconsin to other states. The article could be very useful as a very different and aggressive political strategy. Easy to see that revue limit increases can only be a short-term strategy. Article lays out that some Wisconsin firms pay no income taxes and that the majority of the burden of taxes falls on the state's middle class. Look more seriously at a fair description of taxation to support essential public services. Board should be very clear about imposing no more increases in local property taxes but that it is a stop-gap necessity right now.

§ There was some discussion about the appropriate audiences for this letter and some possible suggested edits.

§ Want to be clear that we are talking about Wisconsin's education system in Madison.

§ Community needs to know that all the districts are in the same boat.

It was moved by Johnny Winston, Jr. and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to approve the proposed letter with changes as suggested by Ms. Kobza. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried.

FOLLOW UP: Lawrie Kobza will submit her edits to the letter to media in writing. Have new and old board members sign the letter.

11. 2007-08 Proposed MMSD Budget

(Packets included a revised Citizens' Budget, explanatory footnotes, and category definitions. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

The Superintendent indicated this agenda item was serving as a placeholder in case there was anything the board wanted to bring up.

Discussion:

Discussing possible 2008 referendum in terms of budget decisions that the board is making.

Need for early effort to organize the community.

Administration can have ready for next week information on how to prepare for a possible February referendum, what that would be based on, and a quick timeline.

Many board members indicated that they did not want to go to referendum this spring but that a referendum was likely in 2008.

Referendum could cover replacing things that might be cut this year or new things like 4-year-old kindergarten, etc.

Superintendent was asked to prepare a revised three-year forecast if the proposed cuts are made, including doing Option G and putting $1 million salary savings into the future.

Would consider going next year but do not think we could have enough information in the course of two weeks; needs discussion over the summer.

Approaching the cuts—people may set different priorities based on a proposed referendum.

Concerned that the board is raising hopes in the community. People should know what to expect in the way of a reasonable timeline and decision places and what it would be mean for 2007-08.

There are a group of citizens talking to each other and they want to know what the next steps would be if a referendum is to be held.

Struggling with decisions to cut that which is irreversible or very expensive to reverse.

Optimal size for elementary schools--would like to find out more about future of our district--where we are going, what area next to consolidate, etc.

Bringing this up next week will change the focus from consolidations/closings to referendum.

Believe the referendum discussion is way off the decision. Not relevant to 2007-08 agenda.

Important to look at whole budget together; it is very easy to put things back in.

Should focus on the consolidations before the rest.

If people began to believe there is a referendum on the horizon, the board will be dealing with false hopes. Talk about it realistically. Thoughtful referendum discussion with the community is needed that keeps schools open, does not consolidate more than necessary, looks at the Doyle building. If not done this way it will undercut future referenda.

FOLLOW UP: Provide oral presentation on educational benefits of consolidations or closings. Oral presentation on the REACH program. Add to the agenda the ability to talk about a possible 2008 referendum in the context of this year's budget. Provide a timeline for revenues (five-year average of the estimate of when money is expected to show up, including grants or new revenue streams.

12. Other Business

There was no other business.

13. Adjournment

It was moved by Ruth Robarts and seconded by Shwaw Vang to adjourn the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Student representative advisory vote - aye. Motion unanimously carried.

Previous: 2007-04-16b || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-04-17

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2007-04-16b \|\| Special Meeting - Open Session \|\| Next: 2007-04-17