| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2007-08-13 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-08-27 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session August 20, 2007 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Room 103 Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Arlene Silveira at 5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Lawrie Kobza (arrived 5:09 p.m.), Lucy Mathiak, Beth Moss, Arlene Silveira, Johnny Winston, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Maya Cole
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Frank Crisafi, Steve Hartley, Joseph Hill, Pam Nash, Art Rainwater, Nancy Yoder, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
OPEN SESSION - WORKSHOP
1. Announcements
There were no announcements.
Items 2 and 3 were taken up together.
2. Board of Education Policy #4502 - Student Code of Conduct
3. Board Policy 4045 regarding the Expulsion of Students and the Other Processes and Procedures that Apply to Students when they are recommended to be Expelled from School
(Packets included a cover memo from the Superintendent (8/16/07); an overview of the MMSD expulsion process; Level 3 and 4 applications of aggravating factors by the superintendent; a synopsis of superintendent expulsion case disposition recommendations; definitions of key expulsion terms; an overview of the process, procedures, and rights for guardians and students; a sample Recommendation for Expulsion form and principal guidelines for aggravating factor analysis (effective 9/4/07); a packet relative to Positive Elementary School Specified Above the Line Behaviors (7/23/07); and a packet relative to Secondary School Specified Positive Behaviors (7/23/07). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Mr. Rainwater noted that this presentation would be a continuation of what was started last year regarding the Above the Line/Below the Line process but would be limited to talking about a very specific part of the Code. The instructional Assistant Superintendents would be explaining how they have taken the Codes and fit those into the Above the Line/Below the Line change.
Lawrie Kobza arrived at this time.
New information received tonight was a Student Code of Conduct review timeline for 2007-08, a baseline expulsion disposition grid, and an explanation of aggravating factors for expulsion cases (copies are attached to the original of these minutes). The documents explain the process in detail. The Superintendent suggested that each of the Board members meet individually or in groups of two with Mr. Hill to get a more in-depth view of the process and materials. He focused on specific recommendations that he makes to the Board on the length of expulsion terms and when early readmission can occur, which they have tried to make consistent and objective with built-in ways to communicate those to the Board. The Behavior and Discipline Committee will make recommendations relative to changes to the Code by April 1, 2008. On April 21, 2008, the Administration will present them to the Board. Then on May 5, 2008, the Board can make decisions for the handbooks for the 2008-09 school year.
Joseph Hill, Coordinator of Expulsions and Habitual Truancy, explained the grid that looks at all the 300 and 400 level violations that can result in an expulsion. He reviewed the grid and the supporting exhibits to illustrate how the grid would be implemented. The Aggravating Factors were reviewed in detail. He noted that principals are precluded from making a recommendation for expulsion absent any aggravating factors. The grid tries to consistently apply the consequences; it is not redefining the Code of Conduct. It also attempts to take the subjectiveness out of a threat.
This will be part of the annual training for the principals who have already thought about this. One of the documents is a training guideline for them to follow. It is the intent of the Administration to implement the grid immediately. The Superintendent indicated that the Administration would love to be able to allow for restitution specifically related to the offense.
Discussion:
v Athletic Code is reviewed every year and will be reviewed in light of changes to the Student Code of Conduct. Intent is to keep them separate.
v A violation has to occur at school or when under the supervision of a school authority when away from school. The district has no jurisdiction if the students leave school property (including during lunch periods off campus); it then becomes a police matter. School supervision covers athletic competitions. Schools work closely with the police on matters where the district does not have jurisdiction.
v The Behavior and Discipline Committee (Abplanalp, Hartley, Hill, Nash, and Yoder) will meet with the principals at all levels for next year.
v The offense related to Repeated Refusal to Obey School Rules has been affected most. The principals do not get to go forward as they have in the past. Repeated refusal has been defined and the bar has been raised substantially.
v The Code of Conduct and the use of it in the district is based on our definition of the state statutes. We can have as many as we want to expel a student - the state has 5 we have 34.
v Information that the Board receives includes a section on the student's background - there was some discussion regarding the value of having that kind of information. It was suggested that after the small group discussions are completed that the full Board then take this matter up collectively. This would also be the time to get input from the Hearing Examiners.
v Board's prefers to try getting the students who are "on track" back into school as soon as possible but does not want to rely on arbitrary guidelines for coming up with disparate recommendations. The recommendations by the Administration relative to length of time has to do with maintaining control of the student until the issues are deal with. Even students who are expelled for three semesters can return in one.
v Most students take advantage of the early readmission opportunities.
v Very difficult situation--what comes first, fairness or student success.
v There was some discussion about the length of time that students are out of school due to lack of access to vendors who provide the services required in the conditions for early readmission. There was also discussion about the ability of families to attend the hearings and telephone access.
Ms. Silveira recommended that the Board members meet with Joseph Hill soon and that she would schedule two meetings following that for longer discussion. In the meantime, Board members were encouraged to request any data or statistics they need.
The Administration will be using the grid from now on.
It was suggested that the Board develop its own grid for looking at cases they have decided in an effort to be consistent. History should include those times the Board has allowed students to come back the following day. June Wilson will prepare a proposed grid. Board could think about the recommendation from the Administration based on this grid. If the Board is considering allowing early readmission even sooner than the Administration recommends, the Board could use its own grid of mitigating factors.
Suggestions were made for streamlining the Board packet materials:
-Provide a checklist of what has been done rather than photocopying everything.
-Records can be made available in the Office.
-Exhibit titles can be furnished rather than copies.
-No need to photocopy the Code of Conduct for every case.
-Prior cases should be arranged chronologically rather than alphabetically. Could have a binder to be
used as a reference.
Mr. Hill will speak with Legal Counsel. A list can be prepared and the Board and staff can proceed from there.
FOLLOW UP: Move up dates on timeline to before new board members are seated. Provide statistics on characteristics of students who take advantage of early readmission conditions, e.g., race, socioeconomic status, etc. Would like information on the caseload for the social workers and how much outreach is done. Provide the statistic about the number of parents/guardians who appear for the hearings.
Sue Abplanalp, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Education, reported that she has worked with her staff to look at the existing Code of Conduct and put it into three categories. They are beginning their third year of training for the schools. They want to teach positive behaviors to be successful in school. Consistency in the implementation of the whole process and bringing children to restoring themselves within the community are the main goals. Principals looked at staff responsibilities in the Code of Conduct. Principals really like it.
Questions/Comments from the Board:
§ Consistency between the schools - words are different but Code of Conduct is the same. Met with the principals to do that. I also meet monthly with the new principals who are from out of the district.
§ Any data supporting the long-term effects of this? Can provide some data that would include suspension statistics. Principals are saying yes. Have not looked child by child.
§ Are there some kids for whom this approach doe not seem to have an impact? Next step to this as a next area.
§ Some parents are trying to modify behavior but are not succeeding. Any thought about creating special schools within schools or programs not taking up the entire class? This has been done for a number of years, particularly where a child is violent. The Superintendent talked about the work of the Positive Behavior Support Team intervening directly with children who have reached that point. It is very rare that the district is the first intervener in those areas. The district works well with other agencies. Not always successful but most can continue. There are alternative programs at the elementary school and middle schools.
§ Will this fit into revisions to Code of Conduct? A committee is convening this year as part of an ongoing process that will be brought to the Board next spring that tracks this type of change.
Pam Nash, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Education, stated that people love it. No one wanted to move off the language like the inverted triangle. Those who have implemented it find out that the children know it. Similar examples were provided in the packet. There are some developmental differences. Conversations have begun at East among staff about the Code of Conduct and what should be dealt with in the classroom and what needs to be moved on. That kind of discussion will be going on at the other three high schools this year. There was three-day summer training for the middle schools. Every school reported and looked at the Code and classroom situations. They are putting together rules and regulations. Middle schools are well underway and the high schools are not far behind in consistency.
Questions/Comments from the Board:
o How the "Guiding Beliefs" are used on a daily basis.
o Sense of frustration from high school staff - how to get the teachers on the same page. Holding more discussions and talking about what inconsistency does to students.
o People who send kids to the office vs. those who do not. Have to hold the line between principal and staff.
o Follow-up workshops will be held.
o Principals have to create conversations with parents, bus drivers, teams of teachers, support staff, etc. Part of SIP goals.
o How this is introduced into the high schools - smaller structures. Everyone recognizes the critical nature of explaining why and what and getting their responses.
o Most rules are pretty clear at the high school but much less to do with rationale and more with the consequences. What actually comes down to is the teacher's reaction. Some are very strict and some are not. What would change student attitude is consistent teacher reaction. That is what makes or breaks a rule.
o Plans for training volunteers.
o Behavior plans for students who are not able to follow through. Schools have number of teams within the system. That is where follow-up should come. We are not there yet but this work will help that immensely.
4. It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Johnny Winston, Jr. to transfer $30,000 from the Reserve for Contingency account to the Board of Education-Consultants account for payments to Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates, Ltd. For consulting services relative to the Superintendent search. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
5. Other Business
There was no other business.
Recessed at 7:08 p.m.
Reconvened at 7:17 p.m.
-THE MEETING CONTINUED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION-
Previous: 2007-08-13 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2007-08-27