| BOE Minutes | BOE Home Page | |
| Previous: 2008-03-10 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2008-03-31 | ||
| Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent | ||
|---|---|---|
| BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Special Meeting - Open Session March 24, 2008 |
Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Room 103 Madison, Wisconsin |
|
to order at 6:28 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Maya Cole, Lawrie Kobza, 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
OPEN WORKSHOP SESSION -- Auditorium
3. 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 February 25, 2008as distributed. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
4. Announcements
There were no announcements.
5. Selection of a Name for the New Elementary School
(Packets included the Final Report from the Citizens Naming Committee and appendices (2/14/08); a revised chart of the Current Person Names updated by the Administration (Appendix 8); and a forced choice ranking form. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
The written form was intended to lead the Board discussion toward selecting the name by helping to narrow down the recommended four names to two. The four recommended names were: Jeffrey Erlanger, Paul Olson, Howard Temin, and Ilda Thomas. The remaining six criteria on the form included: 1) recognizes teachers and educators, 2) supports the school's eco-quality, 3) overwhelmingly exemplary, 4) has great significance to the district, 5) name fills vacancy to under-represented category, and 6) balances greatest good for greatest number.
After each of the members filled out the form, it was tallied and the resulting two names with the highest rankings were Paul Olson and Jeffrey Erlanger.
Each of the members was asked to comment on the process and the names.
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Maya Cole that the Madison Metropolitan School District name the new west side school the Paul J. Olson Elementary School. Student Representative advisory vote was no. Motion carried 5-1 with Carol Carstensen voting no.
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Lawrie Kobza to make the vote unanimous. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
6. Recommendation to Approve Declaration of Conditions and Covenants for the Sprecher RoadDevelopment
(Packets included a memorandum from Building Services providing background, an estimated financial summary for the entire project, the current status, and an estimated financial summary for Lots 8-10 (3/19/08); a site plan; and the Declaration of Conditions and Covenants. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
This issue was being brought back to the Board in response to some questions raised at the January 14, 2008 Regular meeting. The Superintendent reviewed the project's estimated financial summary as presented in the materials. Administration was asking for approval of Phase I of the project as delineated on page 3.
Discussion:
· Clarified that the average profit of $18,536/house includes the price of the lot.
· What the consequences would be if the Board did not approve the project now. Deadline to record the plat is May 20, 2008. The City would throw everything out and the district will have to start over with the plat process.
· A lot could be purchased for the La Follette Trades House Program somewhere else.
· Uncertainties involving the building of a new school in the Sprecher Road area, current real estate market, sale to the Fire Department and all accompanying charges to the MMSD, significant outlays, filling core schools, may have to sell the land, and the MMSD budget.
· Lack of participation by the City to build the street and roundabout at an estimated cost of $1.2 million (factored into the sale of the land).
· Difficulty finding lots within a reasonable distance from La Follette High School.
· Clarified that $82,900 is an estimated cost for a lot on a finished street.
· Clarified that approving Phase I makes lots 8, 9, and 10 buildable.
· Clarified that when the Fire Department begins to build, the MMSD would then have to begin the street construction.
· If approve the project, everything would be ready for a new school to be built and all the work would have to be done anyway.
· Trades Program begins at the end of the summer; currently do not have a lot for the program.
· Increasing construction costs.
· Referendum could include cost of development.
· Staff would not bring back for one more year and would start the process again.
· No action required until: 1) the Fire Department starts to build, 2) the district starts to build a new school, 3) a fourth house lot is needed.
· If a fourth lot is needed and there is no referendum, could apply for a State Trust Fund loan. Then when the referendum goes through, pay off the loan.
It was moved by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Beth Moss to proceed on the various acts to prepare three lots for development by the La Follette Trades House Program. Student Representative abstained. Motion failed 3-3 with Maya Cole, Lawrie Kobza, and Lucy Mathiak voting no.
FOLLOW UP: Provide more detail on the street construction, particularly the fees imposed by the City for traffic-related inspections and supervision (built into the $1.2 million estimate). Provide an independent analysis of the profitability of the houses. Provide further breakdowns of the Professional Services and a more detailed breakdown in general of the difference phases. Question was asked about what is being paid per square foot for a lot.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Carol Carstensen to suspend the rules and take up Item 9 on the agenda. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
9. Value Added Model to Measure Student Performance, including presentation to the Board by Administrative Staff and the WisconsinCenterfor Education Research
(Packets included a PowerPoint presentation. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
An updated copy of the presentation was distributed correcting a typographical error on Slide #6 (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes).
Michael Christian, Assistant Scientist from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER), and Kurt Kiefer, MMSD Director of Information Services, gave the presentation. Highlights: what is Value Added, proficiency rates, uses of Value Added, school Value Added, features of the model, coverage of Value Added, "beat-the-average" Value Added, tier Value Added, examples of reports, matched MMSD sample, average MMSD gains on WKCE, and future presentations.
Mr. Christian began the presentation with a definition of what proficiency is vs. Value Added and explained the drawbacks. It is the goal to try to isolate student performance on tests based on their schooling. The Superintendent added that the MMSD is one of very few school districts to collect parent education information, contributing to its unusually rich database. Mr. Kiefer noted that they would be looking at the baseline data within about one month, and in another month the 2007-08 information would be added to that (there is something on the docket every month). The third way the district would like to look at the data is through a quadrant analysis--the matrix the district wants to create in the end. He explained that the district's model would look different from that of the State of Wisconsin, making it more complex but able to answer more questions and explicitly measure things. The Superintendent added that the district should move toward this model explaining that people think about the race and poverty gap and the effects on children. The goal is to reduce those characteristics on race to zero. This is moving toward thinking about the gap not as gaps of race and poverty, but individual children, changing that discussion to reducing the effects of those characteristics.
Discussion:
v How the alternative assessment would be handled. It would be difficult because is it not on the same scale. Small number of children who take the alternative assessment. Could measure growth patterns. Disaggregating would be difficult because small number within each school. They will introduce any factor they can.
v There was a suggestion to include the information on the web site in lay terms.
v Mobility will fit into the model.
v Can get information for ESL, special education, ELL, etc., how growth across the district is different; should not do for each school. One of the hurdles is Level I and Level II ESL students who have to take the test. Not productive and does not tell anything about the school. There is always student-specific information.
v District is looking broadly at school programs.
v How the baseline is set. Measuring how students grow using the WKCE results. Question becomes what is a good gain.
v The district is not looking at a classroom model but school and district. Applying this approach to program evaluation has been discussed--Professional Development evaluations around specific interventions.
v Measuring the effects of unmeasured influences.
v How to get mid-year testing information.
7. Modifications to Board Policy and Procedure 10000 regarding CharterSchoolsand the Establishment of Charter Schools
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Services providing background and recommendation information, a comparison chart regarding key issues that differentiate the three versions of the Charter School Policy, and three versions of the Charter School Policy. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Maya Cole that the Board adopt the draft CharterSchoolPolicy dated March 20, 2008.
Discussion:
§ Allows only one Board member to approve the process. Most comfortable with 2 or 3 members. Has to be greater indication of interest on the part of the Board to pursue this. Fearful if begin to go one step and have to go the next because of the time and energy put into it.
The motion was amended by Carol Carstensen and seconded by Beth Moss to change Section IA3 of the March 20, 2008 draft of the Charter School Policy as follows: "Two or more Board members may present/sponsor an externally-developed detailed proposal, meeting the requirements defined under Section III.b, either: (1) after the Board as a whole addresses an initial proposal and chooses not to request a detailed proposal; or (2) in lieu of seeking Board support for an initial proposal and prior to the deadline established for submitting a petition under Section III.A." Student Representative advisory vote was aye. The amendment carried unanimously with Johnny Winston, Jr. absent.
On the main motion to adopt the draft CharterSchoolPolicy dated March 20, 2008, Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
8. Planning document and framework for evaluating educational options regarding school structure, student school assignments and school/program choice, including as examples: neighborhood schools; charter schools; magnet schools; specialty schools; and alternative schools/programs
(Packets included the Educational Options Planning Document with the revisions discussed at the 3/10/08 Special meeting of the Board. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Maya Cole to approve the Educational Options Planning Document as attached to the March 20, 2008memorandum, removing the subtitle, "Performance and Achievement Committee, Planning Document-Draft-March 24, 2008."
Discussion:
Ø Document is intended to be used by the Board the same as it uses other established guidelines and considerations similar to the Long Range Planning Considerations.
Ø This Planning Document is not policy.
Ø It is the Administration's responsibility to resurrect the Planning Document for the Board any time there is a new educational option that comes forward.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
10. Board Policies and Procedures Governing the Recruitment of Students by Representatives of Post-Secondary Options, including Revisions to Board Policy and Procedure 7541
(Packets included a memorandum from Legal Counsel dated 3/18/08 describing the proposed revisions to refine the definitions of "recruiting visit" and "recruitment materials," and the draft version of the Policy and Procedure. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Discussion:
§ How the revised policy will fit in with partnerships that the district has with various community programs and businesses, e.g., Project Lead the Way, where classes are sponsored or internships exist, etc. These groups generally have people who act as advisors and do not recruit students.
§ There were questions about specific programs and whether or not their representatives would be prohibited in any way. These are true partnerships that are related to curriculum that would all fall under Section 1 b of the procedure. Exemptions to the policy can be included at a later date.
§ Recruiters must now be in specific places and cannot be in the cafeteria during lunch periods. It will be up to each school to enforce this.
§ Restricting recruiters just to the Guidance Office would eliminate events like "career night."
§ Principals can delegate the responsibility for designating times and places for recruiting visits.
§ How the Board can know that notification to parents and students is being carried out in each school. That is the Administration's responsibility and people will communicate with the Board if it is not happening.
§ Opt-out form only required for 11th and 12th grade students but all MMSD high school students receive it in the registration materials.
§ Question was asked about changing the language relative to denying access to students to "shall" rather than "may." Response was to leave it as is because the policy has to apply to everyone in every circumstance and should be left to the principal's discretion. Add "by the Principal" to the end of the sentence in Section 1a "...may be denied access to students."
§ Opt-out forms for the military are separate from the choice relative to the student directory.
It was moved by Lawrie Kobza and seconded by Maya Cole to adopt the revisions to Board Policy 7541 as shown in Draft 2 (revised 3/18/08), including the amendment to Section 1a as indicated. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
11. Paid Advertising and Sponsorships within the MMSD, including Advertising by the Armed Forces, Revisions to Board Policies and Procedures 3660 and 3661, Advertising at Athletic Venues and on MMSD Web Site, and the MMSD Contract with a Vendor for Athletic-Venue Advertising
(Packets included an outline of potential considerations from Legal Counsel and potential revisions to Board policy and the overall District advertising program (3/19/08) (for both web-based and athletic venues); and statements of advertising activity through 12/31/07 from MMSD Sports Marketing Program (2/18/08). A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)
Discussion:
Ø Further controversy, potential dilemmas, worth continuing to pursue?
Ø A contract with Sports Image ends January 2009. If there is a policy change that interferes with the sale of the product, then the vendor can terminate the agreement and would be paid unearned commission.
Ø Last advertisement expires December of 2010.
Ø May have some liability if a contract is broken.
Ø Cluttering up the web site.
Ø Staff time involved with advertising.
Ø Not a viable revenue source in this community.
Ø Phase out web-based advertisements. Keep the door open but let these contracts run out.
Ø Need broader discussion on the form of advertising and marketing for lunch vendors.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carol Carstensen that, effective immediately, the Board suspend those portions of Board Policies and Procedures 3660 and 3661 which authorize the approval and placement of paid advertisements or paid sponsorships on a MMSD web site. The District shall fully honor all existing contracts for web-based advertisements through their stated expiration dates. However, until such time as the Board takes further action on the subject of web-based advertising and sponsorships, neither the District staff nor the Board shall: (1) recommend or approve any new contracts for a web-based advertisement or sponsorship, or (2) renew any of the existing contracts for additional periods. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Discussion:
· Advertising policy should not take away from Booster Clubs, etc., that are already doing fundraising, including use of advertisements.
· When we do go to referendum, this will an area that shows an effort to find other revenue streams.
· Would like to look at new criteria for Option B.
· Future Board could decide to change it.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Beth Moss that the district provide immediate written notification to Sports Image, Inc. that any contract proposals for athletic venue advertising that are brought to the Board for approval between April 1, 2008 and January 28, 2009, whether new contracts or renewals, shall expire no later than December 31, 2010. However, such proposed contracts may include a provision allowing the Board to approve an extension beyond December 31, 2010 at the Board's sole option and sole discretion. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion carried 5-1 with Carol Carstensen voting no.
12. Applications to WIAA for District Sponsorship of Cooperative High School Athletic Teams (3 hockey teams and 1 gymnastics team) and an Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing a High School Girls Cooperative Hockey Team in which Sun Prairie is Proposed to Serve as the Fiscal Agent
(Packets included a background memorandum from Legal Counsel (3/20/08); copies of the four WIAA renewal applications for boys hockey, gymnastics, girls hockey (West and Memorial), and girls hockey (East and La Follette); and the proposed 2008-2010 agreement for intergovernmental cooperation for establishment of a cooperative girls hockey program. Copies are attached to the original of these minutes.)
Draft motions were distributed (a copy is attached to the original of these minutes).
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carol Carstensen that the Board approve the WIAA Applications for Cooperative Team Sponsorship for 2008-09 and 2009-10 for the East and La Follette: (1) boys hockey team; and (2) gymnastics team.
Question: Clarified that Madison could still choose not to participate in any sport.
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
Discussion:
§ Fixed participation fee only if fundraising is not successful; same as boys.
§ Proposal was on a cost-zero basis; they have to cover everything but the $450.
§ Third year in existence.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Lawrie Kobza that the Board approve the WIAA Applications for Cooperative Team Sponsorship for 2008-09 and 2009-10 for: (1) an inter-district high school girls hockey team with the Sun Prairie Area School District serving as the fiscal agent; and (2) an inter-district high school girls hockey team with the Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District serving as the fiscal agent. For the 2008-09 school year, and until the Board takes any subsequent action on MMSD Participation Fees for these cooperatives, the MMSD Participation Fees to be paid by each player shall consist of:
A Fixed Participation Fee, which is defined to include the standard MMSD athletic fee per player, plus the full amount of the MMSD per-player, hockey-specific surcharge. Fixed participation fees shall be due prior to the date of the roster count that establishes the per-player assessments that the fiscal agent will charge to the MMSD. In the event that the total per-player assessment charged to MMSD by the fiscal agent is less than the per-player Fixed Participation Fee, the difference shall be refunded to any player on that team who has paid the higher amount.
Plus:
A Variable Participation Fee, which is defined as any remaining portion of the total per-player assessment charged to MMSD by the fiscal agent after subtracting: (1) the per-player Fixed Participation Fee; (2) any per-player revenue not accounted for in the fiscal agent's assessment; and (3) a MMSD contribution of up to $450 per player. Variable Participation Fees, if any, shall be assessed after the district is invoiced by the fiscal agent, and shall be due within thirty (30) days of the assessment.
(Note: in 2007-08, the standard MMSD athletic fee per player was $115 and the hockey-specific surcharge was $800 per player.)
Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
It was moved by Arlene Silveira and seconded by Carol Carstensen that the Board approve the proposed 2008-09 and 2009-10 Agreement for Intergovernmental Cooperation establishing a cooperative hockey program for high school girls hockey, with the Sun Prairie Area School District serving as fiscal agent. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
13. Other Business
There was no other business.
14. Adjournment
It was moved by Lucy Mathiak and seconded by Beth Moss to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Student Representative advisory vote was aye. Motion unanimously carried by those present.
bl
Previous: 2008-03-10 || Special Meeting - Open Session || Next: 2008-03-31