Saint Paul Public Schools

Transcription

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:45 PM
SAINT PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 625
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Elona Street-Stewart
Chair
John Brodrick
Vice Chair
Keith Hardy
Clerk
Jean O’Connell
Treasurer
Anne Carroll
Director
Kazoua Kong-Thao
Director
Vallay Varro
Director
ADMINISTRATION
Valeria S. Silva
Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEES
Committee of the Board – John Brodrick, Chair
SPPS VISION STATEMENT
Imagine every student
Inspired, challenged, and cared for by exceptional educators
Imagine your family
Welcomed, respected, and valued by exceptional schools
Imagine our community
United, strengthened, and prepared for an exceptional future
Saint Paul Public Schools: Where imagination meets destination
*********
MISSION of the Saint Paul Public Schools – PREMIER EDUCATION FOR ALL
*********
Long-Range Goals Adopted by the Board:
HIGH ACHIEVEMENT
Learners will understand the relationship between their lives and the lives of others,
And the relevance of their educational experiences to their roles in society.
MEANINGFUL CONNECTIONS
Learners will understand the relationship between their lives and the lives of others,
and the relevance of their educational experiences to their roles in society.
RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENT
The learning environment will be safe, nurturing and equitable for our diverse learners.
Saint Paul, Minnesota
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Administration Building
360 Colborne Street
April 20, 2010
5:45 PM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
A. Order of the Consent Agenda
B. Order of the Main Agenda
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of March 16, 2010
7
V. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Committee of the Board Meeting of March 23, 2010
24
B. Committee of the Board Meeting of April 6, 2010
38
C. Committee of the Board Meeting of April 13, 2010
44
D. Committee of the Board Meeting of April 20, 2010
60
VI. RECOGNITIONS (Time Certain 6:15 p.m.)
A. Acknowledgement of Good Work Provided by Outstanding District Employees
and Departments
68
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT (Time Certain 7:00 p.m.)
VIII. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
A. Budget Overview and Recommendations
69
B. April 21 Continuation of Budget Discussion
1. Budget Recap 4-21-10
77
2. Arlington Scenario 1: Washington BioSmart 7-10
85
3. Arlilngton Scenario 2: Washington BioSmart 7-12
87
4. Arlington Scenario 3A: Phoenix Program - 12th Grade Only
88
5. Arlington Scenario 3B: Phoenix Program - 11th and 12th Grades
90
C. Action to Adopt Personnel/Position Recommendations
91
D. Human Resource Transactions
92
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda Items below fall under one or more of the following
Strategic Plan Goals, specific areas are listed in each item. 1) Ensure high
academic achievement for all students; 2) Raise expectations for accountability;
3) Accelerate the path to excellence; 4) Align resource allocation to District
priorities and 5) Strengthen relationships with community and families.
A. Gifts
1. Acceptance of a Gift of a 2007 Dodge Caliber from Chrysler Group LLC
100
2. Acceptance of a Gift of Two 2003 Saturn Vue Vehicles from General
Motors Company
101
3. Arlington High School Scholarship Award from KOPP Family Foundation
102
4. Acceptance of Scholarship from The Kopp Family Foundation in
Partnership with KOPP Investment Advisors
103
5. Gift Acceptance From the NEA Foundation
104
B. Grants
1. Request for Permission to Accept a Grant from an Anonymous Donor for
Capitol Hill Magnet School
105
2. Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to Citigroup
Foundation for Academies of Finance at Arlington, Como Park and
Johnson High Schools
106
3. Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Michelson
Family Foundation
107
4. Request for Permission to Partner Submitting a Grant Application to the
Minnesota Department of Health for the Eliminating Health Disparities
Initiative Community Grants Program
108
5. Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the City of Saint
Paul STAR Neighborhood Investment Fund Program
110
6. Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the U.S.
Department of Education for a Teaching American History Grant
111
7. Request for Permission to Submit a Letter of Intent to Apply for Funding to 113
the Yackel Foundation
C. Contracts
1. Supplemental Educational Services Contracts - Revision of Contract
Amounts for Four SES Providers Due to Revised Student Enrollment
Numbers
D. Agreements
114
1. Approval to Enter Into An Agreement With AVID Center
115
2. Approval of Employment Agreement Between Independent School District 116
No. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, and the Association of Supervisory
and Administrative Personnel, Exclusive Representatives for Supervisory
Employees
3. Approval of Employment Agreement Between Independent School District 117
No. 625 and Saint Paul Supervisor's Organization Representing
Supervisors
4. Request for Permission to Enter Into Food Service Agreements with
Various Schools and Programs
118
5. Authorization for Amendment No. 3 to Lease Agreement for Space at 1919 119
University Avenue for Program for Social Development (PSD)
6. Site Agreement 2010-2011, Minnesota Literacy Council (Sponsor) and
The Lab: Saint Paul Public Schools
120
E. Administrative Items
1. Calendar Year 2010 Alternative Bonds
121
2. Request for Adoption of an Updated District Aquatics Manual
123
3. Recommendation for Exclusion of Students in Non-Compliance with
Minnesota Statute 123.70 Health Standards: Immunization
124
4. Humboldt Secondary School Name Change to Humboldt High School
125
5. Humboldt School Forest
126
6. Approval of Interdistrict Summer Programming in 2010
127
7. Monthly Operating Authority
128
8. Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for
Kindergarten Milk Program Funds
129
9. Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for School
Breakfast, School Lunch and After School Snack
130
10. Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for Summer
School Food Service Program Funds
131
F. Bids
1. Bid No. A9346-K: Athletic Field Turf Replacement at Harding Senior High 132
School
2. Bid No. A9347-K: Room Modifications and Security Improvements at
Rondo Education Center
133
3. Bid No. A9349-K: Piping Replacement at Harding Senior High School
134
4. Bid No. A9355-K: Interactive White Board Installations at Various
Locations
135
5. Bid No. A9362-K: Kitchen Remodeling and Student Storage at Cherokee
Heights Elementary School
136
6. Bid No. A9367-K: Interior and Exterior Improvements at Mississippi
Elementary School
137
7. Bid No. A9374-K: Paving Replacement at Ramsey Junior High School
and International Academy/LEAP
138
X. OLD BUSINESS
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. BOARD OF EDUCATION
A. Information Requests & Responses
B. Items for Future Agendas
C. Board of Education Reports/Communications
XIII. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
A. Board of Education Meetings (5:45 unless otherwise noted)
139
B. Committee of the Board Meetings (4:30 unless otherwise noted)
140
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Saint Paul, Minnesota
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
March 16, 2010
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:53 p.m.
II.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
III.
Ms. Varro, Mr. Brodrick, Ms. Street-Stewart, Ms. Carroll,
Mr.
Hardy,
Ms.
Kong-Thao,
Ms.
O’Connell,
Superintendent Silva, Mr. Lalla, General Council and Ms.
Polsfuss, Assistant Clerk
APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
A. Order of the Consent Agenda
Director Varro asked that Item 11, Page 79 be pulled for separate consideration. Director
Hardy asked that three items, the two Contract items and Item No. 2 under Agreements be
pulled for separate consideration.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved approval of the Order of the Consent Agenda with the
exception that Item 11, Page 79 Request for Permission to Submit an Application to the Office of
Mayor Coleman, in partnership with the Corporation for National and Community during the 20102011 program year for the Indian Education Program; Item 1, Page 84, Authorize Contract
Renewals for Community of Peace Chart School and New Spirit Charter School; Item 2, Page 85,
Request for Permission to Enter Into a Contract with TeamWorks International and Item 2, Page 87
under Agreements, Request for Permission of Board of Education to Enter Into a Service
Agreement With Mondo were pulled for separate consideration. Motion seconded by Ms. KongThao.
The motion passed with the following roll call:
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
B. Order of the Main Agenda
MOTION:
Ms. Kong-Thao moved approval of the order of the Main Agenda. Motion
seconded by Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
Page 1
7
IV.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of February 16, 2010
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Board of Education of February 16, 2010. Motion seconded by Ms. Varro.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
V.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Committee of the Board Meeting of February 23, 2010
The agenda for the meeting was a lengthy one. The meeting started with a presentation from
The Saint Paul Youth Services.
1. Saint Paul Youth Services Presentation
The Executive Director of Saint Paul Youth Services stated Youth Services has worked,
over the last 35 years, with families and the community to redirect youth who are starting
to get in trouble at home, at school or with the law. These interventions are less intense
and less expensive than the next step that takes youth into the Juvenile Justice System.
She then outlined the other services offered by the organization.
The greatest amount of time is spent in “pre-court diversions;” with the goal of providing
restorative alternatives for youth who have been arrested for the first time. Youth
Services has had excellent results with these interventions.
Their Children’s Crisis Response Program is a 24/7 in-home intervention for
children/youth in crisis and is run in partnership with Ramsey County. This service offers
assistance to families in resolving a crisis involving a child in order to reduce youth
involvement in the Juvenile Justice System. The services are available to any family
living in Ramsey County that requests assistance.
The “All Children Excel (ACE) Program:” is a long-term intensive intervention for
children who are likely to become chronic violent offenders. The goal is to minimize risk
factors and build protective factors for children who are living with issues such as chronic
poverty, violence and criminality. These are primarily children who are identified with
delinquent histories before the age of 10. Youth Services works to get stability in the
home then works with the child and the school to be sure the child is in the right
programs, is receiving the right services and is succeeding in school. This program has
the most intensive involvement with the schools. It is a federally recognized model
program.
The Behavior Intervention Program grew out of the SPPS Safe Schools Healthy
Students grant. This program involves one-on-one accountability and support provided
to students who are involved in inappropriate behavior in the schools. The goal is to
address the needs of students with behavior problems so they can succeed in school
and, at the same time, minimize disruptions for all other students. The program has
shown it can change the atmosphere of an entire building.
The newest program is called Community Connections and was started in 2008. It was
launched to implement St. Paul Youth Services’ vision of a community that offers high
Minutes – Board of Education Meeting March 16, 2010
Page 2
8
hopes to all youth. It offers training, consultation and community forums for libraries,
parks and recreation, schools, social service professionals, neighborhoods and youth. Its
focus is implementing community change.
Two new initiatives have been planned for 2010: the Ambassador for Youth
Academies and Alternatives to the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Ambassadors for
Youth will work in the “Invest St. Paul” neighborhoods, offering eight weeks of training to
community members on skill building on connecting with the at risk kids in their area.
The Alternatives to the School-to-Prison Pipeline will begin a community dialogue on
community alternatives that might be available on this issue.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board recommend the Board of Education accept, with
thanks, the report provided by the St. Paul Youth Services.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
2. Second Budget Revision for the 09-10 Budget
The Chief Analyst for Budget presented the second revision to the budget for FY 09-10.
He indicated the primary changes were to the Fully Financed budgets due to updates for
grants. Two revenue increases were recommended to the General and CommunityService Fully Financed budgets for a total of $6,428.601. The same changes were
recommended in expenditures. There was one additional reduction in General Fund
expenditures of $311,736. This was the winter adjustment for enrollment counts. .
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education approve the winter revision to the
budget for fiscal year 2009-10 as detailed in Exhibit A.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
3. Quarterly Financial Report
For the quarter ending December 31, 2009 projections showed revenue would be
unfavorable by $3.1 million; expenditures will be down from budget by $7.6 million for a
net improvement over budget of 8.12%.
This puts the projected unreserved,
undesignated fund balance as of 6/30/10 at $28.1 million or 5.3% of current year
expenditures which is within the guidelines established by the Board of at least 5%.
A brief review of details for all of the fund budgets was provided. This included Fully
Financed General Fund; Food Service Fund; Community Service Fund; Fully Financed
Community Service Fund; Building Construction Fund and the Debt Service Fund.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
as presented.
That the Board of Education accept the Quarterly Financial Report
Page 3
9
Ms. Varro
Mr. Brodrick
Ms. Street-Stewart
Ms. Carroll
Mr. Hardy
Ms. Kong-Thao
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4. 2010-2011 Budget Assumptions
Budget Guidelines are the operational guidelines that Finance and Administration use to
construct and prepare the budget and develop the process for budgeting. The Chief
Business Officer reviewed the 2010-11 Budget Guidelines Summary with explanations of
each area considered in building the budget. He then moved on to the Budget Timeline
that reflected what had been done to date and also upcoming actions and events.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education approve the report on the 2010-2011
Budget Assumptions which includes the 2010-11 Budget Guideline Summary and the Proposed
2010-11 Budget Planning Timeline.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
5. Administrative Response to the Latino Consent Decree (LCD)
Administration provided in-depth responses to all of the recommendations provided by
the Latino Consent Decree Parent Committee. Following the administrative response
there was a good discussion between committee members, administration and the Board
regarding various factors brought out in both the report and the response.
Administration was thanked for providing the status summary on the previous LCD
requests and were encouraged to continue to follow through with action on the LCD
recommendations and reporting these out to the Board.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education accept the Administrative Response to
the Latino Consent Decree (LCD).
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
6. There was no report on School & Program Changes or on Policy.
7. The Work Session addressed several areas.
a. BFAC/CEAC Candidate Search Process Discussion
There was in-depth discussion on the draft process presented and what was desired
by the Board which resulted in the following motions:
Page 4
10
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education assign Keith Hardy and Anne Carroll to
a Task Force to prepare and bring back a recommendation for the BFAC and CEAC process
preferably by the March 2 COB meeting.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education approve the proposed process
pending final edits being prepared by the task force.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
b. Additional Committee of the Board meetings were scheduled with the following
motion:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education add the following Committee of the
Board meetings to its calendar: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:30 p.m.; Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 4:30
p.m. and immediately following the adjournment of the Board of Education meeting and Thursday,
May 20 at 4:30 p.m.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
No
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
c.
Assignments were made for the Thursday Listening Session on February 25
d. Board Travel to Conferences was discussed and resulted in the following motion:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
That the Board of Education table discussion on board travel to
conferences to a future time and that in the interim only designated representatives will travel to
their designated conferences.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
Page 5
11
e. Other Items
The Chair announced Director O’Connell had been assigned to participate on the
Planning Committee for the special Maxfield and Jackson Enrichment Zone.
A brief overview was given of the expectations of the March 2 COB meeting.
B. Committee of the Board Meeting of March 2, 2010
The purpose of this meeting was an overview of the budget situation facing SPPS and an in
depth discussion or the SPPS Guiding Change Document.
1. Budget Overview
The Chief Business Officer provided an overview of the characteristics of basic education
finance stating:
School finances are highly categorical in nature
Taxes are the primary revenue source
Local Education Authority (LEAs) finances are highly regulated
Finances are administered publicly
Political issues have high relevance in LEA finance management
He then moved on to review and describe the six categorical funds that are part of the
SPPS budget. These funds cannot be spent except for their specified purpose. The
funds are the General Fund Fully Financed, Food Service, Community Service,
Community Service Fully Financed, Building Construction and Debt Service. He
provided definitions for each.
The General Fund consists of all activities that are not accounted for in one of the
categorical funds. These activities include all regular and special education classroom
activities; student and district support services; building and grounds operation and
maintenance.
Several charts were provided breaking out expenditure categories, revenue sources and
general fund revenue restrictions.
He moved on to a State of Minnesota economic overview that presented a bleak picture.
The State General Fund revenues for the current two-year budget period are forecast to
be $1.0 billion; this is somewhat below previous estimates based on figures released on
March 2, 2010.
This current legislative session must deal with that shortfall.
Approximately 70% of the projected deficit is due to a reduction in expected income tax
receipts. The State’s budget gap for FY 2012-13 is projected at $5.8 billion.
Because of the State situation, SPPS must consider additional loss of revenue in the
current FY 10 budget and any funding cuts to Education will have to be assessed for
impact on the FY 11 projections.
He then reviewed City of St. Paul unemployment which is at approximately 7.9%. This
unemployment leads to a loss in local tax revenue; increased pressure on the State
budget through greater need for social services; the potential loss of student enrollment
as people leave in search of work and as levy burdens become less distributed this can
antagonize constituents of SPPS.
Aggravating the SPPS shortfall are:
SPPS has a structural deficit primarily due to declining enrollment
The District operates too many schools for the current enrollment
SPPS transports 89% of its student body at great expense to the District’s General
Fund and
Labor costs (salary and benefits) are the District’s biggest expense (approximately
85%) and those costs continue to increase.
The FY 11 shortfall is projected to be $27.2 million
Page 6
12
SPPS cannot financially sustain the current education model. Without changes, revenue
and expenses will continue to grow further apart. The Federal government will not
continue to fund State shortfalls. Additional State revenue will not be forthcoming and
property tax increase is unlikely to make up the difference. SPPS must change its
system to remain financially viable.
2. Work Session - A Facilitated Budget Discussion
The purpose of the discussion was to review the SPPS Guiding Change Document
content in order to establish areas of agreement, disagreement or suggested changes to
it. The document will be utilized to facilitate the initial development of various
recommendations which will be brought to the Board for consideration as the budget
process moves forward. The discussion covered each item on the Change document
resulting in a consensus that all items should be brought forward for consideration by the
Board, as everything should be on the table for at least initial consideration.
The Superintendent stated everyone needs to be creative and remain open-minded when
looking at the ideas brought forward; it may not happen this year but the District needs to
look at what might be considered over the next few years. She stated it would not be an
easy process.
3. Update on BFAC/CEAC Application Process & Forms
Director Carroll and Hardy reported they have reviewed the notes from the January 23
COB and established categories to bring back for discussion. They indicated something
would be ready by the Board meeting. The process has already been approved so this is
simply finalizing and polishing the process.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved acceptance, seconded by Ms. O’Connell, of the report on
the minutes of the Committee of the Board meetings of February 23 and March 2, 2010.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
VI.
RECOGNITIONS
A. "Feel Better Minnesota"
The President and CEO of Regions Hospital, Brock Nelson, outlined the new effort entitled
“Exercise Your Right to Feel Better Minnesota.”
This is a statewide campaign encouraging people to seek and sustain healthy behaviors. The
initiative focuses on simple steps anyone can take to improve nutrition and increase daily
physical activity. The goal of the campaign is to support Minnesotans in exercising their “right
to feel better” by:
eating more fruits and vegetables,
eating more whole grains,
drinking more water, and
being physically active for at least one half-hour, every day.
The campaign has simple, fun resource sheets on nutrition and a fact-based, energetic,
thought-provoking 30-minute video with music and Minnesota elementary students in it. The
video was produced as a television show by Ramsey County with Twin Cities Public
Page 7
13
Television and Minnesota artists. Also included are tips on healthy eating and physical
activity shared by local experts and individuals members of the Twin Cities community
working to take simple steps to improve their health and lives. The campaign is geared
toward adults and children -- and the resource materials are excellent for families and school
communities -- and can be downloaded by schools and distributed to free of charge. The
television show will be shown periodically on Minnesota Public Television and is available for
use and viewing as streaming video on the Feel Better Minnesota Web site:
www.feelbetterminnesota.org
BF 28212. Recognition of Schools, Teams, Individuals and Coaches in Our Saint Paul
Public Schools That Have Won Athletic Awards and Championships
1. Murray Junior High School - Girls' Basketball Team - City Champion
2. Washington Technology Middle School - Wrestling Team - City Champion
3. Central Senior High School - Boys' Nordic Ski Team - City Champion
4. Central Senior High School - Wrestling Team - City Co-Champion
5. Highland Park/St. Paul Academy Co-Op Team - Boys' Swim Team - City Champion
6. Highland Park Senior High School - Girls' Gymnastics Team - City Champion
7. Highland Park Senior High School - Girls' Nordic Ski Team - City Champion
8. Humboldt Secondary School - Girls' Basketball Team - City Champion
9. Johnson Senior High School - Boys' Basketball Team - City Champion
10. Johnson Senior High School - Wrestling Team - City Co-Champion
MOTION:
Mr. Hardy moved the Board of Education congratulate all of the teams,
individual and coaches on their athletic awards and championships. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
VII.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Kwasi Nate Russell – Closing the achievement gap for African American students
B. Jeanne Escobedo – Expansion of EMID school to 11th & 12th grades
C. Lynn Ebert – Expansion of Crosswinds to 11 th and 12th grades
D. Eugene. Monnig – The itinerant music program
E. Kevin Motz – Non-welcoming environment at school, breakfast in the classroom
F. Greg Copeland – Structure of the budget process meetings
G. Don Weiner – Layoffs of trades people
VIII.
SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
A. New Teacher Project Initiative Update
The Superintendent outlined the reasons for the proposal to end the New Teacher project in
SPPS. She stated the project has, since 2007, recruited, selected and trained 67 teachers
who have worked in critical areas of math, science, elementary bilingual education and
special education. Given the current economic conditions and the limited projected teaching
vacancies, the District’s human capital strategy will focus on filling vacancies with teachers
who currently hold licensure rather than recruiting and hiring new teachers through alternative
pathways. The Superintendent recognized the coordinator of the New Teacher Project and
extended the District’s appreciation for the efforts put into the program.
B. GRAD Update
The Acting Chief Accountability Officer and the Executive Director of Secondary Education
presented information about the District’s work to support students as they work to fulfill
Page 8
14
requirements to pass State requirements for the GRAD examination which are embedded in
the MCA-II series of tests. Saturday sessions have recently been scheduled to help students
improve reading strategies and test skills. The sessions will run from 9:00 a.m. to Noon on
March 13, March 20, daily from March 29 to April 1 (Spring break) and April 10.
The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) has granted SPPS and other districts
another option to test seniors still needing to pass the GRAD in Reading. Seniors are
scheduled to take the computer re-test upon returning from Spring break and will now have
another opportunity the following week to meet the GRAD requirements by taking the paperpencil MCA-II/GRAD in reading.
Hearings are underway in the Minnesota House and Senate relative to recommendation for
future high school assessments in MN. It is proposed that a hybrid system be implemented
which would retain the high stakes tests in reading and writing while shifting to an end of
course exam in math (algebra)and science (biology). Stakes would be moderated but the
system would require tight alignment with coursework.
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION:
Is there a plan to take testing supports to juniors and sophmores?
Response:
Administration will be looking at what has been learned from the Saturday sessions to
see if this can be put in place at an earlier time for 11th or 12th graders. There is also a
need to develop more skills prior to testing time along with additional support to get
reading programs to 7 th -9th graders who are not proficient.
What were the numbers for last year’s students who did not meet graduation
requirements? The Superintendent reminded Board members this was the first year for
the GRAD requirements. SPPS’s graduation percentage last year was 83.4% (this was
with the BST test)
Is the District following up with community partners to offer support to other groups than
African American?
The Superintendent stated the African American students
represented the largest percentage of students not passing the GRAD so that is where
emphasis has been placed. She indicated the GRAD was becoming “real” to students
and there is a realization that they need to pass this to graduate.
How are remedial courses offered? Response: Every school offers remediation in math
and reading either in full 55 minute periods or in 30 minute periods daily depending on
the needs of the individual student. This is individualized intervention.
What remedial strategies are working? Response: Interventions are started on an
individual basis in areas where the student is falling short.
The District was encouraged to work with the city libraries who are willing to set aside
computer time for students.
Is the District focusing only on GRAD or are reading levels improving as well. Response:
There are three areas being looked at this year: the 10% overall improvement in reading
and math; the fact that schools stop teaching reading in 7th grade and looking at Pre-K
and Kindergarten where reading skills start and taking some of those strategies and
applying them to older students. There needs to be a cultural shift to recognize reading
as valuable and a recognition of how reading impacts all other areas of learning.
Nonfiction writing, how will that impact students? Response: This is part of the power
standards and end of course assessments. Nonfiction writing is being embedded in all
content areas. Issues being faced are that writing is difficult to teach and students do not
necessarily like to write. It will require a different culture to teach and integrate into
programs.
C. Budget Process Update
The Superintendent stated she would be bringing the preliminary budget recommendations to
the March 23 COB meeting. Schools will receive their allocations in early April. The
organizational structure will be presented at the May 4 COB. She indicated the current
budget situation would force the district to look at schools in a different way to create better
Page 9
15
efficiencies and a better school system. Additionally, in May there will be opportunities for
community input on the budget.
D. Charter School Sponsorship
The Superintendent recommended the renewal of the charter sponsorship for Community of
Peace Academy and New Spirit School for a one year period as governed by new State rules
Board members requested a more in-depth discussion on charter school sponsorship in
general at an upcoming COB meeting including the implications of the new rules, costs,
resources and relationships with the sponsored schools.
What are the greater responsibilities under the new rules? Response: MDE is taking a
lesser roles in approval and oversight of charter schools and shifting the responsibilities
to the authorizers. It is still unclear what the standards will be. It is known there will be
more stringent and consistent responsibilities for authorizers along with more stringent
contract requirements, application processes, information required of key staff and
financial data.
Staff reiterated the action for this meeting is the renewal of the sponsorship of the two
charter schools for one year. The other four schools have been approved over the past
two years for a three year period. All sponsored charter schools have been notified of the
proposed change in order to give them ample time to find a new sponsor.
Money – who gets paid to do what and who pays to do what with sponsorships? Staff
provided an overview of how money flows between SPPS and charters sponsored. They
indicated they would provide detail when the broader conversation occurs.
E. Human Resource Transactions
MOTION:
Ms. Kong-Thao moved approval of all items contained within the
Superintendent’s Report including approval of the Human Resource Transactions occurring
between January 26, 2009 and February 25, 2010 as published and the Superintendent's
recommendation to accept the resignation of Chief Operations Officer, Hitesh Haria, effective on
April 2, 2010; the appointment of an Interim Chief Operations Officer (William Larson) effective
March 1, 2010; an Interim Director of Communications (Howie Padilla) effective March 29, 2010
and an Interim Administrator of Security and Emergency Management (Laura Olson) effective
March 18, 2010. Motion seconded by Ms. Carroll.
Director Hardy spoke against the motion, requesting the HR items be considered separately.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
No
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
IX.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved approval of all the Consent Agenda Items with the
exception that Item 11, Page 79 Request for Permission to Submit an Application to the Office of
Mayor Coleman, in partnership with the Corporation for National and Community during the 20102011 program year for the Indian Education Program; Item 1, Page 84 Authorizing Contract
Renewals for Community of Peace Chart School and New Spirit Charter School; Item 2, Page 85
Requesting Permission to Enter Into a Contract with TeamWorks International and Item 2, Page 87
under Agreements, Requesting Permission of the Board of Education to Enter Into a Service
Page 10
16
Agreement With Mondo which were pulled for separate consideration.
Brodrick.
Motion seconded by Mr.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
A. Gifts - None
B. Grants
BF 28213.
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Boston
Scientific Foundation Grant Program for Arlington High School
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit a grant
application to the Boston Scientific Foundation for Arlington High School; to accept funds, if
awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
BF 28214
Request for Permission to Partner with CommonBond Communities
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to partner with
CommonBond Communities to evaluate mentoring and tutoring services provided to Saint
Paul Public Schools Students living in at Torre de San Miguel, Westminster Place, Cathedral
Hill Homes and Skyline Tower; to accept funds; and to implement the project as specified in
the award documents.
BF 28215
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Educational
Book Match Granting Program
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit a grant to the
Educational Book Match Granting Program for funds to purchase books for Early Childhood
Family Education; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in
the award documents.
BF 28216
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to Educational
Cultural Exchange
Educational Cultural Exchange for funds promote cross-cultural education at Eastern Heights
Elementary; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the
award documents.
BF 28217
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the
ExxonMobile Educational Alliance
ExxonMobile Educational Alliance for funds to support math and science curriculum at St.
Anthony Park Elementary; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as
specified in the award documents.
BF 28218
Request for Permission to Submit A Grant Application to Lowe's Toolbox
for Education Grant Program
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit a grant to
Lowe’s for funds to support agriculture education through building a garden at Humboldt
Secondary; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the
award documents.
BF 28219
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Minnesota
Agricultural Education Leadership Council MAELC
Page 11
17
MAELC for funds to implement the first year of agriculture and horticulture courses at
Humboldt Secondary; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified
in the award documents.
BF 28220.
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Minnesota
Agriculture in the Classroom (MAITC )
MAITC for funds to build raised vegetable gardens at Humboldt Secondary; to accept funds,
if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
BF 28221
Grant Acceptance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to allow Central High
School to accept a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to be used as
designated. The total grant of $500,000 will be deposited into the Central High School intraschool account 19-210-000-000-5096-0000.
BF 28222
Request for Permission to Submit Grant Applications to the Minnesota
State Arts Board (MSAB) Arts Learning
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit grants to the
Minnesota State Arts Board for funds to implement arts-related learning projects at Linwood
Monroe, L’Etoile du Nord French Immersion, Adams Spanish Immersion and Maxfield
Magnet that support classroom curriculum; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the
project as specified in the award documents.
BF 28223
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Schools of
Distinction Grant Program for Central High School
application to the Schools of Distinction Award Program for Central High School; to accept
funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
BF 28224
Request for Permission to Partner with the Minnesota Sinfonia Orchestra
in Submitting a Grant Application
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) support the Minnesota
Sinfonia Orchestra’s application to apply for funds that will implement the organization’s
Family Children’s Concert Series; to accept funds; if awarded; and to implement the project
as specified in the award documents.
BF 28225
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the U.S.
Department of Education for an Elementary and Secondary School
Counseling Grant
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit an application
to the U.S. Department of Education Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Grant
Program to expand elementary school counseling programs in five project schools with the
highest needs related to student behavioral data (Jackson Magnet, Maxfield Magnet,
Benjamin E. Mays, Museum Magnet, and Obama). The project will increase counseling
capacity in the schools by providing counseling staff, volunteers, professional development
and PSB efforts. SPPS will partner with Project Kofi (Wilder Foundation) and Project Spirit
and Freedom School (SPACC) for the project; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement
the project as specified in the award documents.
C. Contracts -- Both items moved to separate consideration.
D. Agreements
BF 28226
Request for Permission to Enter Into Partnership with the Minnesota
Historical Society
Page 12
18
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to enter into
partnership with the Minnesota Historical Society to support the “Transitions” project activities
at Gordon Parks High School.
BF 28227
The New Teacher Project Agreement
That the Board of Education approve rescission of The New Teacher Project agreement
dated as of January 1, 2008 and authorize the Superintendent to execute any and all
documents incident to such rescission.
BF 28228
Approval of Employment Agreement Between Independent School
District No. 625 and Manual and Maintenance Supervisors' Association
Representing Facility and Nutrition Services Supervisors
That the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 625 approve and adopt the
Agreement concerning the terms and conditions of employment for Manual and Maintenance
Supervisors’ Association in this school district; duration of said Agreement is for the period of
January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011.
BF 28229
Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between Independent
School District No,. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools and Saint Paul
Federation of Teachers (Denton)
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to approve the
Memorandum of Understanding regarding salary and benefits continuation for Mary Denton
between Independent School District No. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, and Saint Paul
Federation of Teachers, effective February 1, 2010, and remains in effect through the end of
the 2009-2010 school year, unless the parties agree to terminate this agreement at an earlier
date.
BF 28230
Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between Independent
School District No. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools and Saint Paul
Federation of Teachers (Mueller)
Memorandum of Understanding regarding salary and benefits continuation for John Mueller
between Independent School District No. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools, and Saint Paul
Federation of Teachers, effective August 31, 2009, and remains in effect through the end of
the 2009-2010 school year, unless the parties agree to terminate this agreement at an earlier
date.
E. Administrative Items
BF 28231
Establishment of the Classified Titles of Field Service Support
Technician and Lead Field Service Support Technician for Independent
School District No. 625 and Relevant Terms and Conditions of
Employment
That the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 625 approve the
establishment of the Field Service Support Technician and Lead Field Service Support
Technician job classifications effective March 16, 2010; that the Board of Education declare
these positions as Civil Service classified; and that the pay rate be Grade 29 and Grade 34
respectively of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, District
Council No. 5, standard ranges.
BF 28232
Establishment of the Classified Titles of Service Desk Support
Technician and Lead Service Desk Support Technician for Independent
School District No. 625 and Relevant Terms and Conditions of
Employment
That the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 625 approve the
establishment of the Service Desk Support Technician and Lead Service Desk Support
Technician job classifications effective March 16, 2010; that the Board of Education declare
Page 13
19
these positions as Civil Service classified; and that the pay rate be Grade 26 and Grade 34
respectively of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, District
Council No. 5, standard ranges.
BF 28233
Monthly Operating Authority
That the Board of Education approve and ratify the following checks and wire transfers for the
period February 1 – February 28, 2010.
(a) General Account
(b) Debt Service
(c) Construction
#467029-468446
#3014240-3014318
-0-0-
$48,528,348.89
8,982,000.00
587,789.21
$58,098,138.10
Included in the above disbursements are payrolls in the amount of $36,406,870.07 and
overtime of $112,290.11
(d) Collateral Changes
None
And, that the Board of Education further authorize payment of properly certified cash
disbursements including payrolls, overtime schedules, compensation claims, and claims
under the Workers' Compensation Law falling within the period ending June 15, 2010.
BF 28234
Recommendation for Exclusion of Students in Non-Compliance with
Minnesota Statute 123.70 Health Standards: Immunizations
That the Board of Education excludes the named students from school effective March 25,
2010, should they not comply with Minnesota State Health Standards for immunizations on or
before this date.
F. Bids
BF 28235
RFP No. A9341-K: Provide A VoIP/Cisco Unified Communications
Deployment (UCD)
That the Board of Education authorize award of RFP No. A9341-K to provide a VoIP / Cisco
Unified Communications Deployment (UCD) to Qwest for $614,475.00, the Service portion of
this project.
BF 28236
Bid No. A9356-K: Roof Replacement at Homecroft School
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9356-K for construction of roof
replacement at Homecroft School to Stock Roofing for $174,134.00 for the lump sum base
bid plus alternate no. 1.
BF 28237
Bid No. A-9357-M Pupil Transportation - Summer 2010
That the Board of Education accept the bid rates as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION
Director Varro indicated she had pulled this item so she could abstain from the vote, as the
program is run out of her office.
Director Hardy requested an in-depth discussion on charter schools (a May COB was suggested).
BF 28238
Request for Permission to Submit an Application to the Office of Mayor Coleman,
in partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service during
the 2010-2011 program year for the Indian Education Program
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved, seconded by Mr. Hardy, that the Board of Education
authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit an application to the Office of Mayor Coleman,
in partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service to receive an AmeriCorp
Page 14
20
VISTA member during the 2010-2011 program year. This initiative will increase access and
improve the quality and variety of learning opportunities to all students, especially at-risk and
vulnerable youth; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the
award documents.
Ms. Varro
Abstain
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
BF28239
Authorize Contract Renewals for Community of Peace Chart School and
New Spirit Charter School
Director Hardy stated his issues had been covered in the earlier discussion.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved, seconded by Ms. O’Connell, that the Board of Education
approve renewal of the Authorizer Contracts with Community of Peace and New Spirit Charter
Schools for a 1 year period.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
BF 28240
Request for Permission to Enter Into a Contract with TeamWorks
International
Director Hardy indicated he had pulled this item due to a concern that only one vendor was
being offered the opportunity and this seemed to limit diversity of thought and limit
perspective.
Administration responded that the amount of the contract covered a two year period and was
paid for by a Technical Assistance for Student Assignment Plans (TASAP) grant awarded by
the U.S. Department of Education. The process will be two-fold providing for the
development of a decision making process plan for multiple stakeholder groups and the
development of option models on academic priorities. One other company was explored for
this process. It was decided that with the Board having utilized Teamworks for its
development work using Teamworks for this effort would provide continuity with a common
language and common approach. This project will be the creation of a method to pull all of
the various issues facing the district together into a coherent process.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved, seconded by Mr. Brodrick, that the Board of Education
authorize the Superintendent (designee) to enter into a contract with TeamWorks International to
develop and train district resources to facilitate comprehensive collaborative public engagement
and decision-making process to design and review options for new voluntary student assignment
plan and school choice model. TeamWorks International will develop and implement of a
systemic Decision-Making Process plan with multiple stakeholder groups, including the Board of
Education, administration, staff, and community group; training in collaborative public decisionmaking processes, and strategic counsel to implement comprehensive community engagement
process.
Page 15
21
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
No
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
BF 28241
Request for Permission of Board of Education to Enter Into a Service
Agreement With Mondo
Director Hardy stated he had pulled this item to provide time for a further discussion on
Mondo. Administration provided information on the professional development process and
roll out of training to the schools as requested.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved that the Board of Education authorize the
Superintendent (designee) to enter into an agreement with MONDO Publishing to provide
professional development. The total cost for services will be paid from the Title II budget #29-005204-414-6305-4430. Motion was seconded by Mr. Brodrick.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
X.
OLD BUSINESS
XI.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Project Labor Agreements
1. Como Park Senior High School -- Paving Repair/Replacement
2. Homecroft School -- Paving Improvements and Parking Lot Expansion
BF 28242.
St. Anthony Park Elementary School - Piping Replacement
BF 28243
Washington Middle School -- Asbestos Abatement, Restoration
MOTION:
Ms O’Connell moved the Board of Education accept the Administrative
Recommendation that no PLA be used on the paving repair/replacement at Como Park Senior
High School or on the paving improvements and parking lot expansion at Homecroft School.
PLAs are to be used on the piping replacement at St. Anthony Park Elementary School and on the
asbestos abatement/restoration at Washington Middle School. Motion seconded by Ms. Varro.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
XII.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
A. Information Requests & Responses - None
B. Items for Future Agendas
Page 16
22
Background on the bid process for bus transportation
In-depth discussion on charter school sponsorship and SPPS
In-depth discussion on the PLA process
C. Board of Education Reports/Communications - None
XIII.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
A. Action to approved Board of Education and Committee of the Board Meeting Dates Through
February 1, 2011
MOTION:
Mr. Hardy moved, seconded by Ms. Carroll, the Board of Education
scheduled the following meetings for the remainder of 2010 and early 2011:
Board of Education Meeting Dates:
August 17
September 21
October 19
November 16
December 14
January 4 – Annual Meeting
January 18
Committee of the Board Meeting Dates:
August 3
August 24
September 14
October 5
November 9
November 30
January 11
February 1
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
XIV.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Mr. Brodrick moved the meeting adjourn; seconded by Ms. Varro.
Ms. Varro
Yes
Mr. Brodrick
Yes
Ms. Street-Stewart
Yes
Ms. Carroll
Yes
Mr. Hardy
Yes
Ms. Kong-Thao
Yes
Ms. O’Connell
Yes
The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
For clarity and to facilitate research, these minutes reflect the order of the original Agenda and not
necessarily the time during the meeting the items were discussed.
Prepared and submitted by
Marilyn Polsfuss
Assistant Clerk, St. Paul Public Schools Board of Education
Page 17
23
MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETING
March 23, 2010
PRESENT:
I.
Board of Education:
John Brodrick, Elona Street-Stewart, Kazoua KongThao, Anne Carroll, Vallay Varro, Keith Hardy
Jean O’Connell – joined the meeting at 4:53 p.m.
Staff:
Suzanne Kelly, Superintendent Silva, Luz Maria
Serrano, Kate Wilcox-Harris, Christine Wroblewski,
Michael Baumann, Denise Quinlan, Howie Padilla,
Tracy Gauer, Kris Emerson, Bill Larson, Jill Cacy,
Barbara DeMaster, Shirley Heitzman, Michael
Thompson, Eliza Tocher, Billie McQuillan, Jan
Magrane, Kathy Brown, Doug Surgenor
Other:
Mary Kathryn Ricker, Kathy Korum, Jeff Koon, Doug
Belden, Greg Patterson
CALL TO ORDER
II.
AGENDA
A. Preview of 2010 Summer School Alternative Learning Programs
ALC Summer Session 2010 will provide programs and classes to increase proficiency and
credit recovery for graduation. These sites will include 15 elementary schools (in 2009 there
were 28), three grade K-8 schools (2009 = 1), 1 grade 7-12 school (2009-0), 3 middle schools
(2009-6) 7 high schools (same in 09) and four other sites for special education, BTT, JDC
and residential.
As was done last year there will be a three week session of 96 hours (6 hours/day) starting
June 28 ending July 20. High school students will be able to earn up to six quarter credits.
An additional three week high school credit recovery session will be held at Gordon Parks
with another six quarter credits possible. This will run July 26 through August 13. Students
attending both sessions can earn up to 12 quarter credits.
Enrollment in summer session has been trending upward; in 2008 it was 12,908; in 2009
13,925 a 7.3% increase, with the greatest portion of that in secondary programs. 2010 is
projected at 14,000. Secondary eligibility criteria include being under age 21, low
achievement results, not having passed the GRAD tests or are credit deficient.
The program supports student learning at the elementary level with academics in math and
reading; at the middle school with academics in math, reading and writing and at the high
school level with credit recovery for up to six quarter credits and test prep for the MCA GRAD
testing with the test being offered at the end of the summer session.
Success will be measured by looking at the following:
Stability of attendance in the three week session (fewer absences and increased
enrollment)
More students making up credits
More students taking the GRAD Test Prep classes and re-testing at the end of summer
High rates of passing on the GRAD tests
24
Lower costs in transportation; nutrition services and staff
Classes have been combined in specific schools to lower costs, maximize space and provide
the facilities department time for cleaning and renovating.
At the end of summer, how will parents be given an update on how the student’s
participation looked? Is there a notice summarizing participation, credit recovery, etc.?
Response: At this point letters have been sent to all homes where student are eligible for
summer session and registration has been started in conjunction with conferences. Prior
to the start of the summer session, every student and family will be called to remind them
of the start date and report cards will be provided at the end of the session.
Can notification be sent by e-mail? Response: This is not currently being done but could
be explored; perhaps that information could be gathered when students register.
In the area of secondary eligibility, which area has the highest number of students?
Response: Credit deficient is the primary reason; most come to summer school to make
up credits they have failed, the second is for GRAD test remediation. Most students
need to make up required credits but some come for the option to take other credits that
they might be interested in but could not fit into their schedule. This can also be done at
evening school.
How does the district address the concern about sending students to a different school
from the one they normally attend? Response: How summer school has been offered in
the past was reviewed. In the last few years, the District has cut down on the number of
buildings used and moved students into other buildings. Efforts are made to move the
students as a group so they are with familiar faces and teachers. There will continue to
be more of this combining due to the economic situation.
How is it a success when it is necessary to have greater enrollment in summer school?
Response: Ideally, all of the students would be achieving to grade level or better. The
reality is many kids need summer school in order to graduate on time. This provides the
opportunity to make up credits to graduate within four years. Summer school, after
school and evening school give students the opportunity to have many ways to meet
credit needs to graduate. SPPS also serves charter school students who are provided
the opportunity to attend summer session as well.
What is the gap between those eligible and those who attend? Response: 14,000 letters
are sent out inviting students to attend. You have heard to numbers who have attended
in the last two years but it is pretty close to most attending.
What are the expectations for the percentage of students who are taking one or both
sessions to make up all their credit or pass the GRAD? Response: The curriculum is
very focused because of the short time period. There is an 80% attendance rule;
students can only miss 3 days. A lot of teacher training takes place before summer
school starts so teachers understand the curriculum and the expectations for summer
school.
At high school level, how is this staffed? Response: high school counselors are currently
in the process of completing credit forms to find what each student is missing. Additional
confirmations are also coming back from registrations so teacher numbers can be better
estimated. Previous year data on staffing is also utilized. There is usually a need to hire
some last minute instructional staff and this has been accomplished very smoothly in the
past. Because of the change in the session length and timing, teachers have been more
willing to participate in summer school.
Does the District track how many students don’t return to a following summer school
session? Response: Each high school tracks student’s credits to keep them on course.
There has been no cumulative reporting of this. Each school does this to keep their
individual students on track.
Would it be hard to get an aggregate report? W hen high school students come to
summer school, they are missing many credits so they are constantly falling behind.
There has been no sense of urgency among the students in the past but with GRAD the
students are now beginning to see that they will indeed not graduate without their needed
Minutes – Committee of the Board March 23, 2010
Page 2
25
credits and having passed the GRAD test. The prevention piece needs to be brought to
light for students and families at a much earlier time in school. If summer school
attendees were looked at, it would probably be the case that most of them, at least those
serious about graduating, have attended summer school for the past two years because
they are so far behind. Summer school should be seen as an opportunity to get back on
track to graduate.
Thanks were extended for the report.
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart moved, seconded by Ms. Carroll, that the Committee of
the Board recommend the Board of Education accept the report on summer school.
Motion passed.
B. Legislative Update
The Legislative Liaison stated the House and Senate passed the first round of budget
reductions, which included budget cuts for all agencies except Health and Human
Services and K-12. It has now moved into conference. The local government aid cuts
were roughly half of the Governor’s recommendations.
The E-12 and HHS bill mark ups have been delayed pending more information on the
federal action on FMAP extension and the recently passed health care reform and
reconciliation bill. In addition, legislators have been advised to wait for the ruling prior to
enacting legislation that puts the Governor’ unallotments into statute. If the Supreme
Court rules against the Governor, the legislature would have to act on balancing the
budget retroactively to July 1, 2009. Bills have been introduced in the House and Senate
to codify the revenue recognition shift as well as the payment delays from 90/10 to 73/27.
The Grad Assessment bill establishes the new high school assessment system and is
largely based on the ACCESS report. The bill as introduced, included additional
provisions from the Commissioner including moving toward phase II which includes test
development of the chemistry, physics and geometry end of course exam, as well as a
penalty for high schools that are determined to be highly misaligned, which means that
the course grades do not match up with the proficiency levels on the end of course
exams for math and science. The penalty requires a district to pay for one remediation
course at a state higher education institution. The Senate added an amendment that
would require interim benchmark assessments for math.
The House also acted on the bill and it will be heard again in the Finance division. The
House bill was amended to require interim benchmark assessments and item banks for
all three areas, details how the cuts score can be determined for language arts and
prohibits the commissioner from moving forward on the phase II tests without legislative
authority. The bill removes the financial penalty for highly misaligned schools, but adds a
provision that weights the end of course exam at 50% of the grade in that course area,
rather than 25%.
The MDE policy bill includes the SPPS amendment that adds government run after
school programs as an eligible provider for school transportation. Also included in the bill
is a clarification on OPEB, which requires districts to do field testing if asked by MDE,
eliminates the requirement that districts annually certify that we spend at least the same
on support staff or have no less FTE’s for the category (counselors, social workers,
nurses, psychologist) than the previous year. It also creates an early learning and care
system, and cleans up the school readiness and screening statute and clarifies that
general community education revenue can be used for learning readiness programs.
Page 3
26
The Conciliation Conference-Special Education action cleans up special education
language adopted last year, the SPPS amendment to allow for more time (two business
days) for offering a conciliation conference was adopted.
The Integration Study Task Force bill creates an advisory task force to make
recommendations regarding the current integration rule and uses of integration revenue.
It outlines the data that must be examined when developing the recommendations.
The MA billing for Special Ed bill requires DHS to clarify whether districts must continue
to bill third party payers prior to billing MA for medically related services provided as part
of a students IEP. It also requires the commissioner of DHS to include a provision for
families to consent to the data sharing on any newly developed enrollment form.
In the area of Alternative Teacher Licensing there are two bills moving through the
legislature. The Mariani bill is very similar to last year's bill, and is modeled off of the
Teach for America and Teaching Fellows programs. The Slocum bill was referred to the
K-12 Finance Division, since it requires Board of Teaching rulemaking and would
necessitate a fiscal note. This bill takes a broader approach of requiring the Board of
Teaching to adopt rules on alternative teacher preparation and licensure, and to hold
alternative preparation programs and candidates to the same accountability standards as
all other programs.
The Physical Education Standards bill adds physical education as a standard
requirement requires posting of the wellness policy on the web sites and requires the
development of recess guidelines for school districts.
The Efficiency Plus Task Force bill represents the work that was done over the interim in
response to the shared services bill, which was controversial last year. The task force is
developed to facilitate greater efficiency and reduce education costs through
collaboration and cooperation across school districts and government agencies while
maintaining or improving the learning results for students.
Service to Students in Other States bill clarifies that schools are not required to serve
regular education students in a residential or care and treatment facility without a tuition
agreement.
MDE has agreed to offer districts the option of allowing seniors to retake the 10th grade
MCA-II’s, which has the grad embedded in it, this spring using pencil and paper. The
cost to districts will be roughly $7 per student.
The compulsory attendance bill was heard in the Senate and referred to the finance
committee. The author indicated that he felt positive about this being included in the final
bill with a delayed effective date to address the fiscal note. This should make it clear to
9th graders that they will be expected to stay in school until they receive their diploma or
reach the age of 18.
Various Levy Bills were heard and include bills to expand uses of Health and Safety
Revenue, additional levy authority for career and technical aid, authorization for school
board to renew both capitol and referendum levies by board action and levy for TRA
increases included in the pension bill. All these will be considered as part of the omnibus
bill and will depend on the levy target set by the divisions. Due to the revenue
recognition shift, any increase in levy actually saves the state money.
Other issues still moving include two different pension bills moving through the process.
Both include increases in the St. Paul Teacher Pension fund. Senator Pappas has
agreed and the pension board is supporting the districts’ request to reduce the
contribution rates from 2% to 1% for employers and employees and phase the increases
Page 4
27
in over four years. The EdMN Statewide Insurance Bill that was considered last year and
which has been brought forward again is being reviewed in committee.
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
The alternative teacher licensing bill, what is the rationale? Response: The bill is an
initiative by Teach for America and is supported by the Dept of Education, the
Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership and some school
districts. The program is offered as an alternative to having a pool of applicants. The
Department of Ed is pushing it because they consider it an important component of
the Race to the Top application. The Teach for America requires that a district take
all candidates to fill all license areas. The New Teacher Program allows districts to
limit license areas where alternative licensing is used.
Is there mandatory participation? There is none, it is an option on the part of districts.
Thanks were extended to the Legislative Liaison for the report
MOTION:
Mr. Hardy moved the Committee of the Board recommend the Board of
Education accept the report with thanks. Motion seconded by Ms. Carroll.
Motion passed.
C. LLC Report
The presentation provided results that have been garnered from the Leadership and Learning
Center audit work. The audit provided a view of where district academic programs are.
There were 15 initiatives analyzed. It brought out which initiatives provided the best return on
investment and provided the desired student achievement results.
The initiatives implementation audit resulted in two overall findings:
All audited initiatives had some positive impact on student achievement
Five initiatives showed the greatest positive impact on student achievement
The big issues found by the audit were a lack of consistent, deep implementation and the
overall number of academic initiatives within the district.
What should be looked for, according to the LLC, is a level 4 implementation where the most
effectiveness is achieved from the program; in other words, doing the whole thing full out.
This means the user fully employees the practices in the initiative as standard operating
procedure, re-evaluates the quality of use of the initiative, seeks major modifications,
examines new developments in the field and explores new goals for self and the system.
Five initiatives showed the strongest correlations to student learning. These were:
Professional Learning Communities
Content-focused Coaching
Elementary Language Skills Block
EverydayMath and
Writer’s Workshop
Other initiatives audited included:
Reader’s Workshop
Full Option Science System
APALS assessment
AVID: Elementary and Secondary
7-12 Science
Edge Reading
AMP Reading
Holt Math
Page 5
28
Read 180
Disciplinary Literacy
Overall findings stated that effective practices are more important than programs;
implementation has a nonlinear relationship to results; focus should be on deep
implementation with fidelity; a smaller number of initiatives; and that an SPPS decision
making process is needed to eliminate or retain initiatives and prevent adding of new
initiatives.
An Audit Project Team was assigned to develop a decision-making framework that would
move the district toward full implementation of fewer initiatives. They created a “Fate
Determination Process” and came up with preliminary recommendations for administration.
Potential outcomes from the team’s work include the realization that language is important so
firm definitions of what is meant by each specific statement used in the determination process
were developed. The five areas developed were:
Retain and fully implement (active promotion of an initiative where appropriate according
to a prudent implementation plan)
Retain, refine metrics and evaluate (continue academic achievement at the schools using
it and expand to additional schools after metrics have been refined)
Retain and maintain (continue using the academic initiative where it is in place but with
no further expansion of its use)
Retain and scale back (continue the academic initiative at the schools using it and
effective practices may continue to be used but with no further training or materials being
acquired.
Eliminate (stop using the academic initiative and its materials as quickly as possible).
The “Fate Determination Process” answers essential questions about an initiative.
Is the academic initiative a critical curriculum priority? One that moves SPPS toward
achievement of its academic goals.
Is the academic initiative demonstrably effective? (As measured by clearly defined
metrics.)
Is the academic initiative fully implemented? (At 3.8 or above, stabilized or enhanced
use?)
Does the academic initiative have broad internal support/readiness? (Is there readiness
among the people employing the academic initiative?)
Other questions addressed include:
o Is it redundant?
o Is it better than alternative?
o Is it attractive/adaptable, can it be integrated/aligned?
o Is it cost effective?
o Is there a legitimate non-academic reason to have it?
A sample flow chart of the process was provided.
Initiatives that were recommended for retention and full implementation were:
Elementary: Language Skills Block, Everyday Math, Writer’s Workshop, Reader’s
Workshop [with clarified expectations] and Full Option Science System (FOSS) [with
clarified expectations].
Secondary: AVID 7-12, 7-12 Science, Accelerating to Maximum Potential (AMP) [with
clarified expectations], Edge [with clarified expectations] and Holt Math [with integration
of Five Easy Steps practices].
K-12: Professional Learning Communities
Initiatives to retain, refine metrics and re-evaluate were K-12 Content-Focused Coaching.
The initiatives to retain and maintain was Elementary – AVID K-6
Page 6
29
Initiatives to be eliminated were:
Elementary – Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS)
Secondary: Disciplinary Literacy and Read 180 Grades 9-10 (expectations need to be
clarified for use in Special Education and ELL).
The District’s commitment is to focus to achieve better results by taking solid steps toward
fewer initiatives and by focusing on providing clear accountability. This should allow
administrators and teachers to better focus on core practices with the outcome of students
learning more overall.
Mondo – given the elimination of PALS, is Mondo considered part of Reader’s
Workshop? Reader’s Workshop is the framework and Mondo is the material (books,
lessons, assessments, etc.).
What is the process for continuing intensive evaluation over time to look at those
initiatives that weren’t audited? Response: The level of implementation is key. The
“silver bullet” is the best teaching in front of the student. Teachers need to have the
tools, the training and students in reasonable numbers. Research shows if these are
present and implemented with fidelity students will move toward meeting the standards.
The issue is how to measure implementation with full fidelity and full effectiveness. The
system needs to be a bit more prescriptive of what is expected of the teacher. SPPS has
historically left it up to the site to decide. Now, in the current situation, the expectation of
the teachers is that they will do XYZ and the teacher decides how to do it but the end
results is improvement in the learning of the students. The District needs to continue to
help teachers grow. By reducing initiatives and focusing on what needs to be done and
investing in fewer initiatives there should be results/changes. The District needs to be
sure kids are making gains relative to where they started. The District also needs to work
in conjunction with families and communities to reach this end. The District needs to be
more clear, more prescriptive while leaving space for individual creativity and it needs to
provide the necessary resources.
Is there reason to believe that if these are fully implement that they will meet the needs of
students such that the Board can anticipate not having an major new initiatives coming
up and if new initiatives are brought forth, what process would be used to evaluate the
new?
It is helpful that the decisions are broken down between elementary and secondary as
what is being looked for is the concentration in the earlier years to be sure that what is
being done in the secondary years the mark was hit early. How will the District be able to
recognize that with what is being retained and implemented by the District in the
elementary years will in the secondary years deliver the desired results? Response: It is
difficult to determine where to focus the most. It is research proven that the early years
are important but funding is not being provided for the earliest years. At the same time, it
is the District’s moral responsibility to continue to educate kids in the higher grade levels
to get them to graduate. Through the evaluation process there is an emphasis on the
secondary level in reading instruction. Middle grade literacy is the biggest issue in the
U.S. today; reading is not taught after the 5 th grade. The District decided there needed to
be interventions for students not reading at grade level. It was determined those skills
th
th
need to be developed as soon as they can be especially when they get to the 6 and 7
grade level; that is why AMP and EDGE are being added to get the students to
proficiency. Students must learn how to learn, how to read and be provided strategies to
be successful readers early on if they don’t get these they won’t be successful when they
get to the higher grades. The balance between these is the challenge because neither
can be given up. AVID is being focused on in middle and high school because the
implementation has been successful but needs to go deeper and further. The District will
look at the other areas over time. The District is looking at enlarging the 4 year old
program which can be replicated and expanded and those children will be much better
Page 7
30
prepared when they reach 7 th grade but the District can’t forget about the kids who will
not be able to graduate.
As improvements come through more focus on these areas of instruction will that see
improvements in the classroom? Response: Yes, LLC brought awareness of the 90-9090 research on schools that are having great success with their students. They did this
process of narrowing and implementation of practices to allow students to learn more.
The standard operating procedure changed because they are learning more within a
context that makes sense. Stability of leadership in buildings and stability within
initiatives over time are key to achieving success.
Teachers need to make a difference in the life of the kids; they are the most important
part of the educational system. There is a need to enhance the perceived importance of
teaching as a profession.
Thanks were extended for the presentation.
MOTION:
Ms. O’Connell moved, seconded by Ms. Carroll, that the Committee of the
Board recommend the Board of Education accept the LLC Report.
The motion passed
D. Standing Item: Budget Update
The Superintendent indicated this presentation would begin the conversation on budget cuts
for 2010-11 and beyond. The Chief Business Officer stated one of the greatest challenges
for FY 11 is resourcing financially a future for SPPS that is different from that of the past. The
Superintendent tasked staff to stay positive and seize the day with challenges that lie ahead
with regard to the budget in the face of economic adversity and to do so relentlessly to find
the best outcomes for students. The title of this presentation is “Cultivating Excellence”
toward more high-quality schools, preparing all students for the challenges of the future. This
is the intersection and alignment of two key areas:
Academics – high-quality programs providing educational excellence to all, and
Operations – the responsible management of fiscal and capital resources
The guiding principles and priorities included:
Expanding excellence
Increasing access
Ensuring equity
Addressing the needs of all SPPS students and families
Stronger schools for families and communities will result from new grade level
configurations with attention to middle grade improvements; preK-12 alignment of
programming (Montessori, environmental, BioSmart, language immersion, etc); innovation
and enrichment as a priority and the goal of graduation and post-secondary preparedness
for all.
The driving factors in the process are closing the academic achievement gaps, offering
more enrichment, addressing declines in enrollment, recognizing and dealing with the
economic realities, following best practices and, the interests and priorities of families.
The Academic achievement gap is reflected in the following:
A persistent achievement and access gap across student groups
Inconsistent application of core programming across SPPS schools
The need to improve services for all students
The drop out rate must be overcome to ensure graduation for all
The fact that not all magnet schools are magnetic.
The District must create schools of engagement and innovation.
Page 8
31
Enrollment decline is due to a school-age population decline and lower enrollments
contribute to reduced revenues. There of 41 elementary schools 27 are under capacity
(66%); of 7 middle schools 4 are under capacity (57%) and of the 7 high schools 2 are
under capacity (28%). The declining school-age population and lower enrollment contribute
to the reduction in revenue or market-share.
The economic realities facing the District are increasing costs for employee salaries and
benefits; increasing operational costs (transportation, utilities, supplies, etc.), decreasing
state and federal funding and declining grant revenue.
Families expect SPPS to provide students:
A high-quality education at every school
Greater opportunity for new and expanded education programs
New educational innovations
Extended time for learning
Seamless education with fewer transitions
Equitable distribution of programs and services
Alternative education options and safety nets for off-track students
Arts, music, athletic and enrichment programs.
The guiding change document, agreed to between the Board and administration, provided
guidance in the process of finding opportunities in establishing the budget.
Some potential opportunities to strengthen school programs will come from a focus shift
from school buildings (where instruction is delivered) to school community (the type and
quality of the programs). Potential changes to programs include such things as: expanded
programs (grade reconfiguration, single or dual campuses); relocation/co-location of
programs (combine two or more school communities into one) and discontinuation of
programs (removing them from the District’s portfolio including buildings).
To maximize facility opportunities options include: reprogramming the facility (change
programs located at the site); closing the facility (vacate the site, potentially for later use);
relocating and/or co-locating programs with space constraints and identifying sites for
expansion or new programming (to meet academic priorities).
This would lead to the ability to streamline transportation by modifying some magnet school
transportation boundaries to better match with current student attendance patterns.
There are potential opportunities for centrally administered programs and services by
reorganizing centrally administered departments and programs/services; eliminating
additional positions and housing fewer staff centrally; adjusting professional development
delivery and alignment with curriculum, adjusting service delivery from centrally funded
programs/departments and reducing out-of-state travel not bound by contractual provisions.
The opportunities for schools and academic programs will result in implementation of
consistent core programming for all SPPS schools (including extra-curricular, enrichment
and specialty programs); grade reconfiguration; school budgets which reflect enrollment and
revenue declines; co-located schools and programs and reconsideration of site usage.
Infrastructure maintenance costs will be contained through building energy management
including temperature set points; alteration of seasonal grounds maintenance; reduction of
supply inventories and closure of 10 of 12 aquatic facilities.
Savings in labor costs will be reached through offering the opportunity for voluntary early
separation and engagement of employee groups in discussions about other contractually
covered items.
Page 9
32
The sum of these changes would results in a budget reduction of $33,050,000.
Future opportunities for savings include centrally identified class size, time and labor
automation, remove current pay with all employees going to a two-week lag. Opportunities
for future revenue generation included such things as assessement of the fee structures,
evaluation of the permit process and pursuit of additional grant resources.
The Chief Business Officer reviewed the timeline for additional communication and
community engagement opportunities which have been scheduled over the next couple
months.
The Board then moved into a facilitated discussion on the presentation with the principal of
Teamworks International acting as facilitator.
The Facilitator provided an outline of process, suggesting first addressing only questions of
clarification on the presentation looking at (1) Slides 1-11 as Context, (2) Slides 12-18 as
Opportunities and Slides 19-21 as Summary. He stated then there could be more in-depth
discussion on the opportunities. He noted the budget discussion does not stand solely in
FY 11 but should be considered in the long-term over the next few years.
CLARIFICATION - CONTEXT
Slide 7 - Excess capacity – The percentages, are these figures excess capacity or
actual capacity of buildings? The figures were taken from the Facilities Condition and
Educational Adequacy Assessment. The figures state that 66% are under capacity,
57% are under capacity and 28% are under capacity. The bricks and mortar footprint
would show more building space than there are students to fill it or than the District can
financially afford. The title should say Percent of Total Enrollment To Total Building
Capacity. 66% of elementary space is utilized with an excess of space of 34%. This
needs to be clarified before it is used for any other presentation, perhaps a footnote
explaining methodology.
CLARIFICATION - OPPORTUNITIES
Slide 13 – the qualifier “with space constraints?” It should be “within” space constraints.
This could also be looked at as where there is a very popular program within a building
which can take no more enrollees in the building. Perhaps this should be broken into
two items.
Slide 15, bullet 2 – eliminate additional positions and house fewer staff centrally – are
we talking about reducing the number of centrally funded staff or locating them in other
places? Both
Is there a purposeful repeat between Slides 12 and 13 -- Relocate-co-locate schools
and programs – the figure was not added twice, the statement was put there twice to be
sure it was considered under both options, it was not calculated into the total twice. It is
two different purposes? Actually three different purposes. Was the question about
double counting or consistent use of language? Double counting.
Slide 15 - adjust service delivery – is that people who do the service and the way
service is delivered to buildings? Both
Slide 17 – Should “Manage building set point” be broaden to the whole area of “building
energy management?” As this goes forward putting this within the context of what is
already being done.
CLARIFICATION SLIDES 19-21
Slide 20 - Explain the two week lag. Some of the district workforce gets paid current;
they work a week they get paid for that week immediately. Other staff have a two-week
lag (they work two weeks and are paid for those two weeks two weeks later), this is
customary practice in business. It is a cash flow issue which is all about timing and
provides indirect savings on interest on short term borrowings.
Page 10
33
Slide 20 - Time and labor automation, what is this? All staff are currently on paper
timecards which are entered manually. The District needs to re-look at technology to
make this more efficient.
OPEN DISCUSSION ON OPPORTUNITIES (Slides 12-18)
The facilitator offered two guidelines (1) answer the questions asked, not the ones not
asked and (2) check back to be sure what is being asked.
The Academic Audit was a commitment for the future to things which make a difference
for students -- Slide 12 matches this. This is now reflected in the total environment
being provided so there is congruity. This is making the culture shift to focus on things
which benefit students and provides permission to make changes in other things that
don’t.
There is a clear alignment with the Guiding Principles – this is helpful.
Slide 14 – under what principles or values would this option be pursued? What Guiding
Principle would under lie decisions made in this? Redesign transportation. On many of
the other opportunities there is clear alignment with academic achievement, access, etc.
This doesn’t seem to connect with the Principles in the same way. This could be an
expo facto thing that could be a symptom of not having fidelity of implementation, etc. It
feels like it violates some of the Guiding Principles.
Facilitator: Hearing two things: What might be some practical implications of this? Is
this avoiding other issues that are centrally located to the values and things the Board
developed and the Guiding Change?
Superintendent: This is looking at ways to reduce expenditures, ways to change
transportation. Magnets are supposed to draw kids from all over the city. Currently,
some draw very heavily from one area of the city so there is a need to find ways to
reduce the busing. There is a need to look at current attendance patterns against
historic patterns and adjust accordingly.
The comment was made that this contradicts some of the issues around equity and this
questions can’t be asked without considering the corollary of which schools without
busing would become attractive if they had city-wide busing and what is broken about
the programming at these schools that is not attracting kids from all over. The equity
piece and access and opportunities is where the discussion needs to begin. Response:
when you say what is broken in a school, many of the magnet schools are not broken,
they are good schools but they fill right away with kids closer to the area because the
parents like the areas, like the school. That is a different issue, that’s saying which
schools have enough kids in the current attendance areas who choose it to fill it. That’s
about current demographics versus past demographics. If it were framed on that basis
and what to do with the busing system to avoid in future the situation the district is in
now, that would be a much sounder way to approach this.
Facilitator what is being asked is that a consideration to makes comments about
transport as a whole and to balance savings from efficiencies in busing against issues
of access and equity. No, the access and equity questions come first as well as
attendance area and number of kids choosing certain schools so they fill up. This is the
real issue; that these schools are filling up versus schools where there aren’t kids
because they simply are not there demographically.
Slide 14 might be another place to add the relocate and co-locate programs statement.
Is taking a look at high school starting later in the day being considered anywhere in
this? If all these other things are being consider wouldn’t this be the point to look at this
as well? Response: it is not part of the presentation at this point. Some scenarios are
being run on this by the Transportation Dept. It is not a simple issue as with
transportation everything is so interconnected. If the discussion is on large changes,
Page 11
34
let’s put as much into the change process at one time as can be and get over the
“agony of change” as quickly as possible.
Has there been an exploration into a greater reliance on mass transit for high school
students? No, St. Paul’s public transport is not set up to provide an easy means for
students to get to school on time. In many cases it would require the student to ride 2
or 3 different buses to reach their school which is unacceptable in terms of timeliness
and attendance.
Slide 14 this should also look at the changing student attendance pattern and how it
impacts neighborhood schools if magnet boundaries change.
Have there been conversations about exploring a four day week and Saturday school?
Response: This was not costed as there was a sense that the Board did not seem
interested in this. Administration would not strongly recommend it as a budget cut until
the last possible moment. Students need as much stability in life as possible and a four
day week might impact this as well as place a burden of families relative to daycare, etc.
There are a couple districts doing this in the state so figures could be extrapolated from
those. Saturday school it is a possibility or to see if the use of extended time to add
more instruction during the day or on Saturday. This is also a transportation issue.
Neither of these are in the current recommendations.
If all of the potential opportunities related to facility use were bundled around attendance
and options at the school site, address consideration of program alignment relative to
opportunities for families to have an opportunity for articulation through the system. The
bottom line is whatever is done; it cannot just be for budget cuts it has to be for the
welfare of the students and the best system for SPPS. Changes which are made need
to insure school and programming continue all the way through the student’s
educational life with SPPS. If groups of students are taken into the transition it doesn’t
save any money, there still need to be two buildings open. If a change is made the
program/site is taken and moved to another place in its entirety. More than anything the
District needs to be very sensitive and realistic about what every student in SPPS
should receive in their education – the totality of what every student receives regardless
of what building they attend school at. Equity is not currently being provided and it’s not
about being poor or where you live, it depends on the resources each school allocates.
It might be helpful as the budget recommendations are put together, as changes are
begun around facilities and transportation to demonstrate how the academic equity and
articulation are being met/addressed – “this” results in “what”.
It has to be an asset model of excellence.
How to attract teachers to the most needy schools needs to be addressed as well.
The review should not be limited only to reductions, there needs to be a look at revenue
generation as well. Things like fee generation/adaptation, the permitting processes and
other possibilities in other areas.
The key to adding revenue is creating stronger programming, if families know what they
are going to get, what the articulation is they will send their child to SPPS.
Other things to consider is consolidation/sharing of services among various entities.
Slides 12 and 13 use of language. Why are the potential savings so different? Slide 12
is looking at program changes, staffing adjustments dealing with programs and
consolidation or combination of schools. Slide 13 looks only at facilities, building
capacity. the alignment of enrollment, their potential closure. It might be beneficial to
use examples from the past to help define the differences between these two areas.
Back to revenue generation, there is talk of market share and about marketing the
schools, that every student in the district will have access to XXXX. Also, as buildings
become available think about leasing buildings rather than letting them sit empty.
Related to that, think about ways to engage parks and rec where possible or other
entities that use space for dedicate purposes for young people, consider leasing a
portion of the building even, consider portions which might be attractive (gym, aquatic
facilities) other entities/organizations might use so the facilities are being used as an
asset to the whole community.
As the District moves to looking at space utilization for SPPS and others that area
needs to become a professionalized operation. The notion of how it moves the strategic
Page 12
35
plan forward, how this relates and might be modified for strategic partners/non-profits;
perhaps through different fee structures, etc. We don’t want to make money on the
backs of the City of St. Paul or strategic partners/non-profit partners.
Because of the challenge this is a good time to explore new ways of collaborating with
communities, families, etc.
There will be an impact on the type of staff to match programs and articulation; so need
to look at establishing excellence across the city and all SPPS buildings. There needs
to be a discussion around combining traditional streams of employees (technology and
instructional) and moving those closer because of issues around technology. If
programs are to be temporarily housed to be moved on at some point, there needs to
be a discussion around investments in that building, especially around technology, and
how to make it mobile/flexible to optimize technology opportunities for use across
multiple potential uses/users as programs evolve.
The facilitator asked that each Board member offer a word about the work of the
evening. Comments included:
o Reflection, possibilities
o Re-invention, taking advantage of a crisis
o Talking about transition over time, success of implementation
o Justice
o What would administration like from the Board about next steps leading to final
decisions? Response: The document tonight is a macro look, administration would
like direction about what routes to continue exploring in order to maximize
preparation time of more specifics/details.
o When specificity within areas is reached, show the interconnectedness of the
budget changes
o Specificity, the total package
Administration was asked to add a slide on income potentials
E. Standing Item: School & Program Changes -- No report
F. Standing Item: Policy Update -- No report
G. Work Session
1. Graduation Scheduling
Board members selected and confirmed the graduations they would be covering.
2. Cultural Proficiency Session
The third training session was moved to April 6 at 5:30 p.m. following a one hour COB
meeting.
3. Broad Foundation
The Board will meet with Tom Payzant to discuss various models for superintendent
evaluation on April 8 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
4. Budget Forums
Community sessions on the proposed budget reductions for FY 11 have been
scheduled for May 10 and May 26. Further details will be forthcoming.
5. Board Listening Session
It was established that Ms. Varro, Mr. Brodrick, Ms. Street-Stewart and possibly Ms.
Kong-Thao would represent the Board at this session.
Discussion was held on further promotion of these sessions.
6. Elected Officials
Board members were assigned to specific individuals to contact regarding the District’s
legislative agenda.
Page 13
36
III.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved the meeting adjourn; seconded by Ms. Kong-Thao.
Motion Passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Polsfuss
Assistant Clerk
Page 14
37
MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETING
April 6, 2010
PRESENT:
Board of Education:
John Brodrick, Jean O‟Connell, Vallay Varro, Elona
Street-Stewart, Anne Carroll, Keith Hardy
Absent: Kazoua Kong-Thao
I.
Staff:
Superintendent Silva, Suzanne Kelly, Sharon
Freeman, Bill Larson, Matt Mohs, Jill Cacy, Yusef
Mgeni, Howie Padilla, Kathy Brown, Shirley
Heitzman, Michael Baumann, Kate Wilcox-Harris,
Mandy Richie, Denise Quinlan, Richard Valerga,
Kris Emerson
Other:
Michael Schumacher, Christy Hudy, Sarah Wooley,
Daniel Keller, Doug Belden, Greg Patterson,
Dennis Cheesebrow
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. and introductions were made around the
room.
II.
AGENDA
1. Standing Item: Budget Update
The Superintendent stated the presentation for this meeting would focus on certain
parts of the recommendations discussed with the Board in March. As the schools
need to receive allocations so they can begin to plan their 2010-11 budgets the
recommendations presented were those that would most directly affect schools.
The Chief Business Officer provided a summary of the potential reductions:
School Programming
$ 500,000
Facility Usage
500,000
Centrally Administered Programs &
Services
7,487,500
Schools & Academics
10,000,000
Labor Adjustments
1,000,000
Total Potential Reductions
$19,487,000
He then provided specifics on the reductions in each area:
School Programming - $500,000, the Program Changes budget was used to fund
the expenditures related to the anticipated 2009-10 program changes throughout
the district. No additional resources would be available if program changes occur
in FY 12 and the costs incurred would need to be absorbed.
Meeting Minutes – Committee of the Board April 6, 2010
38
Page 1
Facilities Usage - $500,000, this is repayment of prior year ALC general fund use;
there would be no direct student impact. Current ALC revenues exceed
expenses.
Centrally Administered Programs/Services
(1) $4,900,000 in the Office of Business and Financial Affairs. The budget short
fall did not include the revenue from the OPEB levy; this change would
recognize all of the $4.9 million as revenue and the OPEB Trust Fund would
not be „seeded‟ per the presentation to the BOE on 8/4/09. (This was reduced
back to $3,900,000 by action later in the meeting.)
(2) $1,000,000 reduction in the ELL budget (a reduction to TOSAs and staff in the
buildings).
(3) $750,000 reduction in the Special Education budget. Maintenance of effort
(MOE) must be maintained. The actual reduction must be $1.5 million to net a
$750,000 reduction due to the matching process.
(4) $100,000 reduction of 1.1 FTE in Student Wellness. There would be no impact
to schools. An FTE of .9 eliminated from programs being closed (Roosevelt,
Longfellow, Bush Memorial) and an FTE of .2 shifted to the Early Childhood
Screening budget.
(5) $150,000 reduction through ending the New Teacher Project contract effective
3/16/10.
(6) $150,000 reduction in consulting contracts by reducing the District‟s reliance
on external consultants.
This will require more in-house professional
development support.
(7) $425,000 through the collection and allocation of all indirect costs charged to
Federal grants received and distributed to programs supporting those
programs.
(8) $12,500 by holding one day of the Administrator‟s Academy at an SPPS site.
Schools and Academic Programs – The total reduction would be across to board
to all schools at a net reduction of 5,695,326.
Budget Reduction Amount
($10,000,000)
Additional Comp Ed from the State
(Free and reduced lunches)
4,172,471
ARRA
1,502,546
Referendum
(1,268,142)
Integration
(102,201)
Net Impact to Schools
($5,695,326)
Labor Adjustments - $1,000,000 staffing reductions through a voluntary early
separation incentive. This must reach a tipping point to be financially viable and
there is concern about losing hard to find licensed staff.
The meeting facilitator indicated the process would be to go through the slides first for
clarification and discussion. Then more in-depth discussion on those areas raised as
being of special concern with the final result being an action from the COB which
would allow allocation to the schools to take place.
Slides 2 and 3:
The comment was made that changes must encompass a comprehensive
financial impact even out two and three years. It must be recognized that some of
these changes may have tails impacting future years.
39
Page 2
Given the recent study looking at implementation fidelity – will these changes have
an impact on that issue. Response: This money was set aside when the district
was making program changes for additional time for professional development,
etc. The way the district is working toward Level 4 implementation is through the
academic budget; these cuts are from the instructional service budget. This may
be a temporary cut as there may be a need for money to do additional changes in
future years.
Slides 4-5
Clarification was requested on the impact of not seeding the OPEB trust, what is
the long-term impact? Response: The impact of not seeding is it creates an
inability to mitigate that liability. This year the actuarial valuation is being updated
and the potential result of not seeding is that the actuarial valuation of the liability
will grow instead of shrink. A third possible impact is the bond ratings may be
impacted. They look at the financial statements and how mitigation is being
accomplished.
The other potential issue relates to the Operating Levy and
thinking forward to the fact it ends in 2013. This leads to a need to consider the
method for pursuing the Operating Levy in the future. The District received $4.9
million from the Pay Go Levy based on getting an MOA from the teachers. The
impact is that next year the money seeded for that particular issue would be
applied totally the shortfall and the OPEB liability mitigation strategy would not
seeded. This year‟s action does not preclude seeding in future years.
Concern was expressed about the bond ratings – if this is only done once, will
there be a potential short-term impact on the bond rating or can this be positioned
for no impact? The bond ratings are established through a review of the District‟s
financial statements which will be clear on what the OPEB liability is. What
Standard & Poor‟s and Moody‟s decide to do with this information could impact the
rating, it depends on the factors they consider and their ranking system for
determination. Additionally, the combined effect of how states are positioning their
finances could have an impact on all systems that have an OPEB liability across
the board.
Is it correct that the original decision was to seed the OPEB Trust with $1 million?
Yes. So, this represents only a $1 million change from the August presentation?
Yes.
Are there costs to not doing this investment now? The investment would be for
less time and less quickly is there a sense of what the scale of those costs would
be? Response: The numbers have not been run because the actuarial valuation
is currently in progress. The numbers will become available in the next couple
weeks.
Where would the money to come from in future as the projections indicate the next
few years will not get any better? Response: The District does not know the
discount rate right now so this cannot be projected. Ultimately, there is a financial
cost for each year this is delayed unless more money is put in in the future
mitigates this. There was a compelling argument for seeding OPEB made in the
August presentation, discomfort was expressed in not moving forward with this.
ELL & Special Education reductions, is this primarily staff? Response: Some
staff, some contracts being reduced with some of the centers as the District can
serve the kids internally. The focus for staff reductions will begin with encouraging
voluntary retirement before the District moves to other options. Voluntary
retirement must be made available to everyone, one group cannot be targeted
over another.
40
Page 3
Advocating for full delivery of the mandate for special ed services, if additional
dollars were to become available would that impact the subsequent years‟ budgets
or would it be used to restore cuts in the current year? Response: The reality is
that more money will not be coming. Additional dollars will be through Title II and
III (Title I is frozen) both of which have a cap and through competitive grants which
is how future money will be allocated. SPPS is aware of what these grants are
and is applying for a number of them.
Additional concern was expressed about not seeding the OPEB Trust as had been
moved in August. The comment was made that not doing this seems to be a less
than desirable short-term strategy.
About ELL & Special Ed, there have been efforts to embed that capacity within
non-ELL teachers to better serve these students‟ needs. How can the district
commit to its mission, goals and student achievement, what St. Paul citizens
expect, what the children deserve and what the law requires, if staff is cut from the
kids who need it the most? Response: The reality is there must be a budget cut
and the entire organization will feel the impact. The District must do more with
less. The largest budgets, as a whole program, are Special Ed and ELL. The
bottom line reality is that to get to the $28 million in cuts, student services will be
impacted.
The comment was made it would be beneficial to see the amount reduced as a
percent of current budget so the relationships can been seen more clearly.
Response: The percentages for Special Ed is 2.4% for ELL, 5%.
Slides 6-7
Indirect costs, why has not this been done already? Response: Because of the
potential for adverse impact on budgets which have already been allocated and
where services are in progress. Doing it this way provides the opportunity for
transitions to occur and budgets to be redone.
This is a direct cut to funds available to serve students? This is distributing
indirect costs instead of absorbing them centrally? Response: This might be
purchasing supplies, other things; it would need to be reviewed budget by budget
to get to this answer. Universally it is not direct services but there may be some
impact there, which is why the transition is in order.
This is moving from general fund fully financed to the general fund? Yes, from
grants to the general fund.
Under the Consulting Contracts, specifically more in- house PD support. Is there
a cost to that? Response: This is one part of the cuts for external consultants
(additional cuts will come out of ARRA) who are paid directly from the general
fund. The impact will be in some cases less professional. development in some
areas and more use of internal expertise.
Student wellness - .The shift of the 2 FTE to early childhood screening, does the
district receive funds to do the screening? Response: The district receives the
whole amount though it is pro-rated for children ages 3, 4 and 5 year olds. More is
allocated for the 3-year olds.
Potentially the district could capture more
reimbursement if it targeted screening earlier. The district is doing some of that,
however the district does not have enough 3 yr old program spaces; the ideal
would be to have more 3-year-old programs. The earlier children are worked with
the better their future achievement.
On the Consulting Contracts – can the reductions be increased?
Response:
There is not much money paid out of the general fund for consultants. The
percentage could be provided later. Most consulting funds come from grants. A
41
Page 4
request was made to obtain the percent of consultant dollars from the general
fund.
Slides 10-11
The $10 million – where did it come from? Response: Total reductions needed
were looked at and a percentage was used for the district relative to the $28
million. There was also a back channel analysis of what the total reduction would
be and what impact would be looking at budgets from last year. The total
reduction nets out to be $5.7 million or less than a 5% reduction to schools.
Looking at slides 10 and 12 together, there does not seem to be information on
the permanent structural reductions (hard costs) that were agreed to be essential
so the same exercise does not have to be repeated over the next several years.
Where are they? Response: This is not the complete list, this is only the pieces
that impact the schools so they can begin to do their budgets. A full list will be
brought forward next week which reflect the bigger changes.
Clarification was provided on the ARRA funds on page 10 – The total amount of
ARRA dollars going directly to the buildings is $5.5 million. Last year the figure
was $4 million. This is in addition to last year.
There needs to be more clarity that these are changes to the general fund only.
Since ELL and Special Ed are, being called out specifically that this is relative to
their part of the centrally funded budget. The context in which this is happening
needs to be clarified.
Explain the relationships (positive and negative) on the $10 million on slide 9, the
proposed reduction for all schools. Response: The $10 million is the proposed
reduction number for all schools. The way it is shown is the mathematical
accounting notation ( ) means negative and without is positive. There is a huge
challenge with the different buckets of money available to public education and
making that clear to the public and making it easily understandable.
A suggestion was made (Slide 9) that there needs to be additional explanatory
information added to this chart to provide more clarity for the general public. It
needs to be made clear administration was able to find additional dollars from
other funding to lessen the impact on schools; the whys and becauses.
Another question the general public will have is how does this impact “my” school.
Response: The schools will receive their information and the amount of money
they will receive for 2010-11. It will contain a percentage comparing it to the
amount received for the prior year. The site councils will be aware of the impact.
Slide 11, the tipping point, how confident is the district that the tipping point will be
reached? Response: That is an unknown. It is being brought up early so that
people will be provided time to plan, to see if this might be an option they want to
take advantage of. This is a one time only option and is offered to moderate
layoffs through attrition.
The Facilitator indicated the Board was being asked to provided a level of support and
agreement so Administration could move forward with the allocations to the schools.
The one slide that appeared to have the most concern associated with it was the
OPEB piece which merits more discussion. A comment was made that support could
be given to a statement to move forward on all items but the OPEB issues which
could be put aside for future consideration. The Chief Business Officer stated that if
the recommendations were modified in this manner OPEB should be acted upon in
some manner so that it could become part of the information considered in making the
42
Page 5
actuarial valuation as it would have an impact on a number calculations in that
valuation, in the annual audit and in the bond ratings.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Concern was expressed on the impact of any program changes on the budgets.
Response: It will be a messy process but it will be dealt with. The principals have
been asked to look at the budget in the “big picture” and avoid moving into very
specific areas until all portions of the changes have been communicated.
Minimization of possible misunderstandings of the materials as they are
communicated to the public needs to be a priority. Clarity and specificity of
communication is essential.
The OPEB liability should not be put off forever and additional cuts should be
considered in order to move to fund the OPEB trust. What are the options for the
trust fund? $500,000 as opposed to $1 million? The levy has been portrayed as
working toward fixing future problems so that should not be used unilaterally to
solve current problems.
If the Board goes with the proposal not to seed the OPEB trust fund, will it save
jobs? Response: Indirectly, yes -- everything does indirectly..
The comment was made that the Board worked hard to get agreements from the
bargaining units to support the funding of the OPEB trust. Every day the district
does not fund OPEB is a cost the District.
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart moved the Committee of the Board recommend
the Board of Education approve support of a reduction of $18,487,000 and that the
seeding of the $1 million to an OPEB Trust proceed as previously moved on August 4,
2009. Motion seconded by Mr. Hardy.
Motion passed.
III. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Street-Stewart.
Ms. Carroll moved the meeting adjourn. Motion seconded by Ms.
Motion passed.
Marilyn Polsfuss
Assistant Clerk
43
Page 6
MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
April 13, 2010
PRESENT:
Board of Education:
John Brodrick, Jean O‟Connell, Vallay Varro, Anne
Carroll, Kazoua Kong-Thao, Elona Street-Stewart
5:00 p.m. Keith Hardy joined the meeting
Staff:
Superintendent Silva, Suzanne Kelly, Michelle Walker,
Michael Baumann, Kris Emerson,
Kathy Brown,
Mandy Richie, Shirley Heitzman, Jill Cacy, Howie
Padilla, Bill Larson, Traci Gauer, Yusef Mgeni, Patrick
Romey Jayne Williams, Jaber Alsiddiqui, Sharon
Freeman, Dana Abrams, Lisa Boehlke, Barbara
DeMaster, Sadiq Mohamud, Jayne Meza, Laurie
Olson, Matt Mohs, Luz Maria Serrano, Carol Olson,
Mary Jensen, Susan Poiier, John Androstic, Terri
Bopp, Alejandra Bosch, Dan Rodriquez
Others:
Dr. Schiller, Dennis Cheesebrow, Doug Belden, Greg
Patterson, Mary Turck, Paul Duncan, Kerry Dwyer, Jeff
Koon, Carol Olson, Dennis Chisholm, Ron Salzberger,
Mary Jensen, Carrie Dwyer, Michael Schumacher
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II.
AGENDA
A.. Organizational Audit Report
Dr. Robert Schiller, on behalf of the BROAD Alumni Services, conducted an organizational
structure study of St. Paul Public Schools. This was done to assure the organizational structure
put in place would be efficient and effective in the delivery of services aligned with district
priorities and within the constraints of available resources. The objectives of the study included:
Evaluation of the current organizational structure, its effectiveness in delivery of services, its
alignment with priorities and how it matched with the superintendent‟s executive style and
prerogatives.
Evaluation of the district‟s organizational structure in comparison with the best
organizational structures/practices of selected, benchmarked districts
Identification of redundancies
Benchmarking the reorganization to the most effective practices and organization of high
performing districts of similar size and complexity nationwide
Determining if the best people are in place to lead in the critical positions of the district
Identification of ways to streamline the organization and assure more effective and efficient
operations and support to schools
Creation of an effective and efficient central office organizational structure to assure the
district is best prepared to meet its challenges.
59 recommendations were made to the Superintendent as a result of the study.
The consultant reviewed for the Board the manner in which the baseline and benchmarks were
established and the actual interview/site visit process utilized. He stressed this was an
44
organizational study on how best to match an organizational structure with the Superintendent‟s
priorities and to advance the SPPS Board and Superintendent‟s agenda with efficiency,
effectiveness and high levels of performance.
He then went on to review current conditions and challenges that included:
A major focus by the Superintendent to assure organizational structure aligns with her
goals, priorities, the strategic plan and that the structure complements the Superintendent‟s
management style.
To assure the right people are staffing the key positions and that they are on the same
page as the Superintendent
To assure forward progress is not curtailed
The consultant defined several critical areas for the Superintendent who needs to (1) establish a
high level of visibility within the community, (2) recruit, interview and hire top quality leaders for
open cabinet positions, (3) mold people into a working team which compliments and
supplements the superintendent‟s management style, (4) lead, manage and communicate the
future of SPPS and (5) lead and assure improvements in high need academic areas with a
particular focus on the lowest performing schools. He stated SPPS is not overstaffed under
normal conditions in comparison to the referent districts; however at this point in time, SPPS
cannot afford the staffing level currently in place.
He then went on to discuss a comparison of major functions within SPPS as compared to the
referent districts. The primary function lacking in SPPS is an internal audit function. SPPS does
have areas serving educational equity and research and evaluation; having these functions
varies among the referent districts.
He reviewed in greater detail several of the recommendations for organization restructuring that
were made within the report offering recommendations of new combinations of responsibilities
and alignments and a model which SPPS might emulate to send a clear message of efficiencies
in the central office.
He then provided a brief report on a separate review of the SPPS communications areas
BROAD had funded. The recommendation was to reorganize the district‟s communications
organization by breaking the office of community engagement apart, creating a new office of
communications, led by a director of communications and spinning off other sections of the old
OCR into different units. The reason for the recommendation was that it appeared OCR efforts
were hampered by the too wide focus of the current structure. Two additional findings were that
the OCR is not proactive enough in telling stories of the good work of the schools and district
and that the district still suffers from too little successful internal communication.
Conclusions arrived at from the study were:
SPPS is appropriately staffed at most of the department and office levels for its size and
complexity before consideration of the fiscal conditions facing the district.
Fiscal conditions force SPPS administration to challenge its current level of services and
staffing at the central office level in order to affect substantial savings in light of the
projected need for $27 million in cutbacks in 2010 and additional cuts of $45-55 million in
2011 and 2012.
Reduction of the current number of direct reports and span of control (divisions and chiefs)
to the Superintendent was recommended.
Recommendations are made to distinguish between line and staff reports/functions
Recommendations resulted in either a two division reporting structure (Division of Academic
Services and a Division of Administrative Services) or a three division structure with the
school supervisors reporting directly to the Superintendent as well.
Structure change and cutbacks would provide SPPS an organizational and staffing structure
that would be trend setting for the referent districts in challenging fiscal times; send a strong
Minutes – Committee of the Board April 13, 2010
Page 2
45
message to the St. Paul community and staff of the Superintendent‟s commitment to make
tough decisions; right size the central office appropriate for current conditions and position
the central office to be less silo-like and more oriented to cross functional teaming.
Talented and experienced leaders for the two divisions along with strong individuals filling
the middle management positions with critical, specific experience in the respective areas of
assignment is essential for success and the span of control being recommended.
Critical positions must be filled as soon as possible in the spring of 2010 and the Chief
Academic Officer must be filled immediately.
It is critical the Superintendent invest in the team training and coaching needed to assure
that the cabinet staff in the critical positions are functioning at high levels within a highly
accountable performance management system.
Individuals holding the middle management positions will need to be trained into the
expectations of working in tandem and to work within a strong performance management
system of accountability.
In addition to the various recommendations for structuring the central office, the additional
recommendation was for the elimination of 20 positions.
Appreciation was expressed for the depth of information provided and the comparability to
other districts of similar size.
Regarding the challenge of finding a chief academic officer – where do they come from?
Response: For a district of SPPS‟ size, unless the district is willing to have very attractive
financial package it will be hard to recruit candidates. There are many openings out there
and competition for the best is fierce. Districts are looking for an insider with requisite kinds
of experiences who can hit ground running. Additioinally, with the economic situation,
people are less willing to relocate further limiting the pool so districts are tending to “grow
their own”.
The elimination of 20 positions – is there potential to move those to other roles? Response:
The study was an organizational study and did not include an examination of that; it did not
examine individuals. There are a number of experienced and qualified people in position
within the district; there is a lot of talent in the district.
For board members what should they think about in terms of long term sustainability,
alignment and being visionary about where the district needs to be? Response: (1) In
terms of values, it is the SCHOOLS, period. What happens everyday in the classroom and
the leadership of the schools will ultimately be responsible for district performance. The
Board needs to assure from a policy level that what central office does is support the
schools and ensure clear, integrated messages are conveyed and that schools have what
they need (within the limits of the current economic situation). (2) Establishing leaders who
are responsible for leading and supervising schools is very critical. (3) With the move of the
CEO from “doing” to “assuring it is done” there is a need for a new educational heartbeat
with the vision to see how it all fits together, that the continuum of Pre-K through higher
education is being done. Regardless of what is designed, the extent to which that person
can communicate the vision of the district and assure the integration between design and
execution at the schools is critical. (4) The district must dig in now and focus on the schools
that need the greatest amount of attention and assistance. (5) With the fiscal realities,
finding a way to sustain programs and defining the core values of the board -- what, above
all else, needs to be sustained? There will be a need to look at what the trade-offs are, if
something has to be cut, what is the core value? (6) Finally, there is great capacity within
this Board both individually and collectively. (7) The support the Board can build around the
superintendent, reinforcement and support through difficult times/decisions, that the Board
to think strategically around core values and keep their eye on the ball.
Some of the trade offs – how can the board begin to predict, what can actually be
anticipated from national and state education leadership over the coming years? If the
Board is to look at their core values there is also an evolving effort around national
Page 3
46
standards. What would the trade offs be around that. If the new system is built around two
strong pillars of academics and administration, will this align with what might be happening
in the state in education reform? Response: (1) It is obvious all school districts will need to
do more with less and will this will continue over time. (2) School districts will be the default
for what is not occurring and happening with families placing a greater burden on service
levels than ever before. School policy leaders will have to make decisions to redefine what
can or cannot be done/offered. This will become a community issue. (3) The NCLB will
become more structured between national, state, districts and schools and the assessment
systems will need to become more aligned as well. (4) Performance management and
evaluation of results will be the key driver over the next decade. Highly qualified teachers
will be passé; “highly effective” teachers will become the new measure of performance. (5)
The current situation will create a need for policy makers to rethink how education is
delivered down the road. Education will not be confined by brick and mortar it will become
far more self-directed, individualized and accessible 24-7.
School will take on a new
definition over time driven by the rapidly changing society.
Performance evaluation, as many parts of the nation turn to an emphasis on that, St Paul
has historically had good relationship between teachers and the district. Do you have
suggestions on how the district and board should work through these kinds of changes and
still maintain that quality relationship with the organizations that represent the various of
services and professions? Response: Yes, work through these very carefully. The leaders
of statewide/national organizations see where things are going, they need to be at the table
as full partners in the design of change. Professionalism comes down to the point that the
very best people should be leading the schools and teaching the children. Evaluation of
performance is imperfect, there cannot be only a single indicator; there has to be an array of
indicators both qualitative and quantitative, portfolio and hard data. Everyone needs to be
at the table early on, it needs to be done in cooperation and ultimately it needs to be piloted
to see if it works. SPPS has the capacity to create an environment to test out and refine a
process early on so is in place when and if it becomes mandated. The district may be able
to find a core group of people willing to volunteer to pilot these efforts. You need to
communicate broadly, replicate successful efforts which have been developed elsewhere, it
is not always necessary to build new. The Board, as the policy maker, will ultimately decide
what is best for the district and the children. Not everyone will be happy but the district is
about the children, not the adults.
The eliminatation of 20 positions, the future looks pretty bleak, how can the Board monitor
and continue to be sure the district is moving forward and is being kept lean? The
accountability piece to be sure the district is on task and on track, when do you know it is
time to change the structure? Response: For the accountability piece, there are some
models which have been put in place at various levels which have been workable and
achieved results; work toward that. Secondly, the district is hitting the wall when it comes to
budget cuts (particularly for next year). If there is a need to reduce central office again the
district will be hard pressed to go much deeper and then fewer people will be asked to do
much more. However, it comes to a point when it is really hard to find people with the
expertise in disparate areas who are able to work across those very different areas.
Decisions will need to be made on how to decentralize more or look for savings in
outsourcing or decide what tradeoffs must/can be made.
Looking at what other
states/districts have done can be beneficial.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved the Committee of the Board recommend the Board of
Education accept the report on the Study of Organizational Structure and Staffing for Saint Paul
Public Schools. The motion was seconded by Ms. Street-Stewart.
Motion passed.
Page 4
47
B. Restructuring Proposed Organization Chart
The Superintendent stated the proposed organizational changes were done to eliminate barriers
to learning, align the central office to the schools for better support and to help address the
current budget situation. It is the time to refocus energies and resources for future success.
SPPS has made reorganizations and staffing cuts in the past but for many years, these were too
few changes to staff and to practices. This organization chart will make changes in the
organization, changes to titles/functions and add a few new positions to align the work to future
needs. The proposed changes will better serve schools and the community, will move the
district to the next level of work while being true to the vision and strategic plan.
There is a need for greater academic gains; they must be significant gains to close the
achievement gap. The Superintendent stressed the importance of the Chief Academic Officer
position and the change in the alignment under the Division of Administrative Services which
brings together all business and financial services as well as HR. She outlined the new position
of Chief of Accountability, Planning and Policy along with the realignment of various other
functions under the Chief of Staff.
The Superintendent stressed that the Idea is to maximize dollars and the efficiency of staff. She
complimented the staff as being professional, committed and passionate.
There is the NGF (not funded by general funds) – there are eight positions in this area, are
these permanent positions? Yes, except for the Director of Turnaround Schools which is
only a one year position due to funding.
The Office of Policy & Procedures administrator, explain this position relative to intergovernmental and public policy. Response: An area of need in the district is one having the
ability to have more contact with elected officials. This position will be a mix of working on
internal and external policy issues. The suggestion was made to reconsider the title so it
matches better with the purpose of the office.
Technology support and the infrastructure of academic services technology, is there a
bridge between administration and academic services? Response: Technology has to be
integrated, there is no other way to make it work for the district. The Director of Information
Technology has a direct reporting relationship through participation as part of the Cabinet.
This relationship is there because the organization has a severe need to upgrade
technology both for business purposes and academic/testing purposes. Technology needs
to be embedded in everything and must provide the services the district needs.
Regarding silos, one way to tackle the issue is to work more cross functionally through
fewer departments with more interrelation. How will the consolidation and integration affect
student achievement sooner rather than later? Response: Two things, one big piece is
parent/community engagement and family involvement. There are major things which will
increase achievement: (1) the quality of the teacher, (2) the engagement of the students
along with the family behind them with an understanding of the value of education. (3) The
need to work to engage families in the process of learning and how to work with their own
children in the home. (4) With the budget cuts there is a need to mainstream many things
and is the reason the Office of Family and Community Engagement is there so all efforts are
coming out of one office but with expert input from other departments. In the current budget
situation, the district needs to address every way of providing support to the students, to
strengthen community partnerships, to provide greater integration and alignment. The
community needs to work with the schools – the parents, the city, the county agencies and
many others to achieve the end of improved student achievement.
Long-range planning this working draft/team is it set and ready to take on and increase
district success over the next five years, to increase achievement and graduation rates?
Response: The Superintendent stated the org chart has had many evolutions and input
from many different sources. It is a summation of how to save money and provide the best
structure. The reorganization saves almost a million dollars ($944,000). This is what is
needed at this time, it may change as time goes on, as needs change over time. The
Page 5
48
district needs to do more with less. This will continue to ensure SPPS students getting a
world class education. This puts the emphasis on the schools.
Appreciation was expressed that the Board is hearing there will be improvement and that
the focus is on all kids, that they must learn and be prepared for the future.
This is a working draft, when will it become final? There will be some tweaks to the chart as
that is within the superintendent‟s purview, the elimination and creation of positions must be
th
brought to the board for approval on the 20 , then the chart will become final.
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart move the Committee of the Board recommend the Board
of the Education accept the report on the proposed organizational changes. Motion seconded by
Ms. O’Connell.
Motion Passed.
C. Presentation of Preliminary Reduction Proposals for SY 2010
The budget reduction processed started several months ago. This year‟s approach is different
from what was done in the past. The decision was made to bring forward certain parts of the
budget proposal which were approved last week. This second step addresses the changes to
the schools and programming. Administration is bring the best thinking provided from staff on
reductions in this area, very little remains which might be considered if further reductions are
needed.
The Chief Business Officer stated this was the third in a series of cultivating excellence
presentations which work through the challenges of creating budget reform/reductions for FY
10-11. The projected shortfall remains at $27,200,000. Prior reductions were made and
approved in the amount of $18,487,500 at the April 6 COB meeting. There is a need for
additional cuts of $8,712, 500. He then moved in to the specific recommendations being
brought to the Board.
Centrally Administered Program/Services Reductions:
Central Administration Cuts identified as of 4/13/10
(Does not include reductions to ELL, Special Ed and Wellness
which are included in the reductions made on 4/6/10)
Instructional Services (elimination of 14 coaching positions
established in 08-09 with one-time only money from the State)
Security (change the 24/7 monitoring service through greater
Utilization of technology – eliminates FTEs)
Instructional Services (eliminate Itinerant Instrumental Music
program (not music) for grade 4-6. 10.6 FTEs involved.
General music education will continue for schools)
Instructional Services (Reduction to SY 10-11 budget as
Mondo material purchases are complete)
Instructional Services (eliminate all Middle School athletics)
TOTAL
$ 1,580,000
1,288,000
100,000
900,000
1,000,000
350,000
5,218,000
School and Program Assessment Criteria included: the size and viability of current program(s),
the capacity of the building, the proximity of facilities, the condition of the building and the status
whether leased or owned.
Facilities Usage – Building/Program Closure, Co-Location of Schools
And Relocation of Programs:
Closure of Program - Arlington High School
Co-Location of Buildings:
o Ames to Vento
o Franklin to North End
Page 6
49
o Prosperity Heights to Hayden Heights
o Sheridan to Highwood Hills‟
o Hazel Park to Battle Creek Middle
Temporary Building Closures
o Ames
o Hazel Park
o Longfellow (announced 6/09)
o Prosperity Heights
o Wellstone
o Roosevelt (announced 6/09)
o Sheridan
o Franklin
Program Relocation
o Washington to Arlington High School site
o Wellstone to Washington Site
$3,500,000
Specifics of the various changes were outlined along with potential future usage of the facilities.
School Programming
Staffing – shared principals in low enrollment elementary
Schools
Streamlining of Transportation
Change transportation walking distance to 2.0 miles for HS students
ALC extended day moved to Saturdays
Operational Programs and Services
Change temperature set points 2 degrees each season
Operations & Maintenance (change approach to summer lawn
Maintenance at some sites)
Athletic Fields (no general fund support for maintaining fields)
Swimming Pools (close 4 of 12 pools)
TOTAL
Future Potential Opportunities
Reconfiguration of Middle Schools
Eliminate city wide bussing from some magnet schools;
Create new boundaries for these sites
Schools – Centrally identify class size
TOTAL POTENTIAL FUTURE OPS
700,000
1,300,000
1,000,000
400,000
35,000
150,000
200,000
3,785,000
TBD
2,900,000
3,200,000
$6,100,000
Administration noted it was bringing forward recommendations for a total of $30,990,500 for
Board consideration.
The meeting was turned over to a Facilitator to conduct the discussion of the proposed budget
reductions. He indicated questions of clarification and discussion would be on Slides 9-13
initially.
A broad overall question, when will the district get to a place where it doesn‟t have to
continue to make cuts over a number of years – is this happening now or will it continue for
another year or longer? When will the district move to a long-term discussion on budget in
a broader context? Response: Originally, that was the thought, but as work has
progressed, it has become more difficult to get to the dollars. If enrollment declines
continue more will need to be done, there can be no guarantee of anything in the future.
The district will need to continue with cuts at this level over the next years. Administration is
Page 7
50
trying to do this in a global way focusing on expanding grade levels in middle school,
providing more support to students in each building by having more students in a school
building, maximize space usage and minimize transportation. Those principles are ones the
Board has expressed agreement with.
Public questions have stated when can the district quit nickel and diming and make the cuts
and get them over with? Response: The reality is some of the items being brought forward
were raised last year, the district needs to make a decision and move on. Unfortunately,
85% of the dollars rest in people resources. Ultimately, the Board needs to make the
decision on how the cuts progress – bit by bit or major reductions.
Slide 4 centrally administered programs and services – the 8 FTE reductions to date,
$944,000 with the note that that is part of a total reduction of $1,580,000. What is the
connection between slide 4 and the org chart? Response: The eight FTEs ($944,000) are
changes reflected in the org chart. The other reductions in central administration were done
previously.
In going through co-location/closing, etc. does this anticipate that part of the structural deficit
will be fixed longer term and potentially the deficits in future years may be slightly less?
Yes.
The discussion then moved specifically to Slides 9-13:
How many kids at Arlington for the junior and senior year will have to choose new schools
and, beyond on-time enrollment, how will administration work to make the transitions as
successful as possible for the kids? How will they be kept in SPPS and how will they
continue their focus and work in the BioSmart program and what will happen to staff?
th
th
Response: There are 190 students in 11 grade; 210 in 12 grade. Continuation of the
BioSmart focus – how many classes are related to BioSmart? There are more BioSmart
classes in 9th and 10th grade because the program has been at that level for a longer period.
In the higher grades, students are taking classes they need to graduate or extra reading and
math classes. There is not an extensive number of BioSmart classes. The district will
facilitate the transition for kids, every student will be given information tomorrow and families
will receive a letter showing them what choices are available. There will be meetings
scheduled for parents and students to discuss the change. The Placement Center will
assist in every way possible in placement of the students. There will still be 9th and 10th
grade BioSmart. The district has been working with the Teacher‟s Union addressing the
extra hour Washington has. It is hoped the BioSmart staff will remain even with the extra
hour of school time.
The BioSmart program has a large amount of resources invested in it, is it correct that there
will be no 11th and 12th levels of BioSmart? Response: There has been an investment of
$6 million in BioSmart. The classes for SY 10-11 will be through 10 th grade. In SY 11-12
11th grade will be added with the 12 th grade the year after that. It will take an additional
three years to grow the program out at the Arlington site. Washington Middle School has
many applicants for their program; moving to the Arlington site will allow more spaces for
interested students. Eventually the BioSmart program at Arlington will grow to a 7-12
articulation.
With Arlington, having about 400 students looking for another secondary school option and
teachers from Arlington who will be moving, what is the time table on how families will find
out what school their student will end up in and what is being done about the teachers?
Response: As soon as information can be given to the students and their application is
processed they will know where they will go. The Placement Center will be giving each
th
th
current 10 and 11 grade student an application. Arlington staff will help ensure the
applications are back on time. The aps will be collected, entered into the data base and
processed as on time applications. The ELL level 1 and 2 students would be handled
separately to match students and services so they get the support they need to be
successful in their transition. In regard to staff, administration will need to know how many
students will be coming in to the 9th grade (Washington). Then the number of 10 th grade
students needs to be assessed in order to have a better sense of how may teachers will be
th
needed. Also, there is a need to work with Washington 8 graders to see how many are
Page 8
51
th
willing stay with the group so there could potentially be more 9 graders. Once the number
of students is known, then the number of teachers needed can be determined.
What is the current thinking about how to resolve the differences in focus in locations? Will
the schools co-located continue with their current focus? Response: The hope for the
coming year is that the schools being co-located will continue with their current focus.
Administration will work with the other school to continue its focus for this year. For SY 1112 work will be done to find ways to incorporate pieces of certain programs into schools‟
focus. That will be the responsibility of the two principals and staff. It is believed it will be
less disruptive to bring the students as a cohort (the same teachers and friends) they are
simply located in a different building. The district needs to begin to think about the future
SY 11-12 and how can the two schools be integrated into one in order to share services and
offer richer options for students in services, classes, etc.
For clarification, it is expected that within a year‟s time, co-located programs will begin to
collaborate and the quality of services will go up because of shared budgets to expand core
pieces? Yes, there will be new innovation in terms of program focus, etc. This will provide
the opportunity to look at becoming more cohesive while still maintaining some
independence.
The trifecta of schools on White Bear Avenue between Maryland and Minnehaha, was there
no possibility of keeping one of the three schools as host and co-locating another program
in that building? Response: All the buildings are small and only hold a little over 300
students each – even if numbers reached capacity they would still be small schools and it
would be expensive to open the doors. Why instead of collocating couldn‟t they go to
Hazel Park? Hazel Park was built as a middle school so there would be a need to
investment in modifications. Additionally it has much greater capacity than the number of
students being co-located. There is also discussion about utilizing Hazel Park to articulate
the Montessori program into a middle school program.
Going back to Arlington – What about kids who chose other schools for this coming year
who might now want to go to Arlington – is that option precluded? That would not be
precluded, in fact we hope that might happen as students see the opportunity open up.
Secondary students can change schools up to the end of July. Will all families be informed
of this opportunity? All current secondary families who have already enrolled? That is
something that could be on the table, this may be an inviting offer not available previously.
Arlington has no attendance area – if it is taken away as a high school then all the current
Arlington kids drop back into their residential attendance area as their first choice? Yes, if
that is the first choice they make. When will kids who registered on time be notified of their
school? Within the next week. How will the Arlington kids get everything done within the
next few days, how do they end up in the same queue? What would be done is the
applications would be collected, a window of time for application would be defined, and
applications would be entered for their choice as an on time application.
In co-location, Creative Arts moving into Wellstone which is set up as an elementary, what
are the costs associated with co-locating/transferring programs? Response: The Creative
Arts Program is small with very specific needs. There will be a requirement for some
investment – at this point, no calculations have been done, further options need to be
explored for this program. For the first years, as the upper floors were for older kids, these
could be utilized and as enrollment increases modifications would need to be made to the
building‟s lower levels. The various possibilities need to be explored. Administration and
the Board have talked about saving, but at the same time what will it take to get where we
need to go?
Will there be costs associated with co-locating? There will be both operating and capital
costs – estimates have not been done at this point as the information has been embargoed
to this point. It would be mostly contracting to pack and move so the moves could be done
in a timely manner. District staff (teachers, etc.) will not be allowed to move any district
equipment/materials, only their own personal items, for liability reasons.
Creative Arts to Wellstone – what about student parking? Response: There is no parking
on University right now and students are still getting there. The idea is the district needs to
Page 9
52
find a place to expand for a 7-12 creative arts program. Wellstone was a suggestion; it may
not be the answer; administration is still exploring options. More students will be captured
from other places with the expansion of an arts school, it will be appealing to many people.
As we look at the programs that are co-locating – many of the schools have pre-k programs
and are going into schools that do not. Is it correct to assume that all of these buildings
with co-located programs will now have pre-k programs if they did not have them
previously? The funding is for the pre-K program is very targeted to so many people and so
many buildings but yes, all sites will have one.
The designation for future usage TBD – what are administration‟s initial thoughts around
use of the buildings which are being closed? One of the things the Board talked about as
adjustments were discussed in terms of cuts was the possibility of generating revenue from
the closed buildings through leasing to charters, etc. Response: A couple things, the past
year the district has been offering Longfellow and Roosevelt for use (community colleges,
etc.) the primary issue seems to be parking. The district is looking at other organizations
with the next conversation being with non-profits or charters who might be willing to lease
space. The reality is as much as the district can collaborate with the community, the city,
the county instead of renting space from others they might rent the space from SPPS this
would help with some of the costs. The next conversation would be if the district is willing to
lease (maybe sell) to charter schools. If it is a way to generate dollars, it needs to be looked
at. The Board makes those decisions or provides those directives, administration will abide
by the Boards directives.
Regarding the articulation mentioned between Adams and Highland, perhaps this should be
looked at as a possibility sooner rather than later. Response: The reason it is not listed is
the discussion has only begun. Administration has talked to the principals and received a
positive response, parents are interested in reducing the overcrowding in those buildings.
The next steps will be meeting with those schools and the 6th grade parents to see if they
would be interested in making the decision this year or when.
Back to Creative Arts, if Creative Arts is now one of the alternative programs, are you
suggesting combining ALC with non-ALC in order to get capacity over time? Yes
Slide 9, shows a $3.5 million savings but costs have not been identified so will the savings
be less? Slide 12 shows specific savings from Arlington which are included in the $3.5
million. So at least 1/3 of the money is from the Arlington closing and has there been (or
not) a cost estimate as the savings were created? Response: For the co-location, there
would not be any major facility changes. There will be some cost in moving and packing.
For the Washington transforming to Wellstone administration will need to look at the
numbers. The renovations for this were not calculated into the savings figure.
Expenses – administration has built models that do estimates based on historical
information and the cost sheets based on those historical models for the expenses for
moving. These are best estimates as there are many variables in that. Closures and colocations were factored in. Slide 12 shows, as a subset of the $3.5 million, the parts of the
program which represent savings which will occur with the closing of the Arlington program.
On balance all of the closures and co-locations were modeled with conservative estimates,
there could be more savings or there could be less savings depending upon circumstances
at the time of implementation.
If you only focus on how much it will cost in moving from A to B and enrollment continues to
decline what is happening is the district is offering a lesser program for students. With more
students on site, the district can provide a stronger program for students. Moving is a one
time cost but there are other gains directly for the students and that is what needs to be
focused on.
The upgrades at Washington, there was a specific grant to update the technology center?
Yes. Does the technology center move with Washington? Response: It is a mix. Arlington
has plenty of technology at that location but the district will need to know how many
students move to the program to be sure it is adequate for the numbers. Both schools are
well equipped with technology. The gain in moving an elementary school is those students
will have more technology than at their current building but it is also a way to feed the
Page 10
53
BioSmart program by moving the program back down into elementary. The grant was for a
BioSmart Program not for technology.
Arlington has a thriving ROTC program – will the program be offered for Washington
students or will it transfer to another location? The program starts with 9th grade so it will be
offered.
The suggested change to Highland for the 6-8 Spanish immersion – can there be a middle
th
school? There is one we are just bringing 6 graders into the articulation.
If Washington is moved to the Arlington site and next year it will be 7-10, then the next two
grades will be added over the next two years. Then the district will be back to the same
number of high schools it has now? Yes and if Creative Arts is added it would be another
high school option which is important because the district is overcrowded in the high
schools. This will allow an additional space for the students who desire creative arts and
also another specific program at Washington. Theses will be specialty programs rather
than comprehensive.
The impact on neighborhoods and community associations around the school must be
included in the communication and engagement process which needs to be at the highest
level of competency. For that purpose, alone filling the Office of Family, Community and
Engagement ASAP is important.
The Board understands there may be some bumps along the way but whatever can be
done to have that office for support through the transitions is vital. Response, The hope is
after the Board meeting and approval of the changes the positions will be posted.
Within that office in of the areas around community partnerships. There are a number of
public partners who have been working with SPPS in goal areas but there are other public
entities (parks and rec, libraries) which might find a different impact from these changes.
There is a need to develop a new policy to support public partnerships in ways that have not
been done previously. This needs to be considered by the Board as a future issue for
consideration so that we finish the year with a complete review of current policies while
remaining open up new possibilities..
What can be shared with the Board on limitations of building use, management, zoning, etc.
Please provide information to the Board on any future use, limitations, etc. so the Board has
at least a basic knowledge on building use potentials. In other words, constraints on
buildings which would become open. This is to equip the Board with some basic knowledge
in case questions arise.
On the Community engagement piece, while the position is being posted there is still a
strong Office of Community Engagement through June 30 which will do the work as the
process proceeds. There is a plan being put in place.
What about kids in co-locating schools or moving schools – what if they want to be in a
different school?. Response: What will be done is those students will be treated as
students who want to make a change. There will be a better sense when staff starts
meeting with the groups. As always, the Placement Center will work on a student by
student basis.
Here is the challenge, you do assignments within a week, will there be sufficient room to
accommodate not only all the Arlington kids but any kids from these 10 schools who might
want to move? Won‟t there be some kids who might fall into the not on-time registration?
Please be sure to watch for not on time applications and be sure everyone is treated fairly.
On building co-locations what is the message on attendance areas and on transportation?
What happens to the attendance area and what happens with transportation? Response:
It will not affect attendance area as this is temporary, it is being looked at year by year. The
district is not making permanent changes in attendance areas at this time. Transportation
will be based on enrollments received by the Placement Center and changes occur every
year in costs and routes. There will probably be some tremendous changes in start times.
Costs can‟t be calculated until Transportation has the numbers. There will be some
efficiencies built in by having more children at fewer locations.
Will Operations/Transportation have a conversation with families as each site has its own
culture on how things work and the families base their of life on timing around schools. Will
Page 11
54
this be taken into consideration? Response.
There will be many changes but the
information is not going to be available immediately. The current circumstances are forcing
these changes on the District. If the District wants to continue being fiscally responsible
while impacting students as little as possible these decisions need to be made. Everyone
needs to work together on these tough decisions, every school district needs to make these
very, very difficult decisions. The District has to be realistic on what is can promise and
what it can offer. The program the students will get by co-locating schools will be a better
program as there will be more supports for the students.
How will this be communicated and how can we help parents and students be comfortable
with the new buildings? When Farnsworth and Cleveland went K-8, they held open houses
so families could see the new facilities. The Board encouraged administration to take
advantage of the energy of high school students and ask them to form welcome committees
at Arlington for the new students coming in.
Community partnerships/community schools – this should be an item for future Board
discussion along with wrap around services, community investment, bring in partners to
offer services to students and families, etc.
The facilitator stated that this presentation of proposed cuts will set Board and administration up
for a clearer understanding of the cuts and allow for further public/staff engagement to find
areas of concurrence or weakness in the specific proposals.
Slide 14 – transportation changes, explain the ALC extended day change to Saturdays and
what is the impact piece of Creative Arts and Gordon Parks? Response: Instead of after
school programming twice a week it would be changed to Saturday programming (30 days
of instruction). Students would be less tired, they would be provided with breakfast and
lunch and a very exciting learning opportunity. There would be transportation paid for out of
ALC. There is some risk that some families will not like Saturday programming, however,
this will provide additional time for learning with an intensive focus on instruction and
academics particularly in specific areas of deficiency. Additionally the District will work with
the City to bridge to the rec centers and more extended learning time. This would provide a
much more stabile schedule of extended time learning for the students (Mon-Sat.).
Slide 14 – for both items – neither seems realistic for SY 10-11 in terms of the magnitude of
the change. Response: When talk about changing transportation you will need to look at
all who are attending high school to know who are under the two miles limit and
transportation will not be provided for them. The unintended results will be students moving
to a school that is over two miles away. The Director of Transportation was very emphatic
that this would happen so it may not really be a savings. It was put into the proposals as a
possibility for consideration. For Saturday school, currently the after school program starts
in October so it will be necessary to work with staff and parents to promote the Saturday
opportunities. There would be a saving on staff because of the number of people required
to run the after school programs; Saturday is a better return on investment. The idea did not
start because of the savings but as a way to offer additional school time on task. One of the
advantages of the way it is done now is there is no transition, there is the same staff, there
is clarity of curriculum alignment vs putting a number of students together in possibly
different sites. The reality is it is difficult to find teachers to do the after school programs, the
kids don‟t absorb everything they could as they are tired; there are trade-offs. The district
should be able to know after the first week in September the specific areas in which
students are not performing; the programming will be worked differently by focusing on the
specific need, not grade level, but need.
The proposal to eliminate middle school athletics. What are the number of students
impacted by this? How many hours of extended day will those students lose? How
realistic is it for the District to expect the City and Parks and Recreation to pick this up since
they are also under serious financial constraints?
Slide 18 – provide details on the pool closing; we are not closing any high school swimming
pools, right? Response: The originally proposal closed 10 of 12 pools. What are the
implications and savings in keeping the high school pools open? Response: Originally it
was proposed to close 10 of the 12. If the high school pools are kept open the district can
still have some savings, approximately $200,000. There may be a need to find other ways
Page 12
55
to maintain the pools. This may change again next year and we may need to close the rest.
The four pools which will be closed are Wellstone, Cherokee, Murray, the Arlington lap
pool. The programming impact in elementary schools is the need to have one or more
physical ed teachers who are fully certified so swimming will not longer be offered as a
physical education activity. In the middle school it will simply not be available as a physical
education credit.
Slide 6 – what does the cut to music mean? Currently every elementary school has .2 FTE
th
th
th
instrumental music teachers. This serves 5 and 6 and in some schools 4 . By cutting
there will not be instrumental music programs in elementary schools. The general music
program will continue. These are centrally funded dollars and were originally cut in „09 but
was reinstated in part.
Why doesn‟t this trash band and orchestra in the secondary schools where the students
come from families who can‟t afford private lessons? Response: SPPS is one of only a
few districts that offers instrumental music in elementary. Administration was tasked to
make budget cuts which are not from the original dollars that go to buildings. This is from
centrally funded dollars. When the partial cut was done last year with schools having the
option to pick it up, not many did it. This year schools will be focusing on using current
dollars to staff schools, as they have already been cut by $10 million for this year the
chances to pick it up is even less than last year.
Administration was requested to provide information on the impact of the music cut as
follows: How many schools took the option to fund instrumental music after the cut was
reinstated last year? Provide clarity on the impact on opportunities for kids to participate in
secondary musical opportunities and how this might damage the programs. How many kids
in secondary band or orchestra got start in elementary programs? Percentage and
demographics would be helpful also.
These cuts to music might be an opportunity to pull in community partners (McNally Smith,
Walker West, Ordway) and there may be other possible solutions to consider as well.
The request was made for administration to provide the same information about middle
school athletics as was asked about the 4-6 music. The District can‟t commit the City at all
as at this point, the conversations are just beginning..
Lawn maintenance - citations – again there is a need to have a conversation with the City
about maximizing services. What would the citation be? How will this play out?
Slide 5 – Security – Is this $100,000 eliminating personnel, using locks and cameras, etc.?
This is not security for students, security for buildings? Response: This is primarily for
mechanical failures – this monitoring will rely more on technology and less on the number of
people at monitoring stations. It is 2 FTEs.
Slide 13 - Shared principals. Clarification was made that in some schools which share
facilities, they are separate schools and have 2 different principals. This would be changed
to having one site principal for two schools. There are also some small schools in relatively
close proximity that could share a principal between the two buildings. This would not be
done with the co-locating schools in 2010.
Middle school athletics – Apple Valley is turning this over to neighborhood athletic
associations (football, baseball, etc.) and have increased fees. Administration was
reminded the Board had instructed them not to ignore fee increases so they need to look at
those possibilities
Slide 22 – Why is administration aiming at $4 million in cuts over the projected shortfall?
Response: Administration is not aiming for more but providing more choices and putting
more dollars on the table to allow other choices which have less impact on direct services to
students.
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved the Committee of the Board recommend the Board of
Education receive the report for the purpose of moving forward with public and staff engagement
Page 13
56
around the array of options with the addition of the specific information requested.
seconded by Mr. Hardy.
Motion
Motion passed.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION:
The Superintendent asked the Board if there is any specific thing that most Board members
feel should not be included in the proposal at this time? Is there anything the Board wants
removed from the proposal at this point? Administration needs to focus on what truly needs
to be done without spending time of items which will be pulled out in the near future.
The two mile issue might be too disruptive for this year and may be better considered at a
future time.
Music, perhaps take off the table or find other ways to offer instruction.
The comment was made that a board member wanted to hear from stakeholders about
ways to do this, let the community provide input and feedback on impacts and how this
might be done better. There may be other new ideas out there.
The Board should hear from the public there should be a balanced hearing on the issue and
the information requested would also be beneficial in making a decision.
A Board member reiterated that this is a time when SPPS can no longer do business in
same manner as has been done and the decision is to bring the kind of decisions/closures
needed to address eliminating the achievement gap. This is not a judgment call on the
value of one thing over another but if the district is already reduced to providing something
only one day a week, perhaps the district is not best suited to provide that service and
would be better off exploring with due diligence other opportunities and options out there so
as not to do more harm. She would not support taking anything off the table but challenged
the public to look at options and come back with alternative solutions and what else may be
possible.
The statement was made the Board recognized going into this process that it was essential
the Board be very clear about information the Board wanted from administration. In some of
last year‟s discussion the Board focused in on one subject in the proposal and spent a great
deal of time on that. If the Board is asking staff to do surveys around student instruction the
Board must be very clear about what it is looking for and that the information being asked
for is valid. It appears it would be more valuable for staff to spend its time on aspects of
core academics. Let‟s determine specifically what is being asked and how to be confident it
is valid information but there should be no additional rounds on the same subject once the
information is provided..
Clarification on request – the concept of elementary instrumental music instruction and
middle school athletics is to provide a comprehensive contemporary curriculum that appeals
to kids and families from different angles. If there are alternative ways of getting these
services then that is the route to pursue first and foremost. If the instrumental music
instruction so disabled at this point as not to be worth saving at this level of instruction the
district shouldn‟t be working on the margin. What needs to be verified is that this is a
critically important feeder for kids in poverty to go on to legitimate music opportunities in
Grades 7-12. If only kids who can afford private lessons are the ones who have historically
used this program than it becomes a different issue. What is the connection between a full
program, regardless of how it is delivered, between elementary and secondary? This is not
about the things on the margin, it is about the core understanding of how this is connected
to students wanting to be in the school district, enrolling in particular schools and pursuing
and education in SPPS. The same for athletics.
The question was asked if the Board was concerned about the time sensitivity dilemmas of
the proposals on co-locating, closing and moving schools. How soon does the Board need
to move on certain aspects of this prior to June 15? Response: The proposals on colocating, closing and moving schools is something that needs to move forward as people
are being notified of the proposed changes and students need to apply for schools for next
year; it is very time sensitive. The implications of this on schools is large. The impact on
Page 14
57
families is great if the Board doesn‟t act on these aspects soon. If these changes are made
the district has to work with people – each change affects SPPS staff, students and families,
their lives and the community. The major changes being asked for are the co-location of
schools, the closing of schools and programs.
In looking at slide 21 (the summary) it seems the center of the constellation is the $3.5
utilized for changes under facility usage and say the successful reductions are contingent
upon the ability of the district to make those proposed changes of $3.5 million. The
commitment of these dollars is what the Board needs to do, it is the next step. What we
need from the community is, given the changes, how can they be successfully
accomplished rather than exploring other alternatives. The Board can say with integrity the
$3.5 million can be acted upon now.
The Board owes the community a decision as early as next week‟s board meeting on the
direction for the schools saying the Board agrees on the closing, co-locations as well as the
parts of the other buckets that go along with those actions so these are approved by default
as well.
As a governance issue what is in this proposal is primarily within the purview of
administration but clarification was requested on the Board‟s governance areas. The Board
areas are grade reconfigurations (Washington), the school building/program closures
(Arlington program) and the title changes within the org chart ($944,000). The co-locations
are not a change in program or grade so do not fall to the Board.
Principal sharing? Does not require specific board action as it is required to have a principal
assigned to a school.
These are decisions which must occur in some way, shape or form what is needed from the
community is to take this proposal to them to seek input on impacts and implications not
foreseen; how best to minimize damage and mitigate harm. So this needs to be framed for
community engagement properly before moving forward.
There was an in-depth discussion on the particular pieces the Board might need to move on at
this meeting and the urgency of moving forward on various pieces of the proposal. The
question was asked what additional information was needed if a meeting was held prior to the
Board meeting on April 20?
About the co-locations – a proper, written restatement of the summary presentation made
by the Chief Business Officer about the schools chosen to move in the directions proposed
with more clearly stated reasons for why the schools are being moved in these directions.
This would be needed by no later than the 4:00 p.m. the day of the proposed meeting.
There is urgency to move forward from the proposed COB meeting on some or all of these
issues. It is essential that schools and families have the time to process these changes in
order to make them successful so there is urgency in moving forward.
Concern was expressed that there is a need to have community engagement on this matter.
The District needs to clearly identify the nature of the community engagement that is
relevant and appropriate to the decision. These recommendations have come from
community input, research, analysis, Board guidance and the best thinking of
administration. What is being sought is perceptions, belief and experiences around impacts
and implications of the changes so the implementation can be managed best for the
students, families and staff.
The meeting should be administration presenting their arguments, in their fullness, around
the $944,000, the $3.5 million and the $700,000; the three most time sensitive pieces within
the proposal.
The Superintendent stated the following were inter-related and time sensitive: Co-location
of schools, centrally administered programs and services, school programming (sharing
principals) and the transportation (2 miles limit).
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart moved the Committee of the Board recommend the
Board of Education schedule a Committee of the Board meeting for Tuesday, April 20 at 4:00 p.m.
with the intent of determining how to move forward on the budget categories within the proposal
Page 15
58
with specific focus on facility usage and relevant budget updates related to that.
seconded by Ms. O’Connell.
Motion
Motion Passed.
III.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Ms. Carroll moved the meeting adjourn, seconded by Ms. Varro.
Motion Passed.
Marilyn Polsfuss
Assistant Clerk
Page 16
59
MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
APRIL 20, 2010
PRESENT:
Board of Education: Anne Carroll, Jean O’Connell, Elona Street-Stewart,
John Brodrick, Vallay Varro, Keith Hardy, Kazoua
Kong-Thao
Staff: Superintendent Silva, Bill Larson, Kate WilcoxHarris, Denise Quinlan, Michael Baumann, Suzanne
Kelly
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II. AGENDA – BUDGET UPDATE
A. Presentation – Overview and General Reduction Recommendations
The Superintendent stated the presentation was a compilation of those items where there
was general agreement or where there were changes made from what was previously
presented.
The Chief Business Officer stated the recommendations represented an intersection and
alignment of two key areas – Academics, high quality programs providing educational
excellence to all and Operations, the responsible management of fiscal and capital
resources.
The guiding principles and priorities in the process have been to expand excellence, to
increase access, to ensure equity and to address the needs of all SPPS students and
families.
He reiterated the shortfall remains at $27,200,000 as March 2, 2010. Reductions that were
approved by the Board in earlier meetings totaled $18,487,500. This represents reductions
of $500,000 in school programming, $500,000 in facility usage, $6,487,500 from centrally
administered programs and services, $10,000,000 from schools, academics, and labor
adjustments of $1,000,000. The remaining shortfall which is address with reductions outlined
at this meeting is $8,712,500.
The reductions were divided into three areas and were presented as such.
•
Part A: General Areas of Agreement
Centrally Administered Programs/Services
o Central Administration cuts identified as of 4/13/10
(Total anticipated reduction is $1,580,000)
o Instructional Services (a reduction of 14 academic content
Coach positions established in FY 09 with one-time-only state
Money)
o Security (Change in 24/7 monitoring, elimination of FTEs with
Greater utilization of technology and automation)
o Instructional Services (Reduce SY 10-11 budget since MONDO
purchase is complete)
School Programming
o Staffing (Share principals between adjacent low enrollment schools)
$
944,000
1,288,000
100,000
1,000,000
700,000
Page 1
60
Operational Programs/Services
o Operations and Maintenance (Change approach to summer lawn
Maintenance)
o Buildings (Change temperature set points 2 degrees each season)
o Athletic Fields (Field would be maintained from intra-school funds.)
o Swimming Pools (Close 4 of 12 pools)
35,000
400,000
150,000
200,000
The Superintendent then moved on to discuss revisions which had been made in certain
areas of Part A.
• Itinerant Instrumental Music Instruction
She indicated a compromise solution had been found for this program and she was
recommending the grade 4-6 instrumental music program be moved from the schools
and the school day to ALC after school programming. This would be a change in service
deliver method with several positive aspects: classroom instruction time would be
maximized, as there would be no loss of class time instruction as there is currently, music
could be offered twice per week and it would provide the opportunity to extend
enrichment opportunities in other creative arts areas as well. Transportation would be
provided to the students taking advantage of this opportunity. This change would require
a reduction of 10.6 FTEs. These individuals would have the opportunity to teach through
ALC at extended day contracted rates. This change is projected to save $750,000.
Funding would come through ALC, not from the general fund.
The Board would be asked to continue to fund $150,000 from the general fund in order to
contract with community agencies that deliver art and music programs. This could
provide even more diverse music and art programs after school.
o It is good to see an alternative provided. This is an attractive solution which does not
conflict with academic time or Fridays. What about kids in after school programming
using that whole time for academics? Would they be precluded from participating or
is this the same issue facing them in regular day? Yes, it is happening anyway
during academic instruction time; lessons are about ½ hours plus group lesson time.
This option provides more opportunities for those students who are academically
behind and who also want to participate in enrichment. For these students, SPPS
plans to pilot the Saturday school concept to allow students who are academically
behind to have another option for instructional time. This extended time would be
exclusively for academics. This new opportunity has been successfully utilized with
GRAD enhanced study. This would provide up to 30 more days of instructional time
for students who want to participate. Time on task on academic work is the only way
the achievement gap will be closed.
o As move to after school programming this will be an opportunity for many students
who did not have the opportunity during the school day to participate.. Has
administration thought about making sure as this program expands that it is offered to
more students. Response:; If parents consider this an opportunity to use for the
enrichment piece every student will be invited to participate. This is not a remedial
program/time it is an opportunity for students who want to achieve more. Things
such as chess club, music, reading, the arts, etc that the district has not been able to
provide previously because most resources have been concentrated on improving
proficiency.
o Transportation for the after school ALC. Is that already provided? This is not an
additional cost? Transportation for ALC is paid out of the ALC budget. This is a
better use of buses, it maximizes resources in that more students would be
transported rather than the few currently being accommodated.
o Please confirm the $750,000 in cost savings is from the salaries of the FTE’s. Yes,
it is the salaries. On additional piece of information, the people teaching after school
students need to be licensed and they would be paid out of ALC funds.
61
Page 2
o
o
•
What would be the impact of elementary and secondary participation? The
relationship between elementary and secondary instrumental participation and the
effect elementary cuts would have.
Administration was asked to provide that
information. Administration was also formally requested to provided, within a
reasonable timeframe, an updated comprehensive arts plan to the Board; to look at
music within the context of the bigger picture of arts education in St. Paul; the entire
picture. Response: The plan expired in 2005. This is doable for administration by
the beginning of the next school year. This would be an updated plan representing
the proposed changes and maximizes resources across the district. Administration
will need to be realistic about what can be afforded as well as how to get involvement
from the community, agencies and the city to maximize community and district
dollars.
Over the summer to what extent is it realistic to believe anything new or different
might be part of the 10-11 school year?
Can some of this happen through
partnerships, special pilots, by second semester? Response: Administration could
not commit to anything right now, there need to be additional conversations around
arts education in order to align it across the board.
Transportation
Originally this was proposed to be $1,000,000 from the change from after school
programming. This was changed due to the piloting of moving ALC extended day
academics to Saturdays. So there will now be both after school and Saturday
programming. This portion ($373,900) comes from ALC funds and represents a saving to
the general fund. This is to pilot the Saturday school to see how effective it is, to see
what gains can be achieved and how the opportunity is embraced by the community.
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
o Will this Saturday pilot be for all students, K-12, what are the details? Response: It
will be piloted for all students. It may start in October or November. It will be focused
precisely on the areas of student need. It will establish “academies” to address the
areas of specific need. It will be almost like individualized IEP plans. In some way
this should be connected to what the City is doing in order to maximize resources.
The City opens several centers for after school and weekends. This is how to
maximize the use of space available through offerings of SPPS programming and
connected to other things the City provides so students are engaged most of the day
on Saturday in an environment where they are committed to learning.
o The $373,900, where does this come from? Response: It is a mix for Saturday and
for after school; specific amounts are not available between the two. It is to
supplement the transportation amount paid out of ALC funds.
o This number represents? Funds from the general fund which would be saved on
transportation costs. The costs are more, but since they are not from the general
fund, the Board would not be acting on those.
•
Athletics
Modifications to the middle school athletics proposal would be to retain middle school
athletics and pay for it from the savings realized from the discontinuance of the Arlington
High School and Hazel Park Middle School athletic programs. This would allow the
program to be maintained in the remaining middle schools. There are over 1,500
students participating in the programs after school in the middle schools. The savings
would be $250,000 from Arlington and $39,000 from Hazel Park. This is also a way to
unify as a community around an issue; this is a community issue. This would be a total of
$289,000.
o The Washington athletic program costs would carry over from their current allocation
into their new location? Yes, there would be an offering of athletics in Washington
for grades 7-10; it is in their allocation.
62
Page 3
o
o
o
o
The Superintendent was asked to provide the details on athletics to the Board.
Okay, this gets us through this year, what about next year? Response: The reality
is when you combine a 7-12 there are savings because athletics is not being offered
in two buildings. For the next middle school opening, there should be plenty of
students. That would be the proposed Hazel Park Montessori Middle School offering
a grade 6-8 opportunity.
A Board member encouraged administration to looking at a fee structure for all
athletics for sustainability. Response: Athletic directors are aware of this. As a
system there may need to be more done around fee structures. Or, perhaps, as has
been suggested, donations, by interested parties, could be made to the St. Paul
Foundation specifically directed to athletics. There have been initial discussions
around this idea. It would be a tax-deductible donation which families might want to
take advantage of. The funds could then be distributed equitably among all schools.
Community and family members would need to be willing to provide additional dollars
and this would be a way to do it outside of the schools.
These savings can only happen if we move ahead with the closing of Hazel Park and
Arlington? Yes, it is a domino effect. If Arlington is kept open there will be no
savings.
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart moved the Committee of the Board recommend the
Board of Education move all of the Part A amounts and recommendations forward to the Board
Meeting for discussion and adoption. Motion seconded by Ms. Carroll.
Motion passed.
Discussion on the reporting out of the meeting and public comment occurred to ensure the
Board heard the public’s comments prior to taking final actions on any of the proposals.
•
Part B: Co-location of schools
This is the co-location of school programs, two schools sharing one building.
The
recommendation is based on enhancing the programming the students receive with the
dollars each building can produce. Some of the small programs recommended for colocation cannot provide an adequate program for the small number of students in those
buildings; the money barely covers the teachers and classrooms and does not suffice to
offer adequate additional support services of nurses, counselors, etc. The dollars to run
a building with less than 320-350 students is not adequate to provide a world-class
education to students.
The recommendations looked at schools with projected
enrollment of 280 or less and paired those schools with another larger school in close
proximity. The recommendation is to keep all students together and move them with staff
to the new co-located building with the idea that they would share resources and provide
more resources to students. The recommendation also includes the temporary closing of
eight buildings. The recommendation is:
To Co-Locate Ames with Vento; Franklin with North End, Prosperity Heights with Hayden
Heights, Sheridan with Highwood Hills and Hazel Park with Battle Creek Middle School.
And
To temporarily close eight buildings: Ames, Hazel Park, Longfellow*, Prosperity Heights,
Wellstone, Roosevelt*, Sheridan and Franklin. (* Closures announced 6/16/09).
The would result in a savings of $2,586,500.
MOTION:
Ms. O’Connell moved, seconded by Ms. Street-Stewart, the Committee
of the Board recommend the Board of Education move forward to the Board Meeting for
discussion and adoption the co-location of Ames with Vento; Franklin with North End,
Prosperity Heights with Hayden Heights, Sheridan with Highwood Hills and Hazel Park
with Battle Creek Middle School and, further, to temporarily close, for up to three years,
63
Page 4
eight buildings:
Ames, Hazel Park, Longfellow*, Prosperity Heights, Wellstone,
Roosevelt*, Sheridan and Franklin.
o Elaborate on what happens to the co-location scheme if a nonviable number of
families from the temporarily closing buildings choose the designated receiving
school. What happens with staff, principal, programming, etc.? Response: Every
building is using this opportunity to work together to look at what could be done
together, arrange time for student visits, discussed what could be combined or what
additional services could be offered and how to avoid double hiring situations Most
of the teachers will be able to stay; there may be some transition on how to use
resources between both buildings.
As an example, Hazel Park met with Battle
Creek, between the two staffs they decided to consolidate into one middle school and
are beginning discussions on how to accomplish this. This shows the leadership and
the quality of human capital within the district. They realized they need to do the best
with what they have and decided to consolidate programs. Each building will address
the changes in a different way. Franklin is a music program and to be a really good
music program they needed additional dollars. Moving to North End for the first year
Franklin will continue with the music focus and work with North End to benefit the
students.
o Hypothetical issue: School A has 290 kids, 100 decide to go to School B. If staff
works together with the families, what is hoped is that most will see the benefits of
the change and the attrition will not be severe. This is being done now so that the
Placement Center has time to work with these families and the District then is aware
of how to allocate dollars based on number of students in a building and so staffing
decisions can be made. That is the time critical nature of this decision.
o A Board member expressed concern that there will be enough attrition to other
districts to nullify any benefits of these changes and he was not comfortable moving
forward with this proposal.
o Over a number of years the receiving and sending schools have histories of
successful efforts to work with their larger communities and their school communities.
They are certainly capable of working to support families and address concerns.
Concern was expressed that if the Board and administration do not move forward
there will continue be a to delay to the budget development process as well as
hampering families in making choices for their children’s educational future.
Director Street-Stewart noted there was an omission in the proposed motion and asked to
amend the motion to perfect and clarify a process. The maker, Director O’Connell, agreed to
the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND:
that the Committee of the Board move forward to the Board
Meeting for discussion the closure of, effective June, 2010 for a period of up to three years, the
following schools: Ames Elementary, Prosperity Heights Elementary, Sheridan Elementary,
Franklin Music Magnet and Hazel Park Middle School Academy and that effective July, 2010 to colocated the Ames Elementary program at Bruce F. Vento Elementary School; the Prosperity
Heights Elementary program at Hayden Heights Elementary School; the Sheridan Elementary
program at Highwood Hills Elementary School; the Franklin Music Magnet program at North End
Elementary School and the Hazel Park Middle School program at Battle Creek Middle School.
Motion to Amend Passed
o The question was raised as to why the Board is required to take action on colocations? The General Counsel stated what is being discussed is a co-location or
relocating the geographic site. The Board is required to act on that pursuant to MN
Stat. § 123.B.02 Sub. 2. If the Board is relocating a school, it has to identify the
destination it is being relocated to. In response to a hypothetical proposition, the
Counsel responded, in regard to events occurring in the future, if the two schools
64
Page 5
o
o
o
decided to combine in future, under the same statute the Board would have to act to
establish a new school. The statute requires the Board to act with respect to
establishing schools or grades, organizing schools or grades, altering schools or
grades or discontinuing schools and grades. Depending upon circumstances the
Board may need to decide to discontinue a particular school or establish a new
school perhaps under a new name.
It was stated there is a perception issue involved. It must be made clear that
regardless of the Board decision there is still individual choice and choices between
schools so there is space for families to move within the proposals being addressed..
Response: The Superintendent responded, SPPS is a school of choice, the only
thing administration is trying to do is reduce the number of buildings. SPPS has too
many buildings and not enough students, that is the bottom line. There needs to be
a $30 million cut this year and additional cuts of at least $23 million over the next two
to three years. The district needs to address articulation in all programming and
establish best practices. There are buildings that are providing the minimum needed
to open the doors; teachers are stretched to max. What is being done is to maximize
opportunities for student communities within a building; those students will be taken
and moved to another building. The Placement Center will be there to offer many
opportunities/options for families, as they will be treated as first choice on-time
applicants. If the decision is delayed, the choices become narrower. Most colocated schools are neighborhood which means no transportation; transportation will
be provided to the new collocated sites. The choice is for the parents. Families are
being provided the opportunity to be together but that is the parents’ decision to
make.
The General Counsel restated the proposed motion stating for many years the district
has operated three separate schools at the Rondo Center. The five new co-located
schools would be no different than that. This motion does not limit choice or the
Board from doing anything in the future, it simply provides for the closing of five
schoolhouse buildings and taking the program and changing its geographic site for
next year.
A request was made to administration to make available to the public, on the district
website, the costs for the temporary closure of the buildings; the costs for maintaining
the closed buildings. The Superintendent reminded the Board the changes were not
only to save dollars but the changes are being made to provide a better education to
the students and to close the achievement gap.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Director O’Connell moved, seconded by Director Street-Stewart,
that the Committee of the Board move forward to the Board Meeting for discussion the closure of,
effective June, 2010 for a period of up to three years, the following schools: Ames Elementary,
Prosperity Heights Elementary, Sheridan Elementary, Franklin Music Magnet and Hazel Park
Middle School Academy and that effective July, 2010 to co-located the Ames Elementary program
at Bruce F. Vento Elementary School; the Prosperity Heights Elementary program at Hayden
Heights Elementary School; the Sheridan Elementary program at Highwood Hills Elementary
School; the Franklin Music Magnet program at North End Elementary School and the Hazel Park
Middle School program at Battle Creek Middle School.
The Motion Passed (6 Yes, 1 No (Hardy))
•
Part C: Arlington
The original proposal for Arlington was to discontinue the high school program; that the
2010-11 students grades 11-12 will move to the remaining 10 high school sites in SPPS
and that the building will reopen Fall 2010 as Washington Technology Secondary School
grades 7-10, with grade 11 being added in 2011 and grade 12 in 2012. The estimated
savings would be $913,500.
65
Page 6
The Superintendent stated she was recommending the amendment of the
recommendation to allow this year’s on-track to graduate 11th graders to stay at Arlington
one more year and to graduate as the last class to graduate from Arlington in 2011. She
reiterated the students must be on-track or be on-track through summer school.
She went on to state the current 10th graders would move to another high school with two
years to acclimate to the culture and continue their education.
MOTION:
Ms. Street-Stewart moved, seconded by Ms. Carroll, to move forward to the
Board of Education meeting for discussion (1) to discontinue Arlington Senior High School except
for those of the senior graduating class of 2011 who are on-track to graduate, which will remain at
Arlington, (2) relocate Washington Technology Middle School to the Arlington Senior High School
schoolhouse and (3) reconfigure the grades at Washington Technology Middle School from grade
7-8 to grades 7-10, all effective July, 2010.
Motion Passed (6 in favor, 1 No (Hardy))
o Thanks were extended for finding an option for the juniors. This group would only
have options for academics and athletics? Response: The ROTC Program will
continue. For sports there are a couple options: they can join the Washington 7-10
group or find a way to participate with another high school. Administration cannot do
a whole athletic program for only 150 some students.
Concern was raised about
whether those on scholarship track will keep that opportunity and also the robotics
scholarships which are available.
o There needs to be a deeper discussion on expenses; the cost differential with the
new proposal and moving to a 7-10 plus 12.
o Of the current 11th grade students – what percentage are in the on track category?
Administration indicated they were gathering that data and it would be made
available.
o Concern was expressed that it is critical kids have time to make things up as there
are still many variables out there.
o Administration noted students can now also graduate after they complete summer
school at end of summer.
•
Wellstone
The Superintendent reviewed the recommendation. She outlined the reasons for the
move. Wellstone is housed in a building with seven floors and there is a lot of wasted
academic time with the students moving between floors. There is $11,000 paid out each
month in parking which would be a savings. The program is popular and moving would
allow expansion of the program. Administration is exploring the elementary alignment of
the BioSmart Program in Wellstone to meet the articulation need of that program.
MOTION:
Mr. Brodrick moved, seconded by Ms. Carroll, that the Committee of the
Board recommend the following motion be moved to the Board of Education meeting: To
temporarily close, effective June, 2010 for a period of up to 3 years, the Paul and Sheila Wellstone
Elementary schoolhouse and to relocate, effective July, 2010, the Paul and Sheila Wellstone
Elementary program at the Washington Technology Middle School schoolhouse.
Motion passed.
66
Page 7
II. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Ms Carroll moved the meeting adjourn; seconded by Mr. Hardy.
Motion Passed.
Marilyn Polsfuss
Assistant Clerk
67
Page 8
68
69
Presentation
Board of Education
April 21, 2010
FY11 Projected Shortfall
70
Category
Amount
Projected Revenue*
$451,100,000
Projected Expenditures*
$478,300,000
Projected 2010-11 Shortfall*
$27,200,000
As *of: March 2, 2010
4/21/2010
2
Summary of Reductions
06APR10
Description
Amount
71
School Programming
500,000
ALC Payback
500,000
OPEB Levy
3,900,000
ELL
1,000,000
Special Education
750,000
Student Wellness
100,000
New Teacher Project Contract
150,000
Consulting Contracts
150,000
Indirect Costs
425,000
Administrative Academy
12,500
Schools
10,000,000
Voluntary Early Separation Incentive
0
TOTAL
4/21/2010
$17,487,500
3
20APR10
Description
Amount
72
Central Administration
1,580,000
Instructional Services (academic content coaches)
1,288,000
Security
100,000
Eliminate Itinerant Music Teachers
750,000
MONDO materials savings
1,000,000
Middle School Athletics
289,000
School co-locations
2,086,500
Sharing Principals
700,000
Transportation – ALC
373,900
Building temperature change
400,000
Summer lawn maintenance
35,000
Athletic fields maintenance
150,000
Close 4 swimming pools
200,000
TOTAL
4/21/2010
$8,952,400
4
Reductions Approved to Date
73
Category
Amount
Approved 06APR10
$17,487,500
Approved 20APR10
$8,952,400
Total reductions approved to date
$26,439,900
*
4/21/2010
5
Items Pending FY11
74
Category
Amount
Original plan for AHS current 10th and 11th
graders
$913,500
Total
4/21/2010
$913,500
6
FY12 and beyond
Description
Schools
Reconfiguration of
Middle Schools
75
Program
Description
Transportation Eliminate city wide
bussing for some
magnet schools.
Create new
boundaries for these
sites to transport
80% of bus stops in
designated areas.
4/21/2010
Reduction
Amount
Impact
TBD From Guiding Principles
document.
2,900,000 Reduction in city wide
bussing. May involve school
change for some students.
Savings = $ 2,900,000
7
FY12 and beyond
76
Program
Description
Description
Schools
Centrally identify
class size
Transportation Change
transportation
walking distance to
2.0 miles for HS
students.
4/21/2010
Reduction
Amount
Impact
3,200,000 Cannot implement before
SY2011 - 2012. Will align
resources with needs.
1,300,000 Unintended consequence may
be transfer to school outside
of walking distance.
Savings = $4,500,000
8
77
Presentation
Board of Education
April 21, 2010
FY11 Projected Shortfall
78
Category
Amount
Projected Revenue*
$451,100,000
Projected Expenditures*
$478,300,000
Projected 2010-11 Shortfall*
$27,200,000
As *of: March 2, 2010
4/28/2010
2
06APR10
Description
Amount
79
School Programming
500,000
ALC Payback
500,000
OPEB Levy
3,900,000
ELL
1,000,000
Special Education
750,000
Student Wellness
100,000
New Teacher Project Contract
150,000
Consulting Contracts
150,000
Indirect Costs
425,000
Administrative Academy
12,500
Schools
10,000,000
Voluntary Early Separation Incentive
0
TOTAL
4/28/2010
$17,487,500
3
20APR10
Description
Amount
80
Central Administration
1,580,000
Instructional Services (academic content coaches)
1,288,000
Security
100,000
Eliminate Itinerant Music Teachers
750,000
MONDO materials savings
1,000,000
Middle School Athletics
289,000
School co-locations
2,086,500
Sharing Principals
700,000
Transportation – ALC
373,900
Building temperature change
400,000
Summer lawn maintenance
35,000
Athletic fields maintenance
150,000
Close 4 swimming pools
200,000
TOTAL
4/28/2010
$8,952,400
4
Reductions Approved to Date
81
Category
Amount
Approved 06APR10
$17,487,500
Approved 20APR10
$8,952,400
Total reductions approved to date
$26,439,900
*
4/28/2010
5
Items Pending FY11
82
Category
Amount
Original plan for AHS current 10th and 11th
graders
$913,500
Total
4/28/2010
$913,500
6
FY12 and beyond
Description
Schools
Reconfiguration of
Middle Schools
83
Program
Description
Transportation Eliminate city wide
bussing for some
magnet schools.
Create new
boundaries for these
sites to transport
80% of bus stops in
designated areas.
4/28/2010
Reduction
Amount
Impact
TBD From Guiding Principles
document.
2,900,000 Reduction in city wide
bussing. May involve school
change for some students.
Savings = $ 2,900,000
7
FY12 and beyond
84
Program
Description
Description
Schools
Centrally identify
class size
Transportation Change
transportation
walking distance to
2.0 miles for HS
students.
4/28/2010
Reduction
Amount
Impact
3,200,000 Cannot implement before
SY2011 - 2012. Will align
resources with needs.
1,300,000 Unintended consequence may
be transfer to school outside
of walking distance.
Savings = $4,500,000
8
Scenario 1: Washington BioSmart 7-10
Description
Washington would move to the old Arlington site and would be open to current Arlington
ninth graders who choose to apply. Arlington students currently in 10 th and 11th grades
would enroll in other high schools.
Expected Impact
On Students
Building-wide program is cohesive in nature
Allows the district to implement and grow a unique, positive, popular and rigorous
program that is interdisciplinary in concept and practice, focuses on relationships,
reduces transition from 8th to 9th grade with a BioSmart emphasis for all students.
Growing the program allows the district to support a unique design for 11 th and then
12th graders that are not opportunities currently available in the district.
Students who will have to leave Arlington under this plan will submit an application
for a new school. An information night for families will be held on April 28, at
which time other high schools, programs and departments will be present to provide
information and support. Student Placement Center staff will attend and be available
to students and parents that evening and at other specified times.
Applications submitted by current Arlington students allow students to select two
schools and will be treated as an on-time application. While no specific school can
promised at this time, there is space remaining in the other high schools.
Special Education LD III program in grades 9 through 12 would relocate because it is
a small program that has specific curriculum to address the students’ needs and is
staffed to address those needs. It is beneficial to these students to remain together.
They have created a strong community of learners that need to transition as a whole.
It is not cost effective to split this program and staff.
In an effort to help current Arlington ELL students (160 in levelled ELL classes)
make an appropriate choice of a new school, the ELL department will plan and
coordinate a field trip for these students to the other ELC sites (Harding, Como, and
Humboldt) as well as IA-LEAP.
On Staff
Current Washington Teachers: Washington teachers relocate to new building. New
positions created as a result of the expansion would be posted.
Current Arlington Teachers: All Arlington teachers are placed through voluntary and
involuntary transfer processes as defined per the labor agreement.
Impact to Other Staff (paraprofessionals, clerical, custodial, etc.): Staff will be
assigned or reassigned based on program needs and as defined by each respective
labor agreement.
If Washington is going to implement an Extended Day program, we will need to offer
Setting 3 programs at other buildings in response to student needs, IEP goals and
objectives and parent choice.
85
We currently have English Language Centers (ELCs) at both Washington and
Arlington, so in expanding Washington to a 7-10 program (and discontinuing
Arlington), we would need to add space and staffing for ELC programming at the
9th-10th grade levels. This would mean an additional 3 classes. The total teacher
staffing allocation for the 9 - 10 graders would be 3.0 FTE. We would also need to
add 2 additional bilingual EAs to support these students.
86
Scenario 2: Washington BioSmart 7-12
Description
All 7th-12th graders at current Washington and Arlington sites combine into one
BioSmart program.
Expected Impact
On Students
Articulation of BioSmart from grades 7-12 and college readiness
There would be a high concentration of students in special education. Approximately
233- 250 students woulf need special education services. This would increase the
overall percentage of special education students, as well as, special education
teaching staff, paraprofessionals, and related services for this site.
Growing a school all at once is not the best academic practice. Schools that have
developed most successfully are those that have started at the lower levels and built
up from there. Some examples are the language immersion and Montessori
programs.
On Staff
Current Washington teachers would relocate to new building.
Current Arlington teachers will be placed through voluntary and involuntary transfer
processes as defined per the labor agreement. New positions as a result of the
expansion will be posted.
Other Staff (paraprofessionals, clerical, custodial, etc.) would be assigned or
reassigned based on program needs and as defined by each respective labor
agreement.
For this scenario to be successful, senior high school staff would need to increase
their understanding of middle school students. Ongoing professional development
will need to be in the areas of BioSmart, adolescent development, and curriculum
alignment.
Teacher assignments would be based on teacher seniority from both sites.
Placing the two sites at the same location would not support staff buy in and
commitment to the program.
87
Scenario 3a: Phoenix Program – 12th grade only
Description
Create a stand-alone program in the new Washington Secondary building that
educates only former Arlington 12th graders who, by June 2010, are on-track to
June 2011 graduation. This program would discontinue in June 2011.
Expected Impact
On Students
Presently there are 209 11th graders enrolled.
172 (82%) of these 209 students are on track to graduate based on credits.
Of the current 11th grade students:
o 138 have passed the writing test.
o 113 students have passed the reading test.
o 99 have passed both tests.
We currently have 95 ELL students in 11th grade at Arlington. Of these, 25 will be
in levelled ELL classes next year. They may not all be on track for graduation in one
year. Assuming that most students will move up one ELL level per year, for next
year we would need to have 3 classes if they all remain there. If they don't all remain
at Arlington next year, the need for classes might change.
Special Education LD III program in grades 9 through 12 would need to relocate
because it is a small program that has specific curriculum to address the students’
needs and is staffed to address those needs.
Students would have limited extracurricular activities, such as JROTC, would be
available and would need to be determined by the 7-10 program.
Athletic opportunities would be limited to varsity co-ops with other schools,
participation in under grade sports and/or intramurals.
Students could retain class rank and leadership opportunities.
BioSmart course offerings, such as internships and certified nursing program, would
be available for students in grade 12.
Washington could benefit by sharing bilingual EAs (and increasing the number of
languages represented in each school) and possibly a teacher (depending on number
of classes needed at each site).
On Staff
Current Washington teachers would relocate to new building.
Current Arlington teachers would be assigned to the new 11-12 program based upon
seniority and licensure. All remaining Arlington teachers would be reassigned
through the voluntary and involuntary transfer processes.
88
Other Staff (paraprofessionals, clerical, custodial, etc.) would be assigned or
reassigned based on program needs and as defined by each respective labor
agreement.
Based on a 28:1 class size ratio, the site would be able to support 12 FTEs (estimated
cost of $984,000). Additions are 1 counselor, 1 AP, and 1 BioSmart licensed staff
($314,000) = $1,298,000.
8 of the 12 FTEs will be needed for core content implementation. Remaining 4 FTEs
will allow for limited electives, BS and remediation.
89
Scenario 3b: Phoenix Program – 11th and 12th grade
Description
Create a stand-alone program in the new Washington Secondary building that
educates former Arlington 11th and 12th graders who, by June 2010, are on-track to
four-year graduation. This program would discontinue in June 2012.
Expected Impact
On Students
Presently there are 209 11th graders enrolled.
21% of these students are SpEd
11% are ELL
172 of these 209 students are on track to graduate based on credits.
Of the current 11th grade students:
o 138 have passed the writing test.
o 113 students have passed the reading test.
o 99 have passed both tests.
In addition, there are 190 current 10th grade students.
19% are SpEd students
17% are ELL students.
163 (86%) are on track to graduate based on credits.
Of the current 10th grade students, 107 have passed the writing test.
We currently have 216 ELL students in 10th and 11th grades at Arlington. Of these, 56
will be in levelled ELL classes next year. The breakdown by level is: 0 in Level 1, 4 in
Level 2, 22 in Level 3, and 30 in Level 4. They may not all be on track for graduation in
one or two years, especially the ones at the lower ELL levels. Assuming that most
students will move up one ELL level per year, for next year we would need to have 3
classes if they all remain there. The level 2 students would have to join a level 3 cohort
or move to an ELC site with level 2 service.
Under either plan A or B, Washington could benefit by sharing bilingual EAs (and
increasing the number of languages represented in each school) and possibly a teacher
(depending on number of classes needed at each site).
90
April 20, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of Education Directors
FROM:
Valeria Silva
Superintendent of Schools
RE:
Motion to Adopt Personnel/Position Recommendations
That the Board of Education Adopt the Superintendent’s recommendations and in connection therewith:
1. Establish the following Superintendency positions and associated salary ranges, effective
April 21, 2010:
New Title
Executive Director of Special Education & Support Services
Executive Director of Human Resources
Executive Director of Operations
Director of Family & Community Engagement
Director of Turnaround Schools
Director of K-12 Curriculum
2009-11 Salary Range
$100,689 - $126,275
$100,689 - $126,275
$100,689 - $126,275
$94,744 - $120,286
$94,744 - $120,286
$94,744 - $120,286
2. Appoint the following individual to the following Superintendency position:
Chief Academic Officer
Kate Wilcox-Harris, effective May 3, 2010
3. Revise the following Superintendency job titles, effective April 21, 2010
Elementary Executive Director to Elementary Assistant Superintendent
Secondary Executive Director to Secondary Assistant Superintendent
Chief Accountability Officer to Chief of Accountability, Planning and Policy
Executive Director of Professional Development to Executive Director of PreK-12 Curriculum,
Instruction and Professional Development
4. Discontinue the following Superintendency positions, effective on the dates shown:
Title
Chief Operations Officer
Chief Community Relations Officer
Executive Director of Facility and Plant Planning
Executive Director of Human Resources/Employee Relations
Director of Special Education
Director of Secondary Curriculum
Director of Educational Equity
Effective Date
April 21, 2010
April 21, 2010
April 21, 2010
June 30, 2010
June 30, 2010
June 30, 2010
July 30, 2010
5. Establish the following Saint Paul Supervisors’ Organization positions and associated salary
grade:
Title
Communications Director
Facilities & Maintenance Director
Grade
24
32
6. That the 2009-11 Terms and Conditions of Professional Employment for the Members of the
Superintendency and the 2010-11 Saint Paul Supervisors’ Organization agreement be amended
to comply with the foregoing.
91
HUMAN RESOURCES TRANSACTIONS
(February 26 through March 28, 2010)
April 20, 2010
NEW APPOINTMENT
Name
Job Category
Jackson, A.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
02/25/2010
Pay Rate
$23.25
Location
Eastern Heights Elementary
Litecky, R. E.
Social Worker
03/03/2010
$32.42
Johnson Senior
Larson, W. A.
Superintendency
03/17/2010
$66.32
Colborne Admin Offices
Magyar, S. M.
Education Assistant
03/15/2010
$16.14
Bridge View
Asleson, B. T.
Teaching Assistant
03/05/2010
$13.25
Como Park Senior
Bifulk, A. J.
Teaching Assistant
02/22/2010
$13.25
Harding Senior
Christiansen, E. A.
Teaching Assistant
03/25/2010
$10.96
Groveland Park Elementary
Cotton, T.
Teaching Assistant
02/26/2010
$13.25
Farnsworth Aerospace
Mgnt 5-8
Cusick, A. J.
Teaching Assistant
03/01/2010
$12.08
Linwood Monroe Arts
Plus (4-8)
Fang, T.
Teaching Assistant
02/22/2010
$13.25
Highland Park Junior
Holien, B. J.
Teaching Assistant
03/02/2010
$13.57
Frost Lake - Special
Lyles, D. T.
Teaching Assistant
03/22/2010
$12.15
Maxfield Magnet *
Martin, D. G.
Teaching Assistant
03/22/2010
$11.96
Johnson Achievement Plus
Olsson, L. J.
Teaching Assistant
02/14/2010
$13.25
Bruce F Vento Elementary
Robey, J. A.
Teaching Assistant
03/01/2010
$12.74
Mgnt 5-8
Baxton, L.
Nutrition Services Personnel
03/01/2010
$10.40
Longfellow Humanities
Castilleja, C.
02/22/2010
$10.40
St Anthony Park Elem
Kral, K. J.
03/15/2010
$10.40
Hancock Hamline Univ
Martinez, K. J.
03/01/2010
$10.40
Mgnt K-4
Paw, H.
03/22/2010
$10.40
Ramsey Junior High
Unger, M. A.
03/01/2010
$10.40
Johnson Senior
Wachlarowicz, A.
03/01/2010
$10.40
Johnson Senior
*ARRA funded
92
HUMAN RESOURCE TRANSACTIONS
April 20, 2010
NEW APPOINTMENT
Name
Job Category
Win, K. B.
Eff Date
03/01/2010
Pay Rate
$10.40
Location
Central Senior
Zarse, W. M.
03/01/2010
$10.40
Bridge View
Dang, C. N.
Professional Employee
03/22/2010
$28.51
Como Service Center
Job Category
Central Administrator
Career Progression
Eff Date
03/01/2010
Pay Rate
$37.56
Location
Ronald M Hubbs Center
Adam, J. A.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Como Service Center
Bohmer, R. M.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Expo for Excellence Magnet
Bzdok, M. D.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Mgnt K-4
Fredericks, D. L.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Mgnt 5-8
Gariepy, C. A.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Frost Lake Magnet
Geissinger, N. A.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Como Service Center
George - French, N. Nutrition Services Personnel
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Adams Spanish Immersion
George, E.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$16.88
Mississippi Creative Arts
Haines, J. M.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Nokomis Montessori
Kelzer, J.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Cherokee Hts School
Lee, M. K.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Daytons Bluff
Molde, S.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$16.88
Linwood Monroe Arts
Plus (4-8)
Olsen, J. M.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$17.40
Franklin Music Magnet
PROMOTION
Name
Halling, K.
93
April 20, 2010
PROMOTION
Name
Sadek, B.
Job Category
Career Progression
Eff Date
03/13/2010
Pay Rate
$19.22
Location
Highwood Hills Elementary
Scott, D. N.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Jackson Preparatory
Shepherd, D.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Roosevelt School
Sullivan, S. M.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$17.40
Unklesbay, J. V.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Eastern Heights Elementary
Vorlicky, M. L.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Maxfield Magnet
Wegleitner, D. M.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Hancock Hamline Univ Mgnt
Wegleitner, L.
Career Progression
03/13/2010
$19.22
Battle Creek Environmental
TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT
Name
Job Category
Bleed, A.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
02/25/2010
Pay Rate
$25.27
Location
Fisher, C. J.
Classroom Teacher
03/01/2010
$24.37
Gangeness, A. E.
Classroom Teacher
02/22/2010
$23.25
Wellstone Elementary
Harney, B.
Classroom Teacher
03/08/2010
$32.62
Roosevelt School
Kvamme, P.
Classroom Teacher
02/22/2010
$26.17
Central Senior High
Barrett, J. D.
Speech Pathologist
02/23/2010
$33.34
Highland Park Elementary
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Name
Job Category
An, K.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
02/25/2010
Location
Franklin Music Magnet
Douah, A.
Classroom Teacher
03/05/2010
Harding Senior High
Flesner, L.
Classroom Teacher
03/17/2010
Hansen, H. M.
Classroom Teacher
03/13/2010
Prosperity Heights Elem
Holmes, M.
Classroom Teacher
03/22/2010
Sheridan Elementary
Rademacher, B. J.
Classroom Teacher
08/30/2010
94
April 20, 2010
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Name
Job Category
Schultz, C.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
02/16/2010
Location
World Cultures Magnet
Shamblott, M. J.
Classroom Teacher
08/30/2010
Homecroft Building
Simon, A. L.
Classroom Teacher
02/09/2010
Highwood Hills Elem
Stadler, B.
Classroom Teacher
08/30/2010
Thao, C. H.
Classroom Teacher
08/30/2010
Jackson Preparatory Magnet
Thiets, P. A.
Classroom Teacher
03/17/2010
Vogelgesang, T.
Classroom Teacher
02/19/2010
Webster, L. D.
Classroom Teacher
03/08/2010
Crossroads Arts & Science
Grady, A. J.
ELL Teacher
03/04/2010
Mgnt K-4
Meyer, S.
Early Education Teacher
02/23/2010
Cole, L. M.
Social Worker
03/16/2010
Maxfield Magnet
McEvoy, B. J.
Special Education
Teacher
03/11/2010
St Andrews
Mousel, A. L.
School/Community
Professional
08/30/2010
Harding Senior High
Mohamud, K. A.
Education Assistant
06/25/2010
Lauer, C. A.
Teaching Assistant
02/19/2010
Highland Park Senior
Perez, D.
Nutrition Services
Personnel
03/03/2010
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
Name
Job Category
B., R. D.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
03/13/2010
L., M. A.
Teaching Assistant
03/01/2010
J., M.
Clerical
04/06/2010
N., W.
Nutrition Services
Personnel
03/06/2010
REINSTATEMENT AFTER LAYOFF
Name
Job Category
Christofore, S. S.
Clerical
Eff Date
03/29/2010
95
Pay Rate
$17.81
Location
April 20, 2010
REHIRE AFTER RESIGNATION
Name
Job Category
Mathern, A. C.
Teaching Assistant
Eff Date
03/22/2010
Pay Rate
$12.15
Location
Hancock Hamline Univ
Rasmussen, H. S.
Teaching Assistant
03/11/2010
$14.25
Capitol Hill Magnet
Phillips, T. S.
03/01/2010
$10.40
International Academy LEAP
REINSTATEMENT FROM LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Name
Job Category
Andress, E. M.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
03/22/2010
Location
Ronald M Hubbs Center
Simon, A. L.
Classroom Teacher
03/01/2010
Highwood Hills
Heidelberg, J.
03/11/2010
Barton, M.
Occupational Therapist
03/11/2010
Eadie, C. D.
Special Education Teacher
03/01/2010
Bernal, J. R.
Education Assistant
03/01/2010
Ellis, K. R.
Education Assistant
03/01/2010
Crossroads Montessori
Engstrom, K.
Education Assistant
03/09/2010
L'Etoile du Nord French
Immrsn
Schneider, S. J.
Education Assistant
03/01/2010
Van Pelt, J.
Education Assistant
03/25/2010
1780 W 7th St
Kammerer, F.
Custodian
02/26/2010
Washington Tech Middle
Pederson, T. M.
Custodian
03/01/2010
Arlington Senior High
Nelson-Thiele, M.
03/19/2010
Mgnt 5-8
Perez, D.
03/18/2010
REINSTATEMENT FROM ADMINISTATIVE LEAVE
Name
Job Category
Eff Date
Y., R.
Teaching Assistant
04/05/2010
M., A.
Clerical
04/07/2010
N., W.
03/17/2010
VOLUNTARY REDUCTION IN TITLE
Name
Job Category
Damsgard, J. J.
Custodian
Eff Date
03/29/2010
96
Pay Rate
$21.79
Location
April 20, 2010
REDUCTION IN TITLE
Name
Job Category
Mroszak, T. S.
Custodian
Eff Date
02/24/2010
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY
Name
Job Category
Y., R.
Teaching Assistant
Pay Rate
$21.79
Location
Como Service Center
Eff Date
Ten Days
K., B. E.
Nutrition Services Personnel Three Days
M., M. K.
03/17/2010
P., M. K.
03/17/2010
RETIREMENT AND RESIGNATION
Name
Job Category
Waterkamp, W. G.
Central Administrator
Eff Date
03/17/2010
Location
Ashton, I. S.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Blake, S. D.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Benjamin Mays Int'l
Crea, L.
Classroom Teacher
12/18/2010
Daytons Bluff
Heller, J. D.
Classroom Teacher
06/26/2010
Johnson, A. R.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Agape - ALC
Lozenski, B.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Highland Park Junior
Shellhammer, C.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Washington Tech Middle
Prentice, A.
ELL Teacher
06/15/2010
Battle Creek Middle
Shih, A. W.
Nurse
06/15/2010
Groveland Park Elem
Simon, L.
Principal
07/01/2010
Obama Service Learning
Li, T.
Speech Pathologist
06/15/2010
Rondo Learning Center
Haria, H. T.
Superintendency
04/03/2010
Raasch, J.
Superintendency
03/20/2010
Wroblewski, C.
Superintendency
03/27/2010
Yusef, M.
Superintendency
07/27/2010
Atkinson, V.
Education Assistant
06/12/2010
Humboldt Secondary
Fleischhacker, B.
Education Assistant
06/15/2010
Highwood Hills
97
April 20, 2010
RETIREMENT AND RESIGNATION
Name
Job Category
Akimoto, R. K.
Teaching Assistant
Eff Date
03/13/2010
Location
Capitol Hill Magnet
Busch, J.
Teaching Assistant
06/12/2010
Otis, M. P.
Teaching Assistant
03/26/2010
Owings, A. A.
Teaching Assistant
04/03/2010
Frost Lake – Special
Sherer, P. L.
Teaching Assistant
06/01/2010
Four Seasons A+
Bobrowski, S. M.
Clerical
07/30/2010
Humboldt Secondary
Shetka, S. K.
Clerical
06/19/2010
1919 University Ave Offices
Barnes, D.
Custodian
08/05/2010
Colgan, M. H.
Custodian
06/19/2010
King, N.
Custodian
02/27/2010
Moore, J. C.
06/12/2010
Central Senior High
Whalen, K. R.
06/26/2010
Bowers, S. H.
Roofer
07/01/2010
Como Service Center
TERMINATION
Name
Berkowitz, J. M.
Job Category
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
06/15/2010
Location
Prosperity Heights
Davis, L.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Monson, D.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Harding Senior High
Cashman, B.
ELL Teacher
06/15/2010
Hansen, J.
ELL Teacher
06/15/2010
Dill, S. J.
06/15/2010
Johnson Pkwy Admin Offices
Munnich, J.
School/Community
Professional
07/01/2010
Vang-Vu, Z.
School/Community
Professional
07/01/2010
Young, A.
School/Community
Professional
07/01/2010
98
April 20, 2010
TERMINATION
Name
Ayala, J.
Job Category
Education Assistant
Eff Date
02/22/2010
Location
Mississippi Creative Arts
Reilly, K. A.
Education Assistant
02/26/2010
Johnson Senior High
TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT
Name
Job Category
Bleed, A.
Classroom Teacher
Eff Date
06/15/2010
Location
Fisher, C. J.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Expo for Excellence
Gangeness, A. E.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Harney, B.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Roosevelt School
Kvamme, P.
Classroom Teacher
06/14/2010
Central Senior High
Lajuzan, A. A.
Classroom Teacher
06/15/2010
Ramsey Junior High
Barrett, J. D.
Speech Pathologist
06/15/2010
LAYOFF
Name
Hale, D.
Job Category
Supervisors
Eff Date
07/01/2010
Location
Como Service Center
Rodriguez, D.
Supervisors
07/01/2010
Umidon, K.
Supervisors
07/01/2010
99
Independent School District No. 625
Board of Education
DATE: April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
A.
Acceptance of a Gift of a 2007 Dodge Caliber from Chrysler Group LLC
PERTINENT FACTS:
1.
Chrysler Group LLC donated a vehicle to Saint Paul Public Schools, a 2007 Dodge Caliber,
VIN # 1B3JE78K47D500459, valued at $20,000.
2. This gift will benefit the secondary district-wide Saint Paul Auto Center located at Monroe
Community School. This program is open to all high school students in the district.
3. This will meet the District target area of ensuring high academic achievement for all students.
4. This item is submitted by Kathy Kittel, Program Manager, Career and Technical Education;
Micheal Thompson, Director of Secondary Education; Denise Quinlan, Executive Director of
Secondary Schools, Dr. Luz Maria Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer, Office of
Academics, and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to accept this gift from
Chrysler Group LLC.
100
Independent School District No. 625
Board of Education
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Acceptance of a Gift of Two 2003 Saturn Vue Vehicles from General Motors
Company
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. General Motors Company donated two vehicles to Saint Paul Public Schools, a 2003
Saturn Vue, VIN #5GZCZ33D63S862925, valued at $5,000, and a 2003 Saturn Vue,
VIN #5GZCZ33D63S808098, valued at $5,000.
2. This gift will benefit the secondary district-wide Saint Paul Auto Center located at Monroe
Community School. This program is open to all high school students in the district.
3. This will meet the District target area of ensuring high academic achievement for all students.
4. This item is submitted by Kathy Kittel, Program Manager, Career and Technical Education;
Micheal Thompson, Director of Secondary Education; Denise Quinlan, Executive Director of
Secondary Schools, Dr. Luz Maria Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer, Office of
Academics, and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to accept these two
vehicles from General Motors Company.
101
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Arlington High School Scholarship Award from
KOPP Family Foundation
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Arlington High School would like to accept a monetary gift of $6,000 from KOPP Family
Foundation.
2. The scholarship funds will be awarded to Arlington seniors who submit an application.
Criteria considered will be academic achievement, financial need, future plans, and
involvement in school and community activities.
3. This project will meet the District target area goals by ensuring high academic achievement
for all students
4. This item is submitted by Patricia Murphy, Principal, Arlington High School; Denise Quinlan,
Executive Director
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Saint Paul Public Schools Board of Education authorize the Superintendent to allow
Arlington High School to accept this scholarship award from KOPP Family Foundation.
2. The total scholarship award of $6, 000 will be deposited in to the intraschool fund, 19-240291-000-5096-0000.
Revised 9/5/06
102
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Acceptance of Scholarship from The Kopp Family Foundation
In Partnership with KOPP Investment Advisors
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Johnson Senior High would like to accept a gift of $5,000 from the
Kopp Family Foundation in partnership with Kopp Investment Advisors.
2. The $5,000 will be used for scholarships to graduating seniors.
3. This item meets the District target area goals of ensuring high academic achievement for all
students and accelerating the path to excellence.
4. This item is submitted by Kathleen M. Arndt, Principal, Johnson Senior High; and
Denise Quinlan, Executive Director, Secondary Schools.
.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to allow Johnson Senior
High School to accept this grant from the KOPP Family Foundation in partnership with Kopp
Investment Advisors. This grant of $5,000 will be deposited into the Intra-School Fund, #19-230000-000-5096-0000.
103
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Gift Acceptance from The NEA Foundation
A: PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Crossroads Elementary School has accepted a gift of $5,000 from The NEA Foundation.
2. Crossroads Elementary will use the gift to build new stations in the Science Inquiry Zone.
3. This project will meet the District target area goals by ensuring high academic achievement for all
students and accelerating the path to excellence.
4. This item is submitted by Celeste Carty, Principal, Crossroads Elementary; and Barbara
DeMaster, Area Superintendent.
B: RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to allow Crossroads
Elementary School to accept this gift from The NEA Foundation.
2. The Superintendent (designee) will send a letter of appreciation to The NEA Foundation.
104
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Accept a Grant from an Anonymous Donor for
Capitol Hill Magnet School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. An anonymous donor has awarded a grant to Capitol Hill Magnet School in the district. This
grant is for $9,500.00
2. The award is designated to support science projects and to enhance the science curriculum
at Capitol Hill Magnet School.
3. Saint Paul Public Schools will serve as fiscal agent for the project.
4. This project will meet the District target area goals by accelerating the path to excellence
5. This item is submitted by Brenda Lewis, Principal, Capitol Hill Magnet School; Shirley
Heitzman, Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Sharon Freeman, Executive
Director Elementary Education and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to accept a grant from an
anonymous donor for Capitol Hill Magnet School and to implement the project as specified in the
award documents.
Revised 9/5/06
105
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to Citigroup
Foundation for Academies of Finance at Arlington, Como Park, and
Johnson High Schools
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Citigroup Foundation is currently accepting online grant applications for high schools
with National Academy of Finance programs. The grant is for approximately $3,000
per high school or $9,000 total.
2. On behalf of Arlington, Como Park, and Johnson High Schools, the Office of
Academics has prepared an application for funds to support the continued work of
implementing the Academy of Finance in small learning communities.
3. This project will meet the District target area goals by ensuring high academic
achievement for all students.
4. This item is submitted by Kathy Kittel, Program Manager, Career and Technical
Education; Micheal Thompson, Director, Secondary Curriculum and Alternative
Programs; Shirley Heitzman, Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Denise
Quinlan, Executive Director of Secondary Schools; and Luz Maria Serrano, Interim
Chief Academic Officer, Office of Academics.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
application to Citigroup Foundation for the continued implementation of Academy of
Finance at Arlington, Como Park, and Johnson High Schools in the district; to accept
funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
106
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 625
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the Michelson Family
Foundation
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The Michelson Family Foundation is currently accepting grant applications for projects that
support literacy. SPPS’ Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) is seeking funding for
English Language Learning (ELL) classes at the Ronald M. Hubbs Center for Lifelong
Learning. This program will pair ELL staff with instructors at ECFE to ensure consistency and
accurate content across language borders.
2. Saint Paul Public Schools’ ECFE has prepared a grant application to apply for funds to
implement a partnership teaching program. The potential funds will provide funding to create
a collaboration between ELL and ECFE, teaching literacy to adults and their young children.
Saint Paul Public Schools will serve as fiscal agent for the project. This grant is for
approximately $9,800. ECFE staff members researched this grant opportunity.
for all students and strengthening relationships with community and families.
4. This item is submitted by Donald Sysyn, Director of Early Childhood Family Education; Shirley
Heitzman, Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Lynn Gallandat, Director of
Community Education; Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff; and Valeria Silva, Superintendent.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
application to the Michelson Family Foundation for Early Childhood Family Education to create a
collaboration between ELL and ECFE, teaching literacy to adults and their young children; to
accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
107
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Partner Submitting a Grant Application to the
Minnesota Department of Health for the Eliminating Health Disparities Initiative
Community Grants Program.
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The Minnesota Department of Health is currently accepting applications for projects to close
the gap in health status of American Indians in the area of diabetes.
Grants are for $75,000-$250,000 per year for a period of 36 months, depending on
successful progress and continued availability of funding. An estimated 20-50 awards will be
granted with the project year beginning July 2010.
2. Saint Paul Area Council of Churches Department of Indian Work, Ain Dah Yung (Our Home)
Center, American Indian Family Center, and the University of Minnesota Medical School, in
collaboration with SPPS has prepared an application to address the priority health area of
diabetes within the American Indian population both by improving the health of people with
diabetes within the American Indian population. This will be done by improving the health of
people with diabetes and by reducing risk factors that can lead to diabetes and its
complications. The project will target the American Indian student population at SPPS, and
will directly serve middle school students and summer school students.
The project will provide: bi-weekly evening sessions for individuals and families that include a
medical check-up, shared meal and nutrition discussion, presentation by medical
professional, group discussion and Talking Circle, and exercise activity; culturally-grounded
diabetes knowledge and prevention curriculum for youth in school and community settings;
youth support groups that incorporate American Indian elders and a culturally-based
framework for healthy lifestyles, active days and Native dance opportunities for youth, and
family physical activity events shaped and directed by American Indian fathers and men.
SPPS will be doing the prevention curriculum with youth.
The SPACC Department of Indian Work will serve as the fiscal agent for this project.
3. This project will meet the District target area goals by strengthening relationships with
community and families.
4. This item is submitted by Kathy Denman-Wilke, Director of Indian Education; Shirley
Heitzman, Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Kate Wilcox-Harris, Executive
Director, Professional Development, Luz Maria Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer; and
Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
108
DATE:
TOPIC:
April 20, 2010
Request for Permission to Partner Submitting a Grant Application to the Minnesota
Department of Health for the Eliminating Health Disparities Initiative Community Grants
Program.
Page 2
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to partner in submitting an
application to the Minnesota Department of Health Elementary and the Eliminating Health
Disparities Initiative Community Grants Program to close the gap in health status of American
Indians in the area of diabetes through: bi-weekly evening sessions for individuals and families
that include a medical check-up and a focus on nutrition, presentations by medical professionals,
group discussions, culturally-grounded diabetes knowledge and prevention curriculum for youth in
school and community settings; youth support groups, Native dance opportunities for youth, and
family physical activity events. SPPS will partner with the Saint Paul Area Council of Churches
Department of Indian Work, Ain Dah Yung (Our Home) Center, American Indian Family Center,
and the University of Minnesota Medical School for the project; to accept funds, if awarded; and
to implement the project as specified in the award documents.
109
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the City of St. Paul
STAR Neighborhood Investment Fund Program
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The City of St. Paul is currently accepting applications for projects that promote capital
improvements in St. Paul Neighborhoods.
2. Maxfield Magnet has prepared an application for funds to rehabilitate and rebuild the school’s
playground. The grant is for approximately $35,750.
3. Saint Paul Public Schools will serve as fiscal agent for the project. Staff in the school were
invited to apply for this opportunity.
for all students and strengthening relationships with community and families.
5. This item is submitted by Nancy Stachel, Principal at Maxfield Magnet; Shirley Heitzman,
Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Kevin Umidon, Director, Plant, Planning and
Maintenance; Sharon Freeman, Executive Director, Elementary Education; Suzanne Kelly,
Chief of Staff; and Valeria Silva, Superintendent.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
application to the City of St. Paul for a STAR Neighborhood Investment Fund Program grant for a
new playground at Maxfield Magnet; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as
specified in the award documents.
110
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the U.S. Department of
Education for a Teaching American History Grant.
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The U.S. Department of Education is currently accepting applications for projects to provide
resources to assist local educational agencies to improve content knowledge of U.S. History
teachers in order for them to offer effective instruction in their classrooms.
The federal performance measures for this grant are: 1) the average percentage change in
the scores (on a pre-post assessment of American history) of participants who complete at
least 75 percent of the professional development hours offered by the project, and 2) the
percentage of TAH participants who complete 75 percent or more of the total hours of
professional development offered.
Grants are for approximately $350,000 per year for a period of 36 months. An estimated 125
awards will be granted with the project year beginning October 2010.
2. SPPS, in collaboration with The University of Minnesota Minnesota, Humanities Commission,
Social Studies Student Services, and the Minnesota Historical Society has prepared an
application to implement deep American History content embedded in high-quality
comprehensive teacher professional development that will enhance and strengthen
secondary American history instruction resulting in increased student performance. The
project is targeting 85% (45) of SPPS American History teachers across 14 secondary
schools to participate, and will directly serve 10,800 students across the life of the grant.
The project will leverage PLCs, Job-Embedded Content-Based Coaching and student
achievement to sustain the work of the project beyond the grant. Teachers will receive highquality professional development, university-level instruction on American History content
through a Historic site field experience and History Day workshop from professional
historians. Participants will attend workshops in effective instructional practices for delivering
American History content from professional educators. Participants will also receive
instructional books and materials, weekly coaching support to strengthen instruction and
guide PLC work.
SPPS is requesting approximately $350,000 over three years to accomplish the
aforementioned goals. SPPS will serve as the fiscal agent for this project.
for all students.
4. This item is submitted by Michelle Bierman, K-12 Program Manager; Shirley Heitzman,
Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Micheal Thompson, Director of Secondary
Curriculum, Kate Wilcox-Harris, Director of Secondary Curriculum, Denise Quinlan, Executive
Director of Secondary Education; Luz Maria Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer; and
Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
111
DATE:
TOPIC:
April 20, 2010
Request for Permission to Submit a Grant Application to the U.S. Department of
Education for a Teaching American History Grant.
Page 2
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit an application to
the U.S. Department of Education Elementary and Teaching American History Grant Program to
improve content knowledge and teaching strategies of U.S. History teachers through professional
development practices such as: PLCs, Job-Embedded Content-Based Coaching, university-level
instruction, historic site field experience and workshops from professional historians. The project
will increase content knowledge and teaching strategies by providing staff and professional
development. SPPS will partner with The University of Minnesota, Minnesota Humanities
Commission, Social Studies Student Services, and the Minnesota Historical Society for the
project; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award
documents.
112
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit a Letter of Intent to Apply for Funding to the
Yackel Foundation
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The Yackel Foundation is currently accepting letters of intent to apply for grant funds for
educational-related projects. SPPS will seek funding for Literacy Arts and Community
Building Collaboration programming. This program seeks to inspire student learning through
writing; improve writing skills; deepen cross-cultural understanding and continue to build
community between two elementary schools.
2. Saint Paul Public Schools Highland Park Elementary and Benjamin E. Mays International
Magnet School have prepared a letter of intent to apply for funds to implement the third year
of their Literacy Arts and Community Building Collaboration program. The potential funds will
provide funding to continue the partnership between the two schools. Saint Paul Public
Schools will serve as fiscal agent for the project. This grant is for approximately $18,340.
Parents who have children at the school researched this grant opportunity.
for all students.
4. This item is submitted by Teresa Ciccarelli, Principal of Highland Park Elementary; Kate
Flynn, Principal of Benjamin E. Mays International Magnet School; Shirley Heitzman,
Director, Office of Innovation and Development; Sharon Freeman, Executive Director of
Elementary Education; Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff; and Valeria Silva, Superintendent.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to submit a letter of intent to
apply for funds to the Yackel Foundation for Highland Park Elementary and Benjamin E. Mays
International Magnet School to implement their third year of Literacy Arts and Community
Building; to accept funds, if awarded; and to implement the project as specified in the award
documents.
113
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Supplemental Educational Services Contracts – Revision of Contract
Amounts for Four SES Providers Due to Revised Student Enrollment
Numbers.
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. As mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Saint Paul Public Schools Title I
buildings not making Adequate Yearly Progress for three (3) or more years must offer Supplemental
Educational Services (SES) to their students. The school district enters into agreements with
providers authorized by the Minnesota Department of Education to provide the instructional services
to eligible students who attend one of the schools offering Supplemental Educational Services.
2. The following schools offering SES for the school year 2009-2010 are: American Indian Magnet,
Arlington Senior High School, Bruce F. Vento Elementary, Cherokee Heights West Side School of
Excellence, Como Park Elementary, Four Seasons A+ Elementary, Franklin Music Magnet,
Guadalupe Alternative Programs, Hancock-Hamline University Collaborative Magnet, Harding Senior
High School, Hazel Park Middle School Academy, Highwood Hills Elementary, Humboldt Secondary
School, International Academy LEAP, Longfellow Humanities Magnet, Maxfield Magnet School,
Mississippi Creative Arts Magnet, North End Elementary, Open School, Phalen Lake Elementary,
Roosevelt Elementary West Side School of Excellence, Barack and Michelle Obama Service
Learning Elementary, Washington Technology Middle, Paul & Sheila Wellstone, World Cultures
Magnet School.
3. This request is to increase the contracted amounts for the following SES providers due to a larger
number of students participating in their programs than originally projected. This increase does not
impact the overall amount set-aside for SES. This adjustment is the result of more students choosing
these providers than other providers from the approved provider list.
(29-005-216-401-6303-2639 & 29-005-216-401-63042639)
Previously
Approved Contract
Amounts based on
Projected
Enrollments
Revised Request
based on Actual
Enrollment
Increase
A+ Tutoring Service, LTD
$
427,302.50
$
731,542.00
$
304,239.50
ATS Project Success
$
299,111.75
$
415,338.03
$
116,226.28
Club Z! In-Home Tutoring Services, Inc.
$
512,763.00
$
632,407.70
$
119,644.70
Network for the Development of Children of African
Descent
$
42,730.25
$
61,531.56
$
18,801.31
TutorCo, LLC
$
170,921.00
$
235,870.98
$
64,949.98
Vendor & Budget Codes
4. This agreement supports the strategic plan target area of ensuring all students and all student groups
meet or exceed district targets in reading, writing, math and science.
5. This item is submitted by Matthew Mohs, Director, Title I/Funded Programs and Acting Chief
Accountability Officer; and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent to revise the contract amounts for the five
authorized SES providers listed in this document.
1
114
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
TOPIC:
A.
April 20, 2010
Approval to Enter into an Agreement with AVID Center
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The Saint Paul Public Schools’ Office of Academics requests permission to enter into an
agreement with AVID Center for the continued implementation of the AVID program at the
secondary level and elementary level.
2. Fees: a licensing fee of $1,950 per secondary site (15 sites), $1,940 per elementary site (19
sites), instructional materials of $14,011.95, elementary site visitation day fees of $12,000,
and AVID Summer Institute registration site fees totaling $31,490.00. A signed contract with
funds from Travelers Foundation Grant needs to be returned by May 1, 2010 for a total of
$123,611.95, but if a signed contract with funds from Travelers Foundation Grant is returned
after May 1, 2010, the total will be $127,136.95. The AVID Travelers Grant Budget code is
29-005-640-000-6305-4275.
3. AVID Member Schools during the 2010-2011 school year: six (6) high schools, nine (9)
middle or junior high schools and nineteen (19) elementary schools.
High Schools: Arlington, Central, Como Park, Harding, Highland Park, and Humboldt
Complex.
Middle/Junior Schools: Capitol Hill, (grades 7 & 8)(new) Battle Creek, Fransworth,
(grades 7 & 8) (new), Hazel Park, Highland Park, Monroe, (grades 7 & 8)(new),
Murray, Ramsey and Washington.
Elementary Schools: Ames, Battle Creek Environmental Magnet, Bruce F. Vento,
Chelsea Heights, Cherokee Heights West Side School of Excellence, Como Park,
Crossroads Science, North End, Dayton’s Bluff Achievement Plus, Eastern Heights,
Frost Lake Magnet, Galtier Science and Mathematics Technology Magnet,
Hancock-Hamline University Collaborative Magnet, Jackson Preparatory Magnet,
John A. Johnson Achievement Plus, Maxfield Magnet, Mississippi Creative Arts Magnet,
Paul and Shelia Wellstone, and Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning.
4. This agreement supports the district target area of ensuring high academic achievement for
all students.
5. This item is requested by Dr. Darlene Fry, AVID Program Manager; Barbara DeMaster,
Executive Director of Elementary Education; Sharon Freeman, Executive Director of
Elementary Education; Denise Quinlan, Executive Director of Secondary Schools, and
Dr. Luz Maria Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer, Office of Academics.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to enter into an agreement
with AVID Center for the continued implementation of the AVID program at the secondary level
and at the elementary level.
115
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Approval of Employment Agreement Between Independent School District No.
625, Saint Paul Public Schools, and the Association of Supervisory and
Administrative Personnel, Exclusive Representative for Supervisory Employees.
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. New Agreement is for a two-year period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.
2. Contract changes are as follows:
Wages: Effective July 3, 2010, increase the top step of each salary schedule by 2.5%. BA
level lanes are consolidated.
Benefits: Effective January 1, 2011, the District monthly contribution for single coverage will
increase by $20 to $850 per month; family/single +1 coverage is increased by $30 to $1,175
per month.
OPEB: A Memorandum of Agreement regarding other post-employment benefits was
reached removing the District contribution for health insurance upon retirement for
employees who are hired on or after January 1, 2014, and who retire before reaching the
Medicare-eligible age. The district contribution will be replaced with a $200 per year District
match to a 403(b) retirement savings plan. Effective January 1, 2016, the District will
contribute $200 per year into a health care savings plan for employees hired on or after
January 1, 2014.
3. The District has 47 employees in this bargaining unit.
4. The new total package costs for the agreement are estimated as follows:
in the 2009-2010 budget year
$52,278
$162,107
5. This item will meet the District’s target area goal of aligning resource allocation to District
priorities.
6. This request is submitted by Sue Gutbrod, Negotiations/Employee Relations Manager; Joyce
Victor, Negotiations/Employee Relations Assistant Manager; Terri Bop, Acting Director of
Human Resources; and Michael Baumann, Chief Business Officer.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Agreement concerning the terms and conditions of employment of those supervisory employees
represented by the Association of Supervisory and Administrative Personnel for the duration of
this agreement for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.
116
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Approval of Employment Agreement Between Independent School District No. 625
and Saint Paul Supervisors’ Organization Representing Supervisors
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. New Agreement is for a two-year period from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011.
2. Contract changes are as follows:
Wages: Effective July 3, 2010, the salary schedule is increased 1%. January 1, 2011, the
salary schedule is increased to 1.5%.
OPEB: A Memorandum of Agreement regarding other post-employment benefits was reached
removing the District contribution for health insurance upon retirement for employees who are
hired on or after January 1, 2014, and who retire before reaching the Medicare-eligible age. The
district contribution will be replaced with a $200 per year District match to a 403(b) retirement
savings plan. Effective January 1, 2016, the District will contribute $200 per year into a health
care savings plan for employees hired on or after January 1, 2014.
3. The District has 33 FTE’s in this bargaining unit.
4. The new total package costs for the agreement are estimated as follows:
in the 2009-10 budget year:
$ 52,063
in the 2010-11 budget year:
$ 91,641
$ 47,581
5. This contract will meet the District’s target area goal of aligning resource allocation to District
priorities.
6. This request is submitted by Sue Gutbrod, Negotiations/Employee Relations Manager; Joyce
Victor, Negotiations/Employee Relations Assistant Manager; Terri Bopp, Acting Director of
Human Resources; and Michael Baumann, Chief Business Officer.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Agreement concerning the terms and conditions of employment for Saint Paul Supervisors
Organization in this School District; duration of said Agreement is for the period of January 1, 2010,
through December 31, 2011.
117
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Entering into Food Service Agreements with Various Schools and Programs
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Various non-Saint Paul district schools and programs request food service from the Saint
Paul Public Schools’ Nutrition Services Department.
2. Service level is dependent on the program or school’s kitchen capacity and student
enrollment.
3. All services requested are coordinated through the Saint Paul Public Schools’ Nutrition
Services Department.
4. These agreements help the District meet their goal of ensuring high academic achievement
for all students and help keep the nutrition center costs low through volume efficiencies.
5. Food Service Agreements with non-Saint Paul district schools and programs are reviewed
each year.
6. This item is submitted by Jean Ronnei, Director, Nutrition & Commercial Services and William
A. Larson, Interim Chief Operations Officer.
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Saint Paul Public Schools’ Board of Education authorize the Superintendent or
designee, to enter into agreements to provide food service for non-Saint Paul district schools and
programs.
118
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
APRIL 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Authorization for Amendment No. 3 to Lease Agreement for Space at
1919 University Avenue for Program for Social Development (PSD)
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. On May 16, 1999, the Board of Education authorized an agreement for lease of
approximately 2,784 square feet of space at 1919 University Avenue for a community-based
Program for Social Development (PSD). This lease agreement expires June 30, 2010.
2. The district desires to extend the lease agreement for an additional year (July 1, 2010
through June 30, 2011) which is acceptable to the landlord. Terms and conditions of the
proposed lease extension include the following:
a. The lease term will be one year commencing July 1, 2010 and terminating June 30,
2011.
b. The district leases Suite 100 at 1919 University Avenue, consisting of approximately
2,784 square feet of space.
c.
Base rent will be $47,328.00 annually which is unchanged from the 2009-2010 rental
rate.
d. All other terms and conditions of the existing lease shall remain in effect.
3. Funding will be provided from the lease levy, budget code 01-005-850-302-6370-0000.
4. This lease meets the District Strategic Plan goals by aligning resource allocation to district
priorities.
5. This item is submitted by Kevin S. Umidon, General Manager, Facility Planning; and Bill
Larson, Interim Chief Operations Officer.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board of Education authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute Amendment No. 3 to the lease
agreement for space in Suite 100 at 1919 University Avenue, Saint Paul, MN, for a one year term,
commencing July 1, 2010 and terminating June 30, 2011 in accordance with all terms and
conditions of said agreement.
119
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Site Agreement: 2010-2011, Minnesota Literacy Council (Sponsor) and
The Lab: Saint Paul Public Schools
A.
PERTINENT FACTS
1. The Department of Special Education wishes to enter into an agreement for services with
Minnesota Literacy Council: AmeriCorps*VISTA for the 2010-2011 school year.
2. Two AmeriCorps*VISTA members perform service to strengthen and supplement efforts to
eliminate poverty and poverty-related human, social and environmental problems and support
literacy in educational settings.
3. AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America), the domestic equivalent to the Peace
Corps, is a national service program sponsored by the federal government offering its
members a modest living allowance in exchange for their commitment to a year of service to
low-income communities to improve the lives of people in need. AmeriCorps*VISTA builds
permanent infrastructure in organizations to help them more effectively bring individuals and
communities out of poverty.
4. The proposed agreement with AmeriCorps*VISTA would accept the placement of two VISTA
members at The Lab, located at the Homecroft site, for the 2010-2011 school year. The
VISTA members will provide educational and wellness services to students experiencing
serious emotional & behavioral disorders as documented in the students’ Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs).
5. The proposed agreement with AmeriCorps*VISTA will serve approximately 300 students in
special education within the Saint Paul Public Schools.
6. This contract will meet the District target area goals of high achievement for all students and
meaningful connections.
7. This contract, which will run from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, will be at a cost not to
exceed $10,000.00.
8. This item is submitted by Cecelia Dodge, Director of Special Education, and Luz Maria
Serrano, Interim Chief Academic Officer.
B.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to enter into an agreement
with AmeriCorps*VISTA Services to provide educational and wellness services for
approximately 300 students with emotional & behavioral disorders for the period July 1, 2010
through June 30, 2011 at the cost not to exceed $10,000.00.
120
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Calendar Year 2010 Alternative Bonds
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Minnesota Statute 123B.59, Subdivision 3, requires that school districts issuing general
obligation bonds to fund alternative bond projects must have Board of Education approval for
its plan. Alternative bond projects are restricted by law to include only health and safety,
deferred maintenance and handicap accessibility work and costs.
2. The district’s alternative bond facilities’ plan for calendar year 2010 includes projects to be
financed from the sale of general obligation bonds ($11 million alternative bonds) by the
district for calendar year 2010 per Attachment A.
3. Projects have been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Education and, as required by
statute, a notice of intended bond sale will be published in the Legal Ledger.
4. This project will meet the District Strategic Plan goals by aligning resource allocation to
District priorities.
5. This item is submitted by Kevin S. Umidon, General Manager Facility Planning; and Bill
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education approve and authorize the calendar year 2010 facilities plan for
alternative bonds.
121
Attachment A
2010 ALTERNATIVE BONDS
Boiler replacements at Ames and Cherokee Heights (pool boiler) Elementary Schools; replacement of
domestic water booster pumps at the Administration Building; duct cleaning at JJ Hill, Prosperity Heights,
Phalen Lake and Randolph Heights Elementary Schools and Battle Creek Middle School; flooring
replacements at Parkway and Linwood/Monroe Elementary Schools and Como Park and Highland Park
Senior High Schools; gym divider replacement at Maxfield Elementary School; lighting replacement at
Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Center Elementary School; lighting upgrades at Eastern
Heights, Farnsworth, Highland Park, Horace Mann, North End, Parkway and Wellstone Elementary
Schools and Homecroft, Open School and Cleveland Middle School; painting at Daytons Bluff, Cherokee
Heights, Galtier and Sheridan Elementary Schools, Hazel Park Middle School, Como Park and Harding
Senior High Schools, and Open School; paving repairs and replacements at Mississippi Elementary
School, Ramsey Junior High School, Como Park Senior High School, Homecroft and Wheelock;
playground repairs at Como Park, Franklin and North End Elementary Schools; piping replacements at
Riverview and St. Anthony Park Elementary Schools and Harding Senior High School; replacement of
hydraulic elevator pistons at Battle Creek and North End Elementary Schools; roof repairs at various
sites; roof replacement at Battle Creek and Farnsworth Elementary Schools and Homecroft; surge tank
replacement at Humboldt Secondary; swimming pool repairs at Como Park Elementary School; track
repair and replacement at Harding Senior High School; tuck-pointing at Murray Junior High School and
Homecroft; and window replacements at Battle Creek Elementary School, Highland Park and Johnson
Senior High Schools, and Wilson/International Academy-LEAP.
122
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Adoption of an Updated District Aquatics Manual
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. The district is in need of an updated Aquatics Manual. Prior to this, the last update
was in 2002, but it was never approved or adopted by the Board. This manual is a
vital resource for all aquatic personnel within the district to refer to as the guideline for
the safety of all students and patrons.
2. Since there has not been a formal update of the manual in some time, there is the
chance for inconsistencies with aquatic procedures throughout the district, which is
not in the best interest of our students and community clientele.
3. The District Aquatics Manual was developed in 1988 to serve as a safety guidebook
for our aquatic program. Aquatics is a high-risk activity that requires clear guidelines
and directions in order to prevent physical injuries to participants. Past emergencies
required the development of this manual. While nothing is more important than
certified and qualified aquatic personnel, it is crucial to have a manual for all staff to
follow in order to have a safe and healthy aquatic educational experience for
everyone who participates in our programs.
4. This request will meet the district target area goal of raising expectations for
accountability.
5. This item is submitted by Micheal Thompson, Director, Secondary Curriculum; Kate
Wilcox-Harris, Executive Director of Professional Development; Luz Maria Serrano,
Interim Chief Academic Officer, Office of Academics; and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of
Staff.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
adoption of an updated District Aquatics Manual.
123
124
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Humboldt Secondary School Name Change to Humboldt High School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1.
Humboldt Junior and Senior Highs were merged into on building beginning this school year.
Last spring we were charged by Nancy Stachel to take on the name change process
beginning this fall.
2.
School staff, students, site council, PTO and the greater community were surveyed for
possible suggested names through both a hard copy survey for students and staff with a
Survey Monkey survey to solicit potential names.
Names were then edited for content and another Survey Monkey was developed with
suggested names placed on a survey to vote.
3.
Notices were posted in the St. Paul Voice, in our newsletter and Connect Ed was utilized to
gain input via a Survey Monkey on-line survey.
Individuals could vote through the internet on the name change. The survey was opened
for over one month to solicit input and closed on March 31, 2010.
Of the eight names on the survey, Humboldt High School gained 41% of the votes, with
the next closest at 12%.
Below is a breakdown of the survey results:
40.7% Humboldt High School
12.3% Humboldt Westside Academy
11.5% Humboldt Junior and Senior High School
11.1% Westside Academy
11.1% Humboldt Secondary School
7.1% Humboldt Westside Campus
5.1% Humboldt Environmental Campus
1.2% Westside Environmental Learning School
4. This item is submitted by Mike Sodomka, Humboldt Secondary School Principal, Denise
Quinlan, Executive Director, Secondary Education and Suzanne Kelly, Chief of Staff.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to approve the name
change of Humboldt Secondary School to Humboldt High School.
125
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Humboldt School Forest
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Humboldt is going through the first year of restructuring as an environmental and career
preparatory school.
2. Our community partnerships have been integral to our successful restructuring process.
3. Forming a stronger relationship with the Department of Natural Resources will enhance the
relevancy of our environmental focus for our students.
for all students. Project goals are to:
Address academic standards.
Strengthen parent and teacher relationships when working towards a common goal.
Create a more environmentally literate population.
Expose students to possible career opportunities.
Obtain resources and support from the DNR for our teachers.
Reach more students through hands on learning.
Provide opportunities for long-term environmental investigations.
Make lesson plans relevant with meaningful, real-world situations.
Allow older students to mentor younger students.
Involve community members.
5. This item is submitted by Mike Sodomka, Humboldt Principal, Matthew Osborne, Humboldt
Teacher, Jodie Prohaska, Humboldt Teacher, Denise Quinlan, Executive Director Secondary
Education.
B.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to approve Humboldt
becoming a School Forest.
Revised 9/5/06 10:18 a.m.
126
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Approval for Interdistrict Summer Programming in 2010
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. Interdistrict Summer Programs are a collaborative effort of Saint Paul Public Schools, the East
Metro Integration District 6067 (EMID) and its 10 suburban member school districts.
2. The Interdistrict Classroom Partnerships Program provides Interdistrict summer program
opportunities for Saint Paul and suburban Public School students. Saint Paul Public School
students attend the program free of charge.
3. Interdistrict summer programs are held at various East metro locations. The Cultural, Academic
and Athletic Program (CAAP) is held at St. Thomas University. Native American summer
Programs are held at American Indian Magnet and/or Valley Branch ELC, focusing on Native
American Culture, Academics, Arts, and Nature. The Eagles Program, held at Washington
Middle School, focusing on career exploration, culture, science and math. The ArtsUs Program
held at Dunning Field, has an African-centered culture and arts curriculum. The Chosen to
Achieve summer program, held at Macalester College, focusing on increased academic
achievement in reading, writing, culture and math from an African American perspective.
4. Approval is being requested to implement the following 2010 Interdistrict Summer Programs:
CAAP Emerging English Language Learners Program (for current 1st-4th graders)
CAAP World Languages and Cultural Learning Program (for current 1st-8th graders)
th th
CAAP Intermediate Program (for current 4 -8 graders)
CAAP Middle School Program (for current 6th-8th grades)
CAAP Secondary Program (for current 8th-11th graders)
th
Native American Program (for current K-5 graders)
th th
Eagle Program (for current 6 -8 graders)
th
ArtsUs Program (for current K-8 graders)
Chosen to Achieve Program (for current 6th-9th graders)
5. This item supports the District's target area goals by ensuring high academic achievement for all
students and strengthening relationships with community and families.
6. This item is submitted by Stephen Severance, Interdistrict Classroom Partnership Coach, Yusef
Mgeni, Director, Office of Educational Equity; and Matthew Mohs, Interim Chief Accountability
Officer.
B.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent (designee) to implement Interdistrict Summer
Programs in 2010.
127
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Monthly Operating Authority
A.
B.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1.
The Board of Education must authorize and approve all expenditures of the District.
2.
The Board of Education must ratify any changes in collateral that have been previously
approved by the Assistant Treasurer.
3.
This item meets the District target area goal of aligning resource allocation to District priorities.
4.
This item is submitted by Michael A. Baumann, Chief Business Officer.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
That the Board of Education approve and ratify the following checks and wire transfers for the
period March 1 – March 31, 2010.
(a) General Account
(b) Debt Service
(c) Construction
#468447-470199
#3014319-3014419
-0-0-
$59,139,915.13
6,696.75
1,135,720.04
$60,282,331.92
Included in the above disbursements are payrolls in the amount of $35,402,439.42 and
overtime of $ 122,062.11.
(d) Collateral Change
2.
None
That the Board of Education further authorize payment of properly certified cash
disbursements including payrolls, overtime schedules, compensation claims, and claims under
the Workers' Compensation Law falling within the period ending July 20, 2010.
128
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for Kindergarten
Milk Program Funds
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. State funds are available for sponsors of the kindergarten milk programs.
2. An application for this program is being prepared for submission to the Minnesota
Department of Education, Food and Nutrition Service.
3. These funds will provide kindergarteners with milk that will help the District meet their goal of
ensuring high academic achievement for all students.
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
designee, to submit an application for Kindergarten Milk Funds for the 2010-2011 school year
and, if granted, to accept such funds.
129
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for School
Breakfast, School Lunch and After School Snack
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. State and federal funds are available for sponsors of the school breakfast, school lunch and
afterschool snack programs.
2. A consolidated application for these programs is being prepared for submission to the
Minnesota Department of Education, Food and Nutrition Service.
3. These funds will provide students with meals that will help the District meet their goal of
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
designee, to submit a consolidated application for School Breakfast, School Lunch and
Afterschool Snack Funds for the 2010-2011 school year and, if granted, to accept such funds.
130
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Request for Permission to Submit An Application to the State for Summer School
Food Service Program Funds
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. State and federal funds are available for sponsors of the Summer Food Program.
2. Breakfasts, lunches, snacks and suppers are served at summer school sites, City of Saint
Paul Recreation Centers and other community based programs serving low income children.
3. A consolidated application for these programs is being prepared for submission to the
Minnesota Department of Education, Food and Nutrition Service.
4. These funds will provide children with meals that will help the District meet their goal of
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
designee, to submit an application for Summer Food Service Program and, if granted, to accept
such funds.
131
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9346-K: Athletic Field Turf Replacement at Harding Senior High
School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. This bid provides all labor, materials, equipment and services necessary for and incidental to
replacement of turf on the athletic field at Harding Senior High School.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid option #3 plus alternates no. 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5:
Lump Sum Base Bid Option #3
Plus Alternates No. 1 - 5
Peterson Companies ..................................................................................... $983,900.00
Veit & Co. ................................................................................................... $1,046,700.00
Max Steininger Inc. ..................................................................................... $1,074,500.00
Field Turf .................................................................................................... $1,099,944.00
Frattalone Co.............................................................................................. $1,165,800.00
Alternate no. 1 provides for inlaid soccer lines for turf field. Alternate no. 2 is for inlaid
numbers and arrows for turf field. Alternate no. 3 is for inlaid hash marks for turf field.
Alternate no. 4 provides for inlaid midfield logo for turf field. Alternate no. 5 provides new
H-style combination football/soccer goal posts in lieu of reuse of existing goal posts.
3. Bids have been reviewed by Bradley Miller, Purchasing Manager.
4. Funding will be provided from capital bonds.
5. This project meets the District Strategic Plan goals by aligning resource allocation to District
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9346-K for replacement of turf on the
athletic field at Harding Senior High School to Peterson Companies for $983,900.00 for the lump sum
base bid option #3 plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
132
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9347-K: Room Modifications and Security Improvements at
Rondo Education Center
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
construction of room modifications and security improvements at Rondo Education Center.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid plus alternate no. 1:
Lump Sum Base Bid
Plus Alternate No. 1
JS Cates Construction ................................................................................... $166,400.00
Lund Martin ................................................................................................... $179,494.00
Meisinger Construction Co............................................................................. $184,400.00
Morcon Construction...................................................................................... $186,400.00
Parkos Construction ...................................................................................... $187,375.00
RAK Construction .......................................................................................... $192,040.00
A&L Construction........................................................................................... $192,700.00
Specialty Construction Services ..................................................................... $196,700.00
PMI Construction ........................................................................................... $198,000.00
Alternate no. 1 provides for salvaging and relocating 16 lockers.
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9347-K for construction of room
modifications and security improvements at Rondo Education Center to JS Cates Construction for
$166,400.00 for the lump sum base bid plus alternate no. 1.
133
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9349-K: Piping Replacement at Harding Senior High School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
construction of piping replacement at Harding Senior High School.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6:
Lump Sum Base Bid
Schreiber Mullaney Construction ................................................................... $825,271.00
LBP Mechanical ............................................................................................ $872,700.00
Corval Group ................................................................................................. $920,350.00
Alternate no. 1 provides for soldered copper tube and fittings. Alternate no. 2 is for
replacement of certain toilet partitions as noted on plan. Alternate no. 3 adds cleaning of
all sanitary sewer lines and storm sewer, and video inspection of sanitary sewer and
storm sewer. Alternate no. 4 is to clean and paint floors in custodial rooms. Alternate no.
5 is to sawcut floor and install new drain lines, 3 floor drains, cleanout, and vent line in
boiler room. Alternate no. 6 provides for removing and replacing insulation in penthouse
on roof above room 1452.
4. Funding will be provided from alternative bonds, deferred maintenance.
5. This project will have a Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9349-K for construction of piping
replacement at Harding Senior High School to Schreiber Mullaney Construction for $825,271.00 for
the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
134
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9355-K: Interactive White Board Installations at Various
Locations
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
installation of interactive white boards at various locations.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid:
Lump Sum Base Bid
Peoples Electric ............................................................................................. $955,000.00
Appollo Systems ......................................................................................... $1,047,696.00
Mendota Electric ......................................................................................... $1,213,441.00
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9355-K for installation of interactive white
boards at various locations to Peoples Electric for $955,000.00 for the lump sum base bid.
135
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
APRIL 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9362-K: Kitchen Remodeling and Student Storage at Cherokee
Heights Elementary School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
construction of kitchen remodeling and student storage at Cherokee Heights Elementary
School.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1 - 4:
Lump Sum Base Bid
CM Construction............................................................................................ $204,765.00
DNR Construction.......................................................................................... $212,496.00
Gladstone Construction ................................................................................. $214,850.00
Lund Martin ................................................................................................... $221,190.00
McFarland Construction................................................................................. $223,370.00
Ebert Construction ......................................................................................... $226,350.00
Maertens-Brenny ........................................................................................... $235,954.00
Meisinger Construction .................................................................................. $260,700.00
Prestige Builders ........................................................................................... $304,600.00
Alternate no. 1 provides for removal and replacement of kitchen ceiling and lights.
Alternate no. 2 is to furnish and install walk-in cooler/freezer. Alternate no. 3 is to furnish
hot storage holding cabinets, refrigerator and compartment sink. Alternate no. 4 provides
for adding cabinets in lieu of shelves above sinks in classrooms.
5. This project will have a Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9362-K for construction of kitchen
remodeling and student storage at Cherokee Heights Elementary School to Schreiber Mullaney
Construction for $192,326.00 for the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
136
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9367-K: Interior and Exterior Improvements at Mississippi
Elementary School
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
construction of interior and exterior improvements at Mississippi Elementary School.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:
Lump Sum Base Bid
Lund Martin ................................................................................................... $484,450.00
Shaw Lunquist ............................................................................................... $485,690.00
RAK Construction .......................................................................................... $489,367.00
DNR Construction.......................................................................................... $503,574.00
Meisinger Construction .................................................................................. $509,300.00
Merrimac Construction................................................................................... $510,182.00
Gladstone Construction ................................................................................. $518,332.00
Prestige Builders MN ..................................................................................... $518,400.00
McFarland Construction................................................................................. $766,200.00
Alternate no. 1 adds VCT flooring in five classrooms. Alternate no. 2 provides for replacing
eight exterior lights. Alternate no. 3 adds three exterior lights. Alternate no. 4 is to add
seven pole lights at bus drive. Alternate no. 5 adds acoustical ceiling tile at five stair
locations.
5. This project will have a Project Labor Agreement (PLA)
priorities.
7. This item is submitted by Kevin S. Umidon, General Manager Facility Planning; and Bill Larson,
Interim Chief Operations Officer.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9367-K for construction of interior and exterior
improvements at Mississippi Elementary School to Schreiber Mullaney Construction for $460,992.00 for
the lump sum base bid plus alternates no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
137
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DATE:
April 20, 2010
TOPIC:
Bid No. A9374-K: Paving Replacement at Ramsey Junior High School
and International Academy/LEAP
A.
PERTINENT FACTS:
paving replacement at Ramsey Junior High School and International Academy/LEAP.
2. The following bids were received for the lump sum base bid plus alternate no. 1:
Lump Sum Base Bid
Plus Alternate No. 1
Gladstone Construction Company ................................................................. $130,650.00
Tower Asphalt and Paving ............................................................................. $136,349.00
Max Steininger, Inc. ....................................................................................... $136,907.82
Paragon Paving ............................................................................................. $137,708.00
Midwest Asphalt Corporation ......................................................................... $139,800.00
Minnesota Roadways Co. .............................................................................. $149,400.00
Buck Blacktop................................................................................................ $151,898.00
Meisinger Construction Co............................................................................. $154,500.00
Bituminous Roadways, Inc............................................................................. $161,550.00
F.P.I. Paving, Inc. .......................................................................................... $166,370.00
Alternate no. 1 provides for paving replacement at International Academy/LEAP.
4. Funding will be provided from alternative bonds, deferred maintenance.
priorities.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Education authorize award of Bid No. A9374-K for paving replacement at Ramsey
Junior High School and International Academy/LEAP to Gladstone Construction Company for
$130,650.00 for the lump sum base bid plus alternate no. 1.
138
Board of Education Meetings
(5:45 unless otherwise noted)
May 18
June 1 Special Board Meeting 4:30 p.m.
June 15
July 20
August 17
September 21
October 19
November 16
December 14
January 4 – Annual Meeting
January 18
139
Committee of the Board Meetings
(4:30 unless otherwise noted)
May 4
May 18 -- 4:30 p.m. & following Board meeting
May 20 (Thursday)
June 1 -- 5:30 p.m.
July 13
August 3
August 24
September 14
October 5
November 9
November 30
January 11
February 1
140

Saint Paul Public Schools

Transcription

Similar documents

Directions from NCTAMS to Helemano Elementary School

Castori Elementary School - Twin Rivers Unified School District

yozen frogurt flyer

News in East Nashville

The architect`s major challenge in designing the new Cresthaven

Untitled 2.key - Willingboro School

11-13-15 - Easton Valley CSD

August, 2012 Dear Group Leader, If you are looking

Where do I go if I want to rock the red?

bad weather 2 - Tamaqua Area School District