| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2008-02-26 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2008-03-24 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session March 10, 2008 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Auditorium Madison, Wisconsin |
|
Special Meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by President Arlene Silveira at 5:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Maya Cole (arrived 5:10 p.m.), Lawrie Kobza (arrived 5:05 p.m.), Lucy Mathiak, Beth Moss, Arlene Silveira
MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Winston, Jr.
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT: Joe Carlsmith
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Abplanalp, Steve Hartley, Attorney Joseph Hill, Kurt Kiefer, Attorney Dan Mallin, Bob Nadler, Pam Nash, Art Rainwater, Marcia Standiford, Barbara Lehman-Recording Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Beth Moss to approve the minutes of the Special meeting in open session dated January 14, 2008as distributed. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Lawrie Kobza arrived at this time.
2. Announcements
There were no announcements.
3. Human Resources Transactions and Reports held over from the March 3, 2008, Regular School Board Meeting
(Packets included the Human Resources Transactions and Reports. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Beth Moss to approve Items 1-308 as listed in the Human Resources and Transactions Report dated March 3, 2008. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
4. Board of Education Policy regarding Student Transfers to Another School: General changes to Board Policy 4023; special rules for 208-09 transfer applications of students affected by school boundary changes
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel (2/28/08) and a revised version of Board Policy 4023—Attendance—with regard to Transfer to Another School. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Attorney Mallin noted that the changes, brought forward by Kurt Kiefer and Jeannie Retelle, reflect the actual practice in advance of the deadlines for transfer applications for 2008-09. The vast majority of the revisions reflect the centralization of the transfer application and decision-making process such that it is presently coordinated through the Enrollment Office at Doyle, rather than through individual building principals. He suggested that further review of the proposed changes to Section 4, subparagraphs 6 and 7, be taken up relatively soon.
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to approve the changes to Policy 4023—Attendance—with regard to procedures for Transfer to Another School dated March 3, 2008. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Maya Cole arrived at this time.
Discussion:
Ø It was suggested that any future revisions consider making the process more easily understood.
Mr. Mallin noted that the Board did not pass a motion that would grandfather current fifth grade students into their current middle school assignment and provide transportation. Under an internal transfer, that is possible, but there is an issue with the closing date (third Friday in March) of March 21, 2008 and staffing allocations because there is a decent possibility that there would be sufficient numbers of students between Toki and Jefferson that the district would not be able to grandfather all of them. In order to make it all work, they would have to be treated like a move with no transportation as part of an internal transfer. The last possible date to extend would be March 28. Mr. Rainwater stated that the Administration was recommending that no transportation be provided and that it should not be dependent on how many students end up on a specific bus, which changes over the course of the year.
Discussion:
o Letter could go out via U.S.Mail tomorrow to all fifth grade parents (just under 200) before spring break starts. The offer is only for these fifth graders.
o Administration was asked to make phone calls to certain families as well.
o Does not affect those who ride the Metro buses. Does affect those who ride the yellow buses. Also affects bus passes that the district buys for indigent transportation.
o Prefer to count them into bus routes for the next two years and not provide transportation for the third year (8th grade). Difficult for families to remember.
o Could wait until it is known how many students are involved.
o Have to consider siblings.
o Letter should make clear that the Board cannot commit to providing transportation.
o Ridership changes by the week over the course of the school year.
o Concern is with a situation where there is a full bus and someone else moves who is entitled to ride.
o Depends on the most economical way to go.
o No control over Metro.
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Lucy Mathiak that any 2007-08 fifth grade student whose assigned middle school, based on residency, would change for 2008-09 due solely to school boundary modifications within the Memorial High School attendance area, shall be permitted to request an internal transfer to the middle school to which their residence was assigned in 2007-08 by filing an application for transfer no later than March 28, 2008. Such a request shall be automatically granted and shall have priority over any other internal or external transfer applications received for the 2008-09 school year. Staff allocations for 2008‑09 shall be modified, if necessary, to accommodate such requests. A student who transfers middle schools under this motion shall be permitted to continue to attend the same middle school in subsequent years without filing an additional transfer application unless the transfer is revoked under the standards for revocation defined in Board Policy and Procedure 4023. The MMSD cannot guarantee that transportation will be provided for students exercising the special internal transfer option defined by this motion. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
5. School-Based Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Contracts; Transfer of Contracts between MMSD Schools
(Packets included a memorandum including a recommendation from the administration relative to the SAGE contracts and a statement from Attorney Mallin (2/26/08); and a chart showing Boundary Plan "F" SAGE estimates for the 2008-09 school year using projected enrollment (3/6/08). Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Mr. Rainwater distributed an updated SAGE analysis and low income status chart (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes). He explained that it was extremely difficult because there are so many schools within 3-4 percentage points of each other. The district has 20 contracts (Midvale/Lincoln counted as one). Any one of those schools could move up or down that list next year. Administration recommended using the enrollment count from the second Friday in January as the cut-off point for SAGE for next year because it is the last real number in existence. This would leave the SAGE contracts right where they are for next year. He clarified that the list down through Stephens currently has a SAGE contract funded by the State and from class-size reduction funds under Title IIA; no MMSD operating budget funds are used.
Discussion:
v Those schools in the Memorial attendance area look like they will have higher numbers but will not have the contracts. Prefer to leave the contracts where they are but provide K-1, 15:1 at the other two schools, then by next year, it should sort itself out.
v Prefer not to use this year's numbers to determine SAGE contracts for next year. Should look at the Stephens contract going to Crestwood.
v Stephens and Crestwood numbers depend on changes in the Allied Drive neighborhood.
v Making changes to these contracts is major.
v Classroom percentages are what is important, not how many are in need in the building. Concentration of poverty vs. the number.
v Decision needs to be made soon.
v Expectation that the low-income percentage at the new school will diminish.
v Standing behind the concept of resources following the children.
v Clarified that the numbers are K-5.
v Should review whole set of schools in the upper 20% range; see this as a one-year thing.
v Have to consider the TIF refund for this coming year, but anything added this year may be cut the following year.
v Clarified that SAGE is 15:1 by state law.
v DPI has to agree to moving SAGE contracts; boundary changes are relevant to their decisions as well.
v Can defer the decision on K-1; can always add staffing.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Lucy Mathiak to request that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) allow the MMSD to transfer the StephensElementary SchoolStudent Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) contract to CrestwoodElementary Schoolbeginning with the 2008-09 school year. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
6. Student Conduct, Discipline, and Expulsion:
a. Hearing procedures and evidence/testimony
b. Procedures and process surrounding Board review of an expulsion decision
c. Board Policy 4047 on expungement
d. Factors affecting recommendations for expulsion under the Code of Conduct
e. Factors affecting recommendations and decisions regarding the length of expulsions and readmission dates
f. Police involvement in student discipline matters
g. Alternatives for providing additional assistance to families/students going through the expulsion process
h. Student Code of Conduct
i. Modifications to policies, procedures, and processes surrounding student discipline and expulsion
(Packets included administrative follow up on the issues of testimony of and definition of "primary investigator," testimony of staff members involved in 403 code violations, submitting information to the Board as part of Board review of expulsions, a final version of Expungement Policy 4047, and information on past decisions should be available to the Board as part of the Board review of an expulsion decision. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Discussion:
· Still unclear about what the Board will accept as new information after the Hearing is over and before the Board review.
· How much time families have to submit materials to the Board after the Hearing.
· New navigator position should help better define roles.
· Worked out a solution between the Alternative Programs and Administration that would constitute good standing. This conforms to the Board's last motion.
· Whether to allow an expungement if there was a Code 403 violation—intentional use of force that is unprovoked against a staff member.
· Could include the 403 violations as part of the Code review; do not have a category for unintentional bodily injury. Leave it in here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Nothing in the packet for past decisions; can always refine Ms. Wilson's documents.
FOLLOW UP: Administration will codify the documents and provide manuals for the Board. Create a handbook on expulsions that would be made available publicly. Re-write the portion relative to what can and cannot be submitted to the Board after the Hearing and before Board review.
(Packets included administrative follow up on the issue of placement of 300-level and 400-level code violations and the effect of multiple expulsions on the baseline disposition grid for Superintendent Recommendations on the Length of an Expulsion. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Discussion:
· No distinction for elementary age violators; only applies to middle and high schools.
· Grid has been made much more in favor of expelling for entire length of a semester; troubled by the higher standard here in terms of readmission. Would have to have some kind of place that students could go to catch up if they return at a time other than the semester.
· Cessation of services for the students when they are out.
· See a difference between middle and high school students. Could make separate grids and do case-by-case. Trying to apply the same standard for the same result to the behavior. Would prefer not to move away from some type of consistent grid.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carol Carstensen to adopt the first column revisions under "SC and DP Violation" to the Baseline Disposition Grid for Superintendent Recommendations on the Length of an Expulsion, with the exception that Level 402 Violations be removed from the second box in that column.
Lucy Mathiak left at this time.
Discussion:
Seriousness of specific violations.
Motion withdrawn by mover. Consensus to agree to the withdrawal.
Difficulties raised by the
Superintendent with trying to allow students back in at less than one
semester.
There was consensus to leave the length of expulsion within the Grid at no less than one semester.
(Packets included data regarding usage this year. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Attorney Mallin noted that the data through the end of February showed that if there is no criminal conduct, there are 7 cases. He offered to go through the Code violations for those cases. Over the course of ¾ of a school year, it is not necessarily having an effect on expulsion numbers. As an alternative, if the Board did not want to use the referral to the District Attorney's Office as an aggravating factor, it would fall back in the "catch all" aggravating factor. Special education cases are not counted.
Discussion:
ü Four of them were diverted.
ü Board had two cases with different results.
ü Most of the police calls are for fighting and most of them turn into disorderly conduct, not battery.
There was consensus to continue to use criminal conduct as an aggravating factor when considering expulsion cases.
(Packets included a proposal developed by the administration to provide a staff member to support and assist students and parents/guardians through the expulsion process. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Mr. Rainwater indicated that the idea for the "navigator" position was borrowed from the health care system. The intent would be to have a full-time staff member out of the Student Services Division who would be trained and make contact with the parent/guardian to talk through the process throughout the whole process. They would be on call all the time. They would be there when the family meets with Joseph Hill; they could attend the expulsion hearing, and then follow up after with the parents.
Discussion:
v Support from the one current advocate on the MMSD list; likes the Program Support Teacher model in the MMSD special education area.
v Many parents struggle with reading and writing and would need support.
v Meetings were taken out for the navigator because too many going on at the same time.
v People who do the record review can be better trained to inform the parents/guardians.
v Position does not act as legal advisor during the hearings.
v Budgetary impact - maximum of 1.0 but probably part of another position.
v Superintendent indicated that there is a little unallocated FTE that could be used to implement the position now and then it would be included in the budget for next year.
v Joseph Hill's role would be the same; the new position would be an addition.
v Would prefer a candidate who is a bilingual social worker.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Beth Moss to authorize the administration to go ahead with creating and filling the position of expulsion navigator. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
FOLLOW UP: Include in the memorandum describing the new position that they would work through the readmission process as well as with off-campus instruction and homework from the schools.
Recessed at 8:12 p.m.
Reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
7. Educational Options regarding School Structure, Student School Assignments and School Choice, including as examples: NeighborhoodSchools; CharterSchools; Magnet Schools; SpecialtySchools; and Alternative Schools/Programs
(Packets included an overview of school organizational structures dated 10/22/07 written by the Superintendent; a chart showing Post Secondary Education Options/Youth Options Enrollment from 2003-04 to the present; and the assumptions and considerations for decision making relative to educational options. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
The Superintendent noted that there are two categories of educational options: one for those not succeeding in traditional schools, and the MMSD alternative schools from which parents can choose a different kind of program. He added that the enrollment chart is NOT for credit outside the MMSD but for those cases where the district is required by state statute to pay tuition.
Discussion:
§ Considerations would not be a policy document but for the use of the Board similar to those considerations used for long range planning.
§ Vote would be expected at the next meeting.
§ Did not add access because at-risk status would determine who is part of a program and one of the criteria would include the diversity of the district.
§ Some programs not used as much due to the time it takes to travel and the scheduling of the institution involved and student involvement in other programs in their later years of high school.
§ Includes on-line learning.
§ Good guideline.
FOLLOW UP: Enrollment chart will be updated to better reflect youth apprenticeship numbers. Add language to item "C" under the "Assumptions:" "...included but not limited to...." for consideration on March 24. Please share these comments with Ms. Mathiak and Mr. Winston and get their feedback prior to the meeting on the 24th.
8. Modifications to Board Policy and Procedure 10000 regarding CharterSchoolsand Establishment of Charters
(Packets included two alternatives from Legal Counsel dated 3/6/08 regarding possible revisions to the Board's charter school policy and procedure. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Attorney Mallin stated that the big change from the current policy to the first draft was the notion of the fir looking at the initial proposal brought forward for the Board to understand what the school was and to give some initial feedback. A goal was to get information to the Board earlier.
Ms. Kobza briefly reviewed why the Performance and Achievement Committee looked at this issue. She indicated there was some frustration about how the proposal for the school of the arts was handled, there were questions about whether the policy was followed, the development of a detailed proposal took a significant amount of staff time, and it was never clear where things stood. Before staff time is committed, the Board should indicate whether there is support for a particular proposal. It does not mean that that should preclude the community from going ahead to work on a proposal for the Board. In a meeting with representatives from the charter school community, the response was that they did not want the Board to do anything. So the Performance and Achievement Committee received public comment and tried to get those concerns captured in the other draft. There was no intention of limiting the ability of people to bring proposals forward. So the new #3 is a way for people to bring something forward and have it acted upon. Number 5 is a new way to initiate a process.
Discussion:
Even if turned down, initiators could still get Board
support for a planning grant application from the DPI.
Some people think the district should do charters just
because. If an initial proposal is
allowed to go forward, there is an assumption on their part that the Board is
looking favorably on this. Staff time is
very critical. A costing sheet is needed
that tells the number of children needed for a teacher, what other resources
are needed, and how much everything will cost.
The budget issue tends to be contentious.
Comes to the Board in stages instead of all at once.
Other thing we have heard is the feeling that it was not
originally supported but was as time went on.
There were concerns expressed that these changes address that
concern. Do not expect same type of administrative
support and also the option to do the full proposal. Leaves options open. The policy does not address how the Board
should evaluate a proposal; it just addresses the process.
Alternative #2 provides a different definition of what is
in a proposal. Number 3 is for a
detailed proposal. There are differences
in the way proposals are brought forward.
Both alternatives are on the table right now.
Importance of aligning with the needs of the district; our charter policy should further the basic
goals of the district—Engagement, Relationships, and Learning—and should
include as something that addresses where the gaps are in the district's
current educational program and what the proposal might fill.
Add # IIA
under "vision and philosophy" and under "initial proposal."
FOLLOW UP: Provide a grid that tells the Board the point at which there are differences from the existing policy and a recommendation; analysis of consequences.
9. Other Business
There was no other business.
10. Adjournment
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carol Carstensen to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
bl
Previous: 2008-02-26 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2008-03-24