Mixed in with other MMSD Board business on December 6, 2004 was a change to District Policy 9001 regarding equity.
From the Board Agenda - X Other Business - Item C.
It is recommended that the Board approve: 1) the changes that are attached relative to Board Policy 9000A and 9000B which have to do with a Code of Conduct for employees and Board members; 2) the deletion of Board Policy 9001 regarding equity; and 3) the changes that are attached relative to Board Policy 10,000 regarding charter schools.
The Northside PTO Coalition opposed the MMSD Administration proposal to eliminate the Equity Policy. Board members decided to postpose a decision on this policy and asked the administration to rework the policy with consideration given to equity issues.
This is the second time in little over a month that a policy change raised concern among the public. Earlier, the District administration had proposed eliminating the policy that required professionals to be included in the hiring of teachers in certain aeas: physical education, special education, fine arts, for example.
Fine arts teachers said they needed this professional help to ensure the quality teaching professionals are hired in specific areas.
Maybe the Board needs to consider an interim step in the policy revision process that first passes through a Board committee if the change is more than simple updating.
In a statement released on Monday, December 6th, the Northside PTO Coalition stated:
"The School Board must hear public input and carefully consider this proposed elimination because the Equity Policy is a statement of what the Board believes is important in providing an equitable education to all children. This is a Board policy, yet the Administration is recommending that it be eliminated
The proposed Equity Policy elimination raises concerns that the district is not committed to equity for all, even at a time they a spouting the rhetoric about equity issues and students of color. If this is the case, it will significantly impact students of color and the gap will continue to widen. We know that this cannot be true, so we call for the School Board to give the matter a full hearing by not voting to accept the proposed elimination, and instead call for a full review of the Equity Policy.
If the School Board determines that a more effective and encompassing Equity Policy is needed, then the current Equity Policy should not be abandoned until an acceptable replacement has been crafted and approved."
Superintendent Rainwater told MMSD board members Monday December 6, 2004 that some of the District's goals are directed to educate teachers to do the right thing...support and train teachers...provide various levels of interventions for students that are not successful with the core curriculum.
In the case of reading, Balanced Literacy is the core curriculum and Reading Recovery is a first grade intervention teaching tool/approach that is used to help certain students be successful with reading.
The Superintendent commented that he believes the recent controversy surrounding reading is due in part to a misunderstanding of what the various definitions of Balanced Literacy, Reading First, Reading Recovery and Direct Instruction are.
From what I've read and understand about the debate and controversy, there are different approaches being used in the district when intervening to help a student who is not being successful with the core reading curriculum. Direct Instruction, which is a stand alone reading curriculum, is used by some reading teachers in the district as an intervention tool rather than Reading Recovery.
If results are available for both these interventions, I hope that the School Board takes the time to ask questions about what results we are seeing with different intervention approaches. Now that we have 80% of our children at proficient or advanced reading levels, the last 20% are likely to be particularly challenging for educators.
As I listened to the presentations last night, I couldn't help but be impressed with two things regarding reading - strong community support and involvement through the Schools of Hope and other volunteers and continued reinforcement at all levels of the organization, beginning with teachers' commitment to the students. When my daughter was in elementary school at Franklin and Randall Elementary Schools you knew that the principals and teachers were strongly committed to the Board's reading priority.
Art Rainwater's comments to the School Board can be viewed by clicking on the following link:
Last spring four Board members –Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys and Juan Lopez—voted to authorize the superintendent to buyout problem employees and pay them up to five months in wages and benefits. Members Ray Allen, Shwaw Vang and I voted no. The decision was retroactive to cover deals with two teachers that the superintendent had already made.
Now we see the results of this bad policy decision,
as the Board finds that its role in buying out the former principal of East High School is limited to approving her resignation tonight, effective March 31, 2005. Her wages and most fringe benefits end on March 31, but her eligibility for district-paid health insurance continues through April 2005. In total, she receives at least six months of compensation.
One reason to vote no on the resignation is that the period of wages and benefits clearly exceeds the spirit of the policy.
Another reason to vote no is that the superintendent will fund the buyout with dollars not used for the wages and benefits of a Fine Arts Coordinator, an important position that remains unfilled. Recently we learned that a super-majority of the Board---5 members-- is necessary every time that the superintendent moves funds from one department to another. This buyout moves at least $37,000 from one department to another. No Board vote occurred on this transfer before the superintendent signed the agreement on November 29.
Reason Number 3 is that the superintendent hired outside counsel---an expensive attorney from a Milwaukee firm—to advise him on the deal. Never mind that the District has six attorneys on its payroll, all of whom are qualified to represent the district on employment termination agreements. This action—also not approved by the Board--- is an abuse of the superintendent’s discretion to purchase services for the district. This purchase of private counsel has not been explained. Nor does the Board know why the superintendent chose to exclude the Board’s attorney from the negotiation process.
Overall, this buyout has the appearance of the cover-up. The superintendent has sole discretion to reassign a problem employee in emergency circumstances. However, the employee has a right to a due process hearing on the reassignment, with legal counsel, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine the district’s witnesses and other protections. The reassigned employee may request--- as did this employee-- a hearing before a private hearing examiner, as we routinely provide in expulsion hearings. The purpose of this hearing process is to safeguard the interests of the reassigned employee and of the district. In a hearing we would see the reassignment from both perspectives, whether we heard the case ourselves or assigned it to an outside examiner.
In extreme situations, I can understand that both parties might decide that a buyout is preferable to an adversarial hearing. But in those situations it is critical that the superintendent not be able to keep the whole process from the Board. We are the party to this buyout, not the superintendent as an individual. He is our employee and accountable to us for the judgment to reassign this employee and for how the reassignment process was carried out.
As the elected representatives of the public--- as we vote tonight--- the Board does not know whether there were good reasons for the buyout or not. We do not know whether our superintendent and assistant superintendent properly followed reassignment procedures or not. We do not know why our staff attorneys were considered not good enough for the job. We have no way, in short, to assure that the superintendent has negotiated a buyout in the best interests of the district or in his own interests. We just don’t know.
We have the bill for the outside attorney. We may eventually vote on which departmental funds are used in the buyout. We should not rubber-stamp this resignation. We should get answers to these and other important questions before we again retroactively approve a buyout by the superintendent.
Above all—however this vote goes---the majority should reconsider the policy that let this situation develop. It delegates major responsibilities of this elected body to one employee and such excessive delegation leads to abuse or at least the appearance of abuse of discretion.
Comments at the December 6, 2005 meeting of the Madison School Board. The Board voted 5-2 to accept the resignation of the principal. Voting yes were Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys, Juan Lopez,
Ruth Robarts and Johnny Winston, Jr. Shwaw Vang and I voted no.
Member, Madison Board of Education, 1997 to present
June Kronholz summarizes the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment, which finds that:
The percentage of top-achieving math students in the nation is about half that of other industrialized countries, and the gap between scores of whites and minority groups -- who will make up an increasing share of the labor force in coming decades -- is enormous.Here's the report.