hopkins school board agenda — executive session & workshop · 2015. 3. 3. · 1.1% 2.6% asian...

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day.

Hopkins School Board Agenda — Executive Session & Workshop 5 p .m. — Thursday , January 29 , 2015 Executive Session 5:00 – 6:00 I. Executive Session — Attorney/Client Privilege On January 22, 2015, the Board passed a resolution calling an

Executive Session — pursuant to Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) — to discuss Maple Bank litigation.

Workshop 6:00 – 7:30 I. Districtwide Summer Construction, 2015 J. Schultz/J. Toop —Alice Smith (revisit) —Lighting (revisit) 7:30 – II. West Metro Education Program (WMEP) J. Schultz Resolution

* * * Times Noted Are Approximate * * *


Report to the School Board 2015 Summer Construction Janua r y 29 , 2 015Boa rd Work shop R epo r t P r epa red b y J ohn Toop , D i r e c t o r o f Bu s i ne s s S e r v i c e s J ohn S chu l t z , Ph . D . S upe r i n t enden t

Overview This report will detail the construction and renovation projects across the District for the Spring and Summer 2015. This report will also meet the request by the Board to bring an additional option for building flexibility of space at Alice Smith Elementary School. This report will also provide a plan for decreasing electricity and lighting costs by shifting the District’s lighting to LED technology. Primary Issues to Consider 2015 Summer Construction Plans Supporting Documents The full report begins on the next page. Summer Construction Projects Alice Smith Elementary School Addition Options Background on Lighting Project and Financing

2 Report to the School Board 2015 Summer Construction

January 29, 2015Board Workshop


2015 Summer Construction Projects This report provides background to our 2015 Summer Construction projects, which will be important as the Board, bonds, bids, and builds. Every site will have some projects. District leadership is working closely with Summer School and Community Education to manage the construction at sites. For example, as many of the buildings will be busy with construction, Summer School will be at Gatewood Elementary School. The first document after this report is a summary of building constriction projects at the site and district level. The second set of documents detail options 1, 2, and 3 for building more flexible space at Alice Smith. District administration finds it necessary at this time to provide more flexibility of space at Alice Smith Elementary School. The School Board examined two options at their November 20, 2014 workshop, a $2.8 million dollar and a $3.2 million option for adding space. The Board requested further examination of these options after this workshop to work within our current revenue parameters. Current recommendation proposes to spend $1.1 million of unassigned fund balance to provide additional classroom space, student intervention rooms and professional spaces for educators and other service providers to meet with students and families. The third part of this discussion is for the School Board to consider a proposal to seek Capital Bonds to fund the replacement of lighting across all District sites with the exception of Katherine Curren and Harley Hopkins. A Power Point detail the plan and financing of this project. Harley Hopkins is on the Alternative Facilities Plan for remodeling in the near future, at this time, the lighting will be replaced at Harley. Capital Bonds will fund this project up front, and the principal and interest for these bonds will be paid by the savings anticipated by this more efficient lighting. It may be necessary for the Administration to bring back these decisions at the next Board meeting, as we want to plan for the work, go out for bids, and begin to secure contracts. Our chance for more fiscally palatable contracts is better if we bid earlier on these projects.


Report to the School Board WMEP: Member School Board Resolut ion Janua r y 29 , 2 015 Work shop R epo r t P r epa red b y J ohn W . S chu l t z

Overview Since the beginning of the 2014-‐2015 school year, the WMEP organization (Joint Powers Board and Member Superintendents) has been discussing the direction of WMEP. This agenda item provides a resolution for the Hopkins School Board to support a direction for the West Metro Educational Programs: Conveyance of Crystal School to Robbinsdale and Downtown School to Minneapolis. Primary Issues to Consider WMEP: Member School Board Resolution Supporting Documents The full report begins on the next page.

1) WMEP Member Board Resolution 2) WMEP Superintendents’ Resolution 3) December 4, 2014 Hopkins School Board WMEP Board Report

2 Report to the School Board

WMEP: Member School Board Resolution January 29, 2015 Workshop


WMEP: Member District Resolution Over the past several months the West Metro Educational Program (WMEP) Joint Powers Board, Superintendents and School Boards have discussed a future direction for WMEP. This workshop will present a resolution for the Hopkins School Board, as a member district to approve or not. This resolution is the first document following this report. The WMEP Joint Powers Board will act on this resolution and take action on their resolution on February 11, 2015. WMEP Superintendents are beginning to establish a framework for strong staff development and student programs for its member districts that supports the achievement of all students in our region. The professional development program will be developed, keeping in mind the needs of each member district and the region’s need in developing strong learning environments for all students. This professional development “think tank” and development program will work to identify best practices in our districts and share those practices with member districts. WMEP will continue to offer its string student programs to member districts and look to expand these programs to support the mission of integration and student achievement. On January 14, 2015, the WMEP Joint Powers Board met with its member school district Superintendents. At this meeting the Superintendents provided a resolution signed by all of WMEP’s Member District Superintendents. This resolution is the second document following this report. The third document is Hopkins School Board WMEP report presented at a workshop on December 4, 2014.

Resolution to Convey the WMEP Schools to Robbinsdale and Minneapolis Public Schools WHEREAS The West Metro Education Program, under a Joint Powers Agreement, has operated the FAIR School on two campuses in Minneapolis and Robbinsdale since 1995, and WHEREAS the schools were founded as interdistrict magnet schools to provide integrated educational opportunities for students from Minneapolis and certain of its suburbs, as well as to provide a laboratory for education strategies, and WHEREAS, there have been significant changes in the operating landscape since the schools opened, including demographic changes in the member districts, financial constraints, Open Enrollment, and a the State’s new Achievement and Integration law, and WHEREAS these changes raise questions whether WMEP is the appropriate entity to be operating the FAIR schools, and WHEREAS the undersigned WMEP member Board believes that the purposes of the schools could be best achieved if WMEP ends its operation of the schools and works with Minneapolis and Robbinsdale to have those districts operate interdistrict integration magnet schools at the two sites, and WHEREAS Minneapolis Public Schools and the Robbinsdale Area Schools are prepared to assume responsibility for the schools and intend to operate the schools as interdistrict integration magnet schools, NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned Board of Education recommends to the Joint Powers Board that WMEP cease to operate the FAIR School and work to transfer ownership of the building in Crystal to Robbinsdale Area Schools and the building in Minneapolis to Minneapolis Public Schools; and for those districts to operate the schools as interdistrict integration magnet schools.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution to indicate support for the concept that WMEP cease to operate the FAIR School and work to transfer ownership of the building in Crystal to Robbinsdale Area Schools and the building in Minneapolis to Minneapolis Public Schools; and for those districts to operate the schools as interdistrict integration magnet schools.

Motion by: __________________ Passed _______ Second by: _________________ Failed _______ Abstentions: ___________________________________________________

____________________________ ________________________________ Board Chair Board Clerk


Hopkins School Board Workshop Agenda 5 p .m . — D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 4 5:00 – 6:00 I. West Metro Education Program (WMEP) J. Schultz/K. Lester/ Update I. McIntosh Coleman

* * * Times Noted Are Approximate * * *


R e p o r t t o t h e S c h o o l B o a r d W e s t M e t ro E d u c a t io n P ro g ra m (W M E P ) — U p d a te D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 4 Report Prepared by J o h n W . S c h u l t z P h .D .

Overview Over the past 5 months, WMEP has been examining the mission, leadership, and programs offered to the eleven districts that make up WMEP. This report provides background for the Hopkins School Board to discuss the role WMEP plays for its community. Primary Issues to Consider The questions we would like to ask the School Board are…

1. As WMEP continues to set its direction and strategic plan, is WMEP fulfilling its mission?

2. What does WMEP offer to Hopkins Public Schools? 3. What changes should be considered as WMEP moves forward? 4. Is there additional information needed, as WMEP continues to

explore its future?

Supporting Documents The full report begins on the next page.

1. WMEP Strategic Plan 2. Joint Powers Agreement 3. Timeline of Minneapolis/St. Paul Integration 4. Superintendents Meeting, September 17 5. Joint Power Board’s Workshop Notes, October 8 6. Superintendents Meeting Notes, November 5


West Metro Education Program (WMEP) — Update December 4, 2014


WMEP Report Hopkins Public Schools, along with ten other school districts, are part of an integration school district called West Metro Education Program (WMEP). The other ten districts are Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minneapolis, Richfield, Robbinsdale, St. Anthony-New Brighton, St. Louis Park, and Wayzata.

WMEP’s Educational Vision: Crystal and Downtown School We see The FAIR School as a beacon of 21st century learning, grounded in equity, and defined by arts and academic excellence, where all students achieve through the integration of the arts, technology, cultural understanding and active, committed community partnerships. (See WMEP Website and attached WMEP Strategic Plan) The WMEP Joint Powers Board, made up of 11 representatives from each member school district governs the two schools (See Attached Joint Powers Agreement). FAIR Downtown is a K-12 building and FAIR Crystal is a grade 4-8 building. The table below details the demographics of each school: Race FAIR Crystal FAIR Downtown American Indian/Alaskan Native

1.1% 2.6%

Asian 3.4% 5.4% Black 44.5% 46.5% Hispanic 4.5% 5% White, Non-Hispanic 46.5% 40.4% Hopkins Student Enrollment in FAIR Schools FAIR Crystal 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Grade 4 10 3 8 10 8 Grade 5 10 8 6 6 10 Grade 6 8 10 9 6 5 Grade 7 11 7 11 3 5 Grade 8 6 12 6 12 3

TOTAL

45 40 40 37 31

3 Report to the School Board West Metro Education Program (WMEP) — Update December 4, 2014

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day

Hopkins Student Enrollment in Downtown FAIR School 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Grade K 0 3 5 5 6 Grade 1 2 1 4 5 6 Grade 2 1 1 3 4 5 Grade 3 3 4 1 3 5 Grade 4 4 4 2 0 0 Grade 5 1 5 2 0 0 Grade 6 4 4 4 0 0 Grade 7 3 5 4 0 0 Grade 8 1 4 5 0 0 Grade 9 1 4 9 9 5 Grade 10 2 1 3 9 7 Grade 11 1 2 3 4 8 Grade 12 1 1 2 2 1 TOTAL 24 39 47 41 43

WMEP Professional Development

WMEP also offers professional development to its member districts, primarily through its cultural collaborative. The vision and philosophy of the cultural collaborative is detailed at… https://sites.google.com/a/wmep.k12.mn.us/wmep6069/about/cultural-collaborative. Hopkins professionals have participated in the Cultural Collaborative. For 2013-2014 we had 175 staff take 285 courses. Below is a summary provided by WMEP of the professional development as of September 2013 provided by WMEP’s Cultural Collaborative. Summary prepared by Jill Scholtz, Director WMEP’s Professional Advisory Group

1. Overall, there have been a total of 1986 participants in the Cultural Collaborative during the 2012-13 school year. (See attached graph for district participation rates over the years.) WMEP workshops other than those offered by Pacific Education Group (PEG) have generated a 90% positive satisfaction rate. Among those non-PEG courses, 94% feel they are better prepared to eliminate the achievement gap after attending the course and 91% feel their perspective in working with students of color has been enriched by




their learning and experiences in those workshops. Last year there were a total of 1699 participants in the Cultural Collaborative and the satisfaction rate was 90% positive overall.

Science House: User data shows that WMEP’s partnership with Science House of the Science Museum of MN is a valued and used resource for member district staff development around cultural competence and STEM initiatives. At the time WMEP began this partnership, 5 districts were already members and at least one other was preparing to join. PD survey data shows that awareness of this partnership can be improved, however, it is specific to math/science disciplines.

NUA: Workshops over the past two years from current or

former NUA instructors show an 89% positive satisfaction rate. There was a decline in NUA course participation in 2011-12.

Pacific Educational Group: “Beyond Diversity” is in high

demand, with long wait-lists, even after adding courses. This has been the case for the past two years. There were 851 participants in Beyond Diversity this 2012-13 school year, compared to 572 in 2011-12. Satisfaction is 87% positive for 2012-13, and satisfaction rates have been in the 90th percentile in past years. This 2012-13, we asked more specific evaluative questions. For example, 76% have expressed that they feel better prepared to eliminate the achievement gap after attending “Beyond Diversity”, and 86% believe their perspective in working with students of color has been enriched by learning and experiences in “Beyond Diversity”. Other courses from PEG have served an additional 284 educators this past year and have a 93% positive satisfaction rate.

2. Collaboration: Collaborative efforts continue to be beneficial and

efficient when folks are willing to share and work together. Example: WMEP shared the cost for a national presenter, Dr. Joy DeGruy, with NHCC this year, and we collaborated with Minneapolis Public Schools last year to bring in Dr. Anthony Muhammad.



3. Integrating PD with member districts: A recent survey of member districts was done to gather information so WMEP can better integrate PD opportunities with member district needs and initiatives. Initial analysis shows that we are on track with offering courses that are needed by member district staff. We also received suggestions for future PD offerings by WMEP and we will continue to seek on-site locations and online options. Comments also showed a shared struggle of finding time for PD and the reluctance to have teachers out of the classroom.

4. PAG recently discussed and suggested revisions to the goals that

have been guiding Cultural Collaborative workshops since 2010. These changes were suggested after considering the language of WMEP 2.0 strategic directions as developed by the JPB (see old and revised goals in separate document).




WMEP Student Programs Dare 2 Be Real WMEP’s most popular student-learning program is “Dare 2 Be Real”; this program promotes, addresses, and discusses racial equity and anti-racist leadership. Students undergo intensive training and structured discussions that are intended to prepare a new generation to tackle these difficult conversations in the midst of rapidly changing demographics. WMEP currently has five active “Dare to be Real” groups and four in development. The individual “Dare 2 Be Real” groups have partnered together to form a larger regional discussion and share best practices. Hopkins High School offers a “Dare 2 Be Real” program.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Brooklyn Center

Col. Heights

Eden Prairie

Edina

Hopkins

Minneapolis

Richfield

Robbinsdale

St. Anthony/NB

St. Louis Park

Wayzata

WMEP

Other

WMEP CC Attendance Rates

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13



Elders’ Circle Elders’ Circle is an intergenerational program created by Smithsonian Folkways recording artist and social justice advocate Larry Long, director of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Community Celebration of Place. Working with young people in schools throughout the nation Larry has generated an unparalleled collection of life stories of American elders in both song and narrative. Larry Long and Elders' Circle artists are currently working with students throughout Minnesota and the Midwest, bringing elders' stories and experiences into the schools. They spend a week in the classroom, facilitating the interviews and the songwriting process. At the end of each residence, the students help put together a community celebration. Residencies end with a community celebration, where students honor their chosen elders by reading a first-person narrative about their life and then performing the song they helped to write. The celebrations are open to the community. (communitycelebration.org) Elite Pathways - Emerging Leaders in Teaching and Education Minnesota has become more diverse and teachers of color are needed to match our diversity. To meet this ever growing need, a consortium of Minnesota school districts in partnership with an institution of higher education is proud to announce a new program called Emerging Leaders in Teaching and Education (ELITE) Academy. Elite Academy is designed to build a diverse teacher group to meet the needs of Minnesota’s students. ELITE Academy is a week-long, residential summer program for high school students of color with an interest in teacher education or students who have the potential to be future educators. FAIR + Fair+ is a school-community partnership program that improves the school experience by engaging students through individualized learning opportunities. These partnerships create pathways to college and careers and provide opportunities to develop skills. The real-world experience delivered through FAIR + classes align with their individual needs, interests, and aspirations. FAIR + classes have added richness to the educational experience and created opportunities that allow students to pursue their passions, while developing relevant skills and experience in an authentic setting.




Hopkins/WMEP Financing For the 2013-14 school year, $151,795 was paid to WMEP, based on a $19 per adjusted pupil unit of 7,989.19. The WMEP organization allocated approximately half of those dollars to Professional Development (Cultural Collaborative) and half to Student Programs. For the current 2014-15 school year, our amount goes down to $141,888, based on a $19 per adjusted pupil unit of 7,467.80. The WMEP budget allocation this year is $71,538 to their Professional Development and $70,350 to Student Programs. These dollars are paid through Integration Revenue. In addition, the general aid generated by the Hopkins students who have selected the Crystal and/or Downtown schools is sent to WMEP from the Hopkins Business Office.

Timeline of Minneapolis/St.Paul Integration As background, there is a timeline that delineates integration actions that have been taken in the east and west metro over time. Blue text indicates actions taken by the Hopkins School District.

Purpose of Report and Current Conversations Over the past five months, the WMEP Joint Powers Board and Superintendents have been meeting to discuss the future of the schools and its programs. Reports summarizing the meetings below have been generated and are attached to provide a sense of direction the Joint Powers Board and Superintendents are moving.

September 17 Superintendent Meeting October 8 WMEP Joint Powers Board Workshop November 5 Superintendent Meeting

The relevant Hopkins information noted above are provided as background for the Hopkins School Board to discuss, and provide direction for WMEP. The questions we would like to ask the School Board are…

1. As WMEP continues to set its direction and strategic plan, is WMEP fulfilling its mission?

2. What does WMEP offer to Hopkins Public Schools?



3. What changes should be considered as WMEP moves forward? 4. Is there additional information needed, as WMEP continues to

explore its future?

Mission Our Core Purpose with Distinction West Metro Education Program’s mission is to build our collective capacity to achieve educational excellence and racial equity. We will serve our 100,000+ students and staff through regional leadership, collaboration, commitment, and mutual support.

Vision What We Intend to Create To live out our Mission Statement by creating and engaging in Programs and Services of:

Regional Equity Leadership 1. Preferred resource for research of the linkage of race/poverty/mobility and learning at the district/school/grade levels. 2. Preferred resource for community and district conversations about race, poverty, and equity in education.3. Preferred resource for equity advocacy and legislative action in the State of Minnesota.

The FAIR School 1. Arts schools with an integration lens for students and staff providing learning performance which is “above the race and income demographics” with instructional and cultural practices studied and transferred to member districts.

Staff Development 1. Valued and utilized resource for member district staff in professional development around issues of race and equity integrated with member district professional development. 2. Provided at the individual and network levels including teacher cohorts and principals, and in a variety of formats and modes.

Student Programs 1. Valued and utilized resource for students across member districts which is proven effective around student learning and engagement in equity in learning, living, athletics, and activities.

Brooklyn Center • Columbia Heights • Eden Prairie • Edina • Hopkins • Minneapolis • Richfield • Robbinsdale • St. Anthony/New Brighton • St. Louis Park • Wayzata An integration district focused on student success • West Metro Education Program

Strategic Directions Focused Allocation of Our Resources A. Increase the regional and district capacity for deep listening and dialogueB. Increase the knowledge and awareness basis for:

• District Strengths and weaknesses• Data, research and analysis• Design/scaffolding of programs and services

C. Increase recognition and appreciation for the differences between districts providing for easier “pull” of services and valueD. Increase the level and quality of collaboration within WMEP and across member districts and communitiesE. Increase WMEP message specificity, focus and intentionality in a comprehensive and clear manner understood by a broad array of stakeholders.


Vision A. Preferred resource for research of the linkage of race/poverty/mobility and learning at the district/school/grade levels B. Preferred resource for community and district conversations about race, poverty and equity in education C. Preferred resources for equity advocacy and legislative action in the state of Minnesota

Work Plan

Strategic Directions Regional Equity Leadership

A. Little capacity for research into learning/instruction/engagement across student race, gender, income and housing typeB. Need for a constructive and inclusive approach to district and community conversations which are scalable and teachableC. Limited regional and state level presence in advocacy and legislative change

Current Reality

A. Build data and research capacity into learning/instruction/engagement across student race, gender, income and housing type B. Develop and pilot an approach for community conversations on learning and equity based on research above in at least 3 districts C. Board development of legislative platform and develop more influence in partnership with public education associations and lobbyists


Strategic Directions The FAIR School

Vision A. K-12 school, two campuses, with an integration lens for students and staff B. Provide performance which is “above the race and income demographics” C. Instructional and cultural practices studied and transferred to member districts

Work Plan

Current Reality


A. The FAIR School currently provides learning performance at or above average member districts with slightly smaller achievement gapB. WMEP student demographics are at the average of the member districts and are well integratedC. Little attention has been paid to transferring of curriculum, instruction and engagement practices to member districtsD. FAIR + program has been expanded to member district studentsE. The FAIR School offers programming unique for many districts and com-parable to some districtsF. Member district do not need The FAIR School for capacity reasons

A. Realignment of staff, prioritization, initiative and expectations to The FAIR School visionB. Realignment of professional development and HR practices to The FAIR School visionC. Design and implementation of performance targets and measurement tools (VisionCards) and the capacity development neededD. Development of data and documentation of curriculum, instruction and engagement practices and evidence leading to increased learningE. Development of structures and practices to share learning and practices with member districtsF. Extend FAIR + program to become WMEP + FAIR + and open opportunities to include member districts and their students

VisionA. Valued and utilized resource for professional development on issues of race and equity integrated with member district professional developmentB. Provided at the individual and network level including teacher cohorts and principals and in a variety of formats and modes

Work Plan

Strategic Directions Professional Development

A. Staff development training comes from a variety of sources yet there is a perception that the Cultural Collaborative courses are largely dominated by Pacific Education Group (PEG)B. Interest in National Urban Alliance (NUA) has increased C. Many districts utilize current staff development offering while some do notD. Professional development is not integrated into member district professional developmentE. Professional development is largely an in-person, classroom experience

Current Reality

A. Identify, innovate and deliver professional development proven to be effective in advancing the WMEP missionB. Develop and assessment and feedback system for professional learning and applicationC. Offer professional development in multiple formats and delivery methodologies


Strategic Directions Student Program

Vision A. Valued and utilized resource for students across member districts which is proven effective around student learning and engagement in equity in learning, living, athletics, and activities

Work Plan

Current Reality


A. Evaluate each program for value, alignment and effectivenessB. Assess the needs of our member districts and students for such programs

A. Programs are evolving and have included Elders’ Wisdom, Children’s Song, Dare 2 Be Real, Underground Railroad, Student Learning Grants, Elite Pathways, and Summer Scholars InstituteB. About 2,300 students participate annually and vary widely across member districtsC. WMEP + FAIR + is growing to include students from member districtsD. Member districts’ understanding of current programming is growing

1

Dr. Jean Lubke Oct. 3, 2014

Desegregation / Equity / Integration in Minnesota October 3, 2014

(bold = court actions; bold italics = legislative actions) (blue-relevant to WMEP and Hopkins)

Timeline completed by Dr. Jean Lubke with minor edits and additions by John Schultz (blue) 1964 – The St. Paul Public Schools Board adopted a desegregation policy for the St. Paul

Public Schools that included privately financed voluntary busing of African-American students to formerly all-white schools.

1967 – The Minneapolis Public Schools Board adopted guidelines to eliminate de facto segregation. The plan included voluntary busing of students.

1970 – The Minnesota State Board of Education issues guidelines calling for a ceiling of 30% minority student enrollment in Minnesota public schools. Districts not meeting this standard were required to submit a desegregation plan to the Department of Education or have state aid withheld.

1971 – The School Board of the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) decided, 6 to 1, to adopt a general commitment to racial desegregation and its first mandatory desegregation stipe: the pairing of Field and Hale Elementary Schools on the south side of the city. August 1971 - Booker v. Special School District 1, a class-action lawsuit, was filed in U.S. District Court against the Minneapolis school district alleging denial of equal education to all students. (Booker v. Special School District No. 1, 351 F Supp. 799 (1972))

1972 – May 24. In the Booker case, the U.S. District Court found that MPS were illegally segregated. The decision stated that MPS had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and concluded that such segregation resulted from the following:

• The construction, size, and location of Bethune School • The addition of seven new classrooms to Field Elementary School in

1964

2

• The 1967 construction of an addition to Washburn High School • The location of portable classrooms • Decisions over school size • The 1968 change in boundaries between Washburn and Southwest

High Schools • The policy of allowing special transfers of students • The creation of optional attendance zones along the perimeters of

racial minority neighborhoods • The practice of assigning and transferring teachers and

administrators

The District Court found that MPS had intentionally segregated the schools, had intended the segregation of not only students, but teachers and administrators; had several policies that promoted segregation including building facilities in strategic sizes and locations. MPS was ordered to “take affirmative action to disestablish school segregation and eliminate the effects of its prior unlawful activities” by implementing its own plan for desegregation/integration, limiting the maximum percent of any school’s minority population to 35%; increasing faculty integration, not allowing any student transfers that increase the segregated nature of either school, submitting any plans for new schools or additions to old schools to the court for prior approval, submitting any changes to the Desegregation/Integration Plan to the court for prior approval, and to submitting semi-annual reports to the court.

1973 – The Minnesota State Board of Education adopted the “15% rule,” which prohibited schools from having minority enrollments more than 15 percentage points above the district average.

1975 – May. The U.S. District Court modified its ruling in the Booker case to allow Minneapolis schools to have up to 42% students of color and up to 35% of any single minority group (Memo order, Booker v. Special School District No. 1, (D. Minn. May 7, 1975)).

1978 – MPS filed a motion to terminate the litigation which the court denied on the ground that it had not yet fully implemented its desegregation/integration plan. Court also rejected a request from MPS to increase the allowable maximum minority enrollment in each

3

school to 50% and to eliminate the single minority ceiling requirement. The Court increased the maximum total minority enrollment of each school to 46% and a single minority’s maximum percentage to 39%. MPS appealed, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying the motion to terminate the case. MPS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court refused to review the case.

1981 – The U.S. District Court modified its ruling in the Booker case again to allow Minneapolis schools to have up to 50% students of color.

1983 – The fourth motion to terminate the Booker case was granted by Judge Earl Larson (6/8/83). The plaintiffs decided not to seek a rehearing or appeal. The U.S. District Court vacated the order from the Booker case.

The Minnesota Department of Education assumed responsibility for monitoring the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth school districts’ desegregation efforts.

1984 – The Legislature authorized Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth school districts to levy a property tax to implement their integration plans. (Laws of Minnesota 1984, chapter 463, art 6, sec. 6)

1985 – The St. Paul School district opened six magnet schools, with priority given first to attendance area students and second to achieving racial balance.

1987 – The Legislature provided funding through appropriated integration grants to the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth school districts to supplement the local property tax levy to assist with their integration efforts. (Laws of Minnesota 1987, chapter 398, art 6, sec. 19, subd. 12)

1988 Hopkins School Board requests funding from legislature to examine integration.

1989-Board from Minneapolis and five suburban districts (Bloomington, Edina, Hopkins,

St. Louis Park, Richfield) endorse a series of “consensus points” to guide the

districts in cooperative planning to facilitate metropolitan desegregation. Efforts faltered when legislation failed to provide funding for planning.

4

1990 September. Cooperative Interdistrict Desegregation/Integration grant submitted to MDE by Dr. Robert Ferreira, Superintendent of Minneapolis, which provided resource to examine integration efforts with Brooklyn Center, Richfield, and Robbinsdale.

Voluntary transfer of students Interdstrict curriculum development Coordinate staff development among all cooperating districts. 1991 Proposed Guidlelines for Cooperative Interdistrict Integration

Program (CIIP) written $100,000 appropriated to Minneapolis. Districts in cooperative included Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Edina, Hopkins, Richfield, Robbinsdale, St. Amthony, New Brighton, and St. Louis Park. School districts form a task force.

1991 Hopkins School Board approves CIIP Throughout 1991, the CIIP Steering Committee worked with national desegregation expert, Len Stevens, to develop a set of formal guidelines that established parameters within which interdistrict integration programs would be designed and operated. These “Guidelines for Cooperative Interdistrict Integration Programs” were approved by each of the nine school boards in November. 1992 Nine metro elementary schools identified as segregated.

Task force proposes a school name: Inter-district Learning Center (K-4 Pilot School)

The CIIP Steering Committee solicited proposals from participating districts for pilot interdistrict programs. Three planning proposals emerged: A K-3 Northwest/Robbinsdale-area magnet school with a programmatic

focus on outcomebased/ multicultural education.

A K-3 Southwest-area magnet school with a programmatic focus on Glasser’s “Quality Schools” and an outcomes approach to education.

A K-3 magnet school in downtown Minneapolis with a programmatic focus on multicultural, experiential learning.

The Steering Committee decided to focus its initial planning efforts on the Downtown School proposal when it became clear that legislative funding

5

for program implementation would not support three separate initiatives. In the event that additional funding became available at a later date, the Steering Committee prioritized the remaining two proposals as follows: #1, Northwest/Robbinsdale-area interdistrict magnet school; #2, Southwest-area interdistrict magnet school. A Downtown School Task Force was formed, comprised of teachers, administrators, and parents from each of the nine districts. The Task Force was charged to develop a program design for an interdistrict school.

The CIIP Steering Committee retained Bill Morris and Decision Resources,

Ltd. to conduct a random survey of parents in each of the nine districts to obtain attitudinal and opinion data about their interest in voluntary integration programs. The survey demonstrated that a substantial number of households in the nine districts would be willing to participate in a voluntary desegregation effort, and that a key marketing theme for such an effort should be based on the concept of fostering diversity in the public schools. Bill Morris concluded from the data that “with a sustained general marketing effort, a voluntary desegregation effort linking Minneapolis and the inner-ring suburban school districts would have an eminent likelihood for success.”

1993 January. District passes resolution that endorses the concept of Inter-

district Learning Center.

Legislature failed to appropriate additional funding for ongoing planning and implementationof interdistrict integration efforts.

1994 The State Board of Education approved a voluntary, Twin Cities metro-wide school desegregation plan, which involved creating special magnet schools in Minneapolis (FAIR School) and St. Paul suburbs (Harambee). The Legislature authorized capital funding to establish these schools. Three cities chosen for west end schools: Minneapolis, Crystal, and Edina.

1994. November Joint Powers Agreement for WMEP signed.

6

Metro-area superintendents collaborated on a legislative work plan that resulted in state funding for implementation of east- and west-metro desegregation programs.

The Minnesota Department of Education awarded $700,000 to the West metro Education Program (WMEP, formerly known as CIIP) for implementation of a Downtown Interdistrict Magnet School and staff development center, and for continued planning of future interdistrict sites in the west metro area.

1995 A coordinator (Ginny Pease) was hired by WMEP to lead the planning and

development of the Downtown Interdistrict Magnet School, scheduled to open in Fall, 1996.

Key contact persons were identified from each district to

coordinate/facilitate the planning process within their respective districts.

School site selection criteria were developed and various sites/facilities in the Downtown Minneapolis area have been considered for co-location of the interdistrict magnet school and professional development center.

A Downtown Interdistrict Magnet School Design Team was formed with representation by staff, administrators, and parents from each of the nine districts, and charged to design and construct an interdistrict education program. The Interdistrict Professional Development Center offered opportunities for staff from the nine districts to participate cooperatively in a “Best Practices” conference, multicultural mini-sabbaticals, and various summer professional development activities.

Exploratory activities are underway for a second WMEP magnet school to be located in the Northwest/Robbinsdale-area, per the original CIIP priorities. George Lillquist (a Robbinsdale principal on special assignment) was hired by WMEP to lead the second interdistrict planning and development effort. A four-week WMEP Summer Cultural Exchange Program — “Arts & Community: Building Blocks” —was developed, funded, and offered to students from the nine WMEP districts.

7

The Schools Boards in each of the nine districts have appointed a member to serve along with the superintendent (non-voting) on a WMEP Joint Powers Board that will provide a governance structure for WMEP projects.

The Minneapolis School Board voted to change the 22-year old desegregation plan in favor of “neighborhood schools.” The new plan would eliminate all busing except for students who choose “magnet” schools.

Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the legality of the segregated Hartford public school system. The state of Missouri and the Kansas City school board ended court-ordered state funding for busing. Federal court ruled in favor of Denver to end desegregation busing. The NAACP filed a lawsuit (Minneapolis Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. State of Minnesota, et al., File No. MC 95-014800) claiming that because MPS have disproportionate enrollments of poor and minority students, generating “negative effects that depress educational achievement,” MPS students as a whole are being denied their right to receive “an adequate education in Minneapolis public schools as required by the Minnesota State Constitution.” The complaint linked school enrollments to housing, alleging the defendant has “adopted policies and practices that result in housing segregated by race and socioeconomic status in the metropolitan area, resulting in segregation.” They also objected to excessive spending on suburban infrastructure and to “transportation policies that enable “white flight’ to suburbs, and failing “to require … suburban communities to promote the development of low and moderate income housing.” NOTE: This case was removed from the state court under the All Writs Act by the district court to protect the integrity of the federal consent decree entered in Hollman v. Ciscneros, Civ. No. 4-92-712 (D. Minn. Filed Apr. 21, 1995) a housing lawsuit against the Met Council). House Republican Task Force on Student Achievement and Integration held seven hearings and published their findings in Bridging Gaps & Breaking Barriers: A Minnesota Model for Student Achievement and Integration.

8

1996 The Tri-District Community School Joint Powers Board (St. Paul, Roseville,

No St. Paul/Maplewood/Oakdale) opened the Harambee Elementary School in Maplewood. The West Metro Integration Project opened the downtown magnet school.

1997 The Legislature created the Integration Revenue program, which

expanded integration funding and established eligibility criteria for qualifying school districts across the state. (Laws of Minnesota First Special Session 1997, chapter 4, art 2, sec. 18)

1999 – The Minnesota Department of Education approved rules specifying

eligibility for integration revenue and program requirements. Districts with a proportion of protected students at least 20% different from an adjoining districts proportion of protected students are eligible for integration revenue.

2000 The State of Minnesota and the NAACP settled the 1995 lawsuit with

the creation of a four-year voluntary program (The Choice is Yours) that included voluntary busing of low-income Minneapolis students to suburban schools. East Metro Integration District (EMID, formerly Tri-District) obtained property in Woodbury to build the Crosswinds Middle School.

2002 Minnesota receives a 5-year federal grant through the Voluntary Public

School Choice (VPSC) program to expand The Choice is Yours program. 2005 80 qualifying school districts received approximately $79 million (including

$54.4 M in state aid and $24.5 M in matching local property tax levies) for integration efforts. Legislative Audit Commission directed the Office of the Legislative Auditor

(OLA) to evaluate the program

Legal settlement from the NAACP lawsuit expired.

9

OLA Report published with the following Major Findings and Key Recommendations: (p. ix)

• The purpose of the Integration Revenue is not clear. • School districts vary widely in how they use integration

revenue. While many of their expenditures are reasonable, some are questionable.

• Neither the state nor school districts have adequately assessed the results of the Integration Revenue program.

• Over the last five years, racial concentration has increased in some of the school districts that participate in the Integration Revenue program.

• The Minnesota Department of Education has not provided consistent or required oversight of the program, although it has made some improvements in the past year.

• The Integration Revenue funding formula has some unintended and potentially negative consequences.

Key Recommendations:

• The Legislature should clarify the purpose of the Integration Revenue program.

• The Legislature should authorize the Minnesota Department of Education to establish criteria against which school districts must evaluate their integration plans, and withhold integration revenue from those districts that fail to meet those evaluation requirements.

• The Minnesota Department of Education should use its statutory authority to establish criteria for allowable Integration Revenue expenditures and fulfill its responsibilities for overseeing the Integration Revenue program.

• The Legislature should require districts that want to voluntarily participate in the Integration Revenue program to obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of Education.

10

• The Legislature should give the Minnesota Department of Education authority to approve the integration budgets of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth school districts.

• The Legislature should consider revising the Integration Revenue funding formula.

2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Meredith v. Jefferson County School Board curtails districts’ use of race as a factor in assigning students to schools.

2008 Metro area elementary schools identified as segregated = 108. 2009 Aspen Associates prepare the Minnesota Voluntary Public School Choice:

Multi-year Evaluation Summary for the Minnesota Department of Education. The implications for policy and practice drawn from the evaluation were: (pp. vii-viii)

• Outreach: For all eligible families, word-of-mouth and direct contact through parents’ social networks continue to be more influential in the school choice decisions made by low-income families than traditional media campaigns. To reach the most parents, however, outreach should continue to access parents’ social networks and utilize the major media (e.g. newspapers, television, radio).

• Outreach: Despite ongoing outreach efforts targeting other ethnic groups, the suburban choice program continues to attract primarily African American students and families living on the north and near-north side of Minneapolis. The availability of academics continues to be important to all parents. As the suburban choice program strengthens its language support programs, this option may become more appealing to other ethnic groups.

• Support for School Choice: Free transportation and academic support continue to be viewed as important features in parents’ decision to choose a particular school.

• Staff Development: Suburban choice schools need to continue providing staff development to increase teacher capacity to work effectively with language-diverse students.

11

• Academic Support: Suburban choice schools need to examine why secondary students transferring in under The Choice is Yours program do not feel they are receiving all the help they need to do well in school when their parents feel that they are.

• Academic Achievement: After four years of analyzing student achievement data, the findings are mixed as to the effects of the program on student performance. As more and more students remain in the program it will be possible to examine the achievement of cohorts over time.

Resources Used

ASPEN Associates. (2009: May 22). Minnesota voluntary public school choice: Multi-year evaluation summary.

Hawkins, B & Boyd, C. (2008: November 17). Twin Cities-area schools more segregated than ever. Minnpost.

Hillson, J. (1995: October 16). NAACP sues Minnesota to defend desegregation. The Militant. 59:38.

Krohnke, D. (2012: September 9). http://dwkcommentaries.com/tag/booker-v-special-school-district-no-1/

Minnesota House Republican Task Force on Student Achievement and Integration. (1995: November). Bridging Gaps & Breaking Barriers: A Minnesota Model for Student Achievement & Integration.

Peterson, I. (2014: July 28). One desegregation lawsuit not enough: Minnesota’s about to be sued again for school segregation. MSR News.

State of Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2005, November). Evaluation Report: School District Integration Revenue.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. (1997: September 17). National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Minneapolis Branch v. Metropolitan Council. No. 96-3092.

585 F2d 347 Booker v Special School District No Minneapolis Minnesota No. 78-1502 (1978)

125 E 3d 1171 (1997) NAACP Minneapolis Branch v. Metro Council No 96-3092

West Metro Education Program Superintendent’s Views on WMEP Planning and Structure October 3, 2014 The eleven superintendents are working together to examine the West Metro Education Program collaboratively. At the heart of this discussion is our desire to assure that we are serving our kids in the best way possible. We’re working together stronger so that all of the kids are taken care of by addressing the Achievement Gap, making sure all students are successful, and that we have integrated schools. Our work and the work of the Joint Powers Board is a unique opportunity to assure that the work we do has an even greater impact in those three areas. Our discussions have been wide-‐ranging but, at this time, there are three areas in which we have focused our work: Changing Role of the Collaborative In our discussions we have examined the four elements of the current strategic plan: Schools, Regional Equity Leadership, Professional Development and Student Programs. These are, we are certain, the same areas the JPB is examining. We will address two of these in this document. As time has passed and our districts have changed dramatically, the needs of the districts, schools and students have changed. Is there a better or different model to consider? Should we be focusing on Regional Leadership? Are the schools the best model for meeting individual missions and goals? We offer the following for your consideration. School Governance We value the impact the schools have on students and families, and would not want children negatively impacted. We feel the JPB should explore alternative governance models for FAIR School. No matter the governance model, we believe the schools should remain open and WMEP District students continue to have priority to attend there. If there are member districts that are willing to take over governance, the board should explore this. There are many things to consider in this change including assuring continuity of programming and staff. No one should have concerns regarding employment or programmatic opportunities at FAIR School. With a move to an alternative model, there would be no need for a superintendent. WMEP would then be able to function with an Executive Director leading the “new” organization.

Professional Development It is our opinion that WMEP could expand its work in the area of Professional Development. How do we move PD from a one-‐time experience to an approach that carries the learning of the workshop into the classroom and sustains the value-‐add that the workshop information affords? We have considered a number of ideas, including:

• Developing WMEP as a Professional Development Center, not unlike those that other professions have. (The Minnesota Bar – Continuing Legal Education is a good example.) WMEP would become the place to go and a resource for training teachers, staff and administrators, develop culturally competent teachers and staff, and a place where teachers can practice and bring their learnings back to their districts. Such a structure would continue to provide valuable training in Equity and Cultural Competence, but it also could be providing technical assistance to districts as they work to implement and embed the work in their buildings and classrooms.

• Creating a place that could serve as a “Think Tank.” This could likely be a part of the Professional Development Center. It is here that districts could go for guidance in the areas of equity, cultural competence, integration law and rule and much more. It is where we would compile research on best practices and disseminate it as needed.

The WMEP Superintendents stand ready to advise and support the Joint Powers Board in their work to envision what may become WMEP 3.0. It is our hope this information serves to support and guide the board in their upcoming work session.

WEST METRO EDUCATION PROGRAM (WMEP) JOINT POWERS SCHOOLD DISTRICT #6069

Joint Powers Board Work Session Report October 08, 2014

FAIR School Crystal 5:30pm – 8:30 pm

Minutes BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robbinsdale; Helen Bassett, Wayzata; Jay Hesby, St. Louis Park; Julie Sweitzer, Minneapolis; Kim Ellison, Eden Prairie; John Estall, Edina; Leny Wallen-Friedman, St. Anthony/New Brighton; Mike Volna; Hopkins; Irma McIntosh Coleman, Brooklyn Center; John Solomon, Columbia Heights; Ted Landwehr BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Richfield; Todd Nollenberger SUPERINTENDENT LIAISON PRESENT: Hopkins; John Schultz STAFF PRESENT: WMEP Superintendent; Keith Lester, Executive Assistant; Liz Lansing Mission:

• What is our collective capacity? • How is the mission able to sift to meet the shifting needs? • WMEP’s mission should be more subservient to member district needs. • What is the definition of integration for the JPB? • What is valuable for most of us…today?

Level of Commitment

• What is value add for member districts? • We can try to be good leaders but districts have to accept what we are offering.

Board Governance: Not deeply discussed Superintendent Input: (Superintendent Paper)

Small Group Work Agenda Questions Schools

• Are the schools serving the mission? Serving the districts? • Are they serving their original purpose? • Evaluation? What do you/we know about the school’s impact on mission? • What else do you need to know? • Can we commit to the ongoing “life” of the schools?

Regional Equity Leadership • Does this add value to your district? • What about Regional Equity Leadership jumps out at you/interests you? • Should we be involved in “region equity work” at all? If so, should we be part of

collaborative work or part of a network in equity in education? • What else do you need to know?

Professional Development • What are the advantages and disadvantages to having the Cultural Collaborative

VS doing this work in-district? • Is the current model the best one? What are alternatives? • What additional information would you want in order to move forward? • What do you want to do next?

Student Programs • Based on what we know, do these programs add value to your district? • Which programs are most meaningful/useful in your opinion? • Are there other programs that you know of that should be included? • Should any of these be expanded? • What else do you need to know? • What do you want to do next?

SCHOOLS REGIONAL EQUITY LEADERSHIP

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PROGRAMS

• Should FAIR Schools be aligned with the WMEP Mission & Vision

• Big Financial, logistical and governance challenges in running school

• It is unclear how the schools are connected with the other 3 components of WMEP’s vision

• Schools are serving purpose for a small #

• Geographic change and societal change have changed the old view or integration

• Does Arts alone lead to racial equity & integration

• Are schools building collective capacity? NO – doesn’t translate to opportunities for other students or districts.

• Could the schools build collective capacity? As a tool for Professional Development to find pockets of excellence and share.

• Can schools continue for benefit of students w/o being run by WMEP?

• FAIR Schools can’t serve students adequately with-out more assessment, teaching & learning and curriculum support

• Member district missions have similar goals as WMEP mission – so are WMEP results better? (ALL WMEP goals need to be successful before other districts follow)

• Mandated for revenue generating

• What do the individual district want from WMEP?

• Take what WMEP does in the other three categories and share it with Districts outside the 11 Districts

• Identify member districts needs and respond

• WMEP serve as facilitator of problem solving conversations between districts

• Defining specific problems and collaborate on solving

• WMEP isn’t a “preferred resource” (not for all) why??

• Does competition restrict sharing?

• Possibility that collaboration generates

• Unless WMEP has strong outcomes it won’t be the preferred resource

• Needs cross district sharing and help with ongoing implementation

• Take connections to next level – achievement

• Smaller districts get high value from WMEP PD

• WMEP could take a leadership role in analyzing data across and among the member districts & tailored to diversity/equity

• What are the PD needs of the other 11 districts

• Help schools tailor Q-Comp programs to incorporate equity & achievement gap goals

• To singularly focused. Needs more balance

• Is $ well spent? • Is there a less

expensive way to find art?

• Use the demographic diversity of the MD to develop PD that everyone benefits from.

• Provide online offerings

• Are we keeping up w/the cutting edge

• There was interest in the concepts of Think Tank and Training Center.

• Provide more parent programs

• Could tap into larger population of students (too few white students – i.e. Dare 2 Be Real)

• Anticipate growth in partnerships – ex. FAIR +

• Encourage more students of color to be teachers.

• Elite academy is too one shot – need ongoing programming for “future teachers”

• Adds real value • May be good to

expand these programs

• Turbocharge what works

•

Summary: Schools: There could be a place for them but maybe WMEP is not the organization to be running them. It’s unclear how the schools are connected to the other three parts. To be able to connect them we have to look at what options are available to connect them to the rest of the vision and mission. Figure out how we connect schools to the other 3 Mission & Vision areas- if they are connected. Regional Equity Leadership: Regional leadership should be accomplished internally first, then become broader. Regional equity is really professional development. Professional Development: Parents should be more involved in professional development. Offer more variety of professional development to suit all member districts needs. Student Programs: Meeting the needs of member districts. We need to find a way we can measure the success and a way to expand these programs. FOLLOW-UP:

Ø Start having public conversations Ø Communication with member district boards Ø Continue to work with member district superintendents Ø Larger discussion about how it would work if WMEP changed landlords for the

schools. Ø Executive Committee to create a timeline and bring it back to the board

Adjournment of Work Session at 8:28PM.

Future of WMEP 11/10/2014 1

Future of WMEP Ongoing Discussion Items Timeline (see Executive Committee timeline) Information Sources: Jean Lubke, Executive Director, EMID

• We have spoken at length about how EMID transitioned from running schools to a focus on programming, particularly professional development

• She was in place the second time they went to the legislature and helped lead EMID through the process.

Jan Mohr, Former Superintendent, EMID • I have spoken only briefly with Jan, so far. • She was the superintendent the first time the plan to convey the schools was brought to the

legislature. Scott Croonquist, AMSD Executive Director

• I have had only minimal contact with Scott, but have confirmed his willingness to help us and we deal with the issue of WMEP re-design and possible conveyance of the schools.

John Thein, Roseville Superintendent • John spoke to the superintendents from the point of view of a member district who received a

school. Kris Amundson, Amundson Strategies, lobbyist

• We discussed the pros and cons of a conveyance. WMEP Superintendents

• They have been meeting regularly since August and have been a great help in moving the discussion forward.

• Their meetings have included bringing people to the table who understand the issue(s) at hand. Sandy Lewandowski, 287 Superintendent

• Currently, my only contact with Sandy has been to discuss the possibility of meeting about 287 managing the schools.

Process for changing school status – three main areas to consider:

1. Assets a. Buildings are owned by WMEP, Minneapolis has right of first refusal for downtown and

Robbinsdale does for Crystal; b. Legislature – EMID Background

i. Transferred Harombee Elementary real and personal property to Roseville and Crosswinds (6-10) to Perpich;

ii. EMID had hoped South Washington County would take Crosswinds, but they were not able to do it because they did not want the school to stay a multi-district integration facility - inter-district magnet. This is how Perpich got into the process.

iii. They went to the legislature where they handled outstanding bonds through tax and education committees;

iv. Perpich was an “outlier” in the process and it’s participation was one reason it did not make it through the legislature the first time. Other reasons appeared to be that


stakeholders were not as involved the first time. v. The second time went more smoothly.

c. Lessons Learned from EMID

i. If you’re going to convey the buildings, it will be much easier if they go to school districts. While the “second time around” might make Perpich easier, the new configuration of the legislature may make it more difficult.

ii. Involve all stakeholders in the discussion as soon as possible. iii. The good news is EMID paved the way for WMEP. The legislature is familiar

with the process and may not be surprised if we acted on this move. iv. Key for EMID is that they didn’t have commitment that the schools would remain

integration schools. If we stay the course of the mission, what we do (short of dissolution) should not matter to the legislature.

v. *See below for the discussion the superintendents had with John Thein, Roseville Superintendent.

d. Other Factors i. Process can also be done as a sale between WMEP and the districts, but, if the

state has a mortgage, we’ll have to pay it off before we can sell. ii. If we don’t/can’t sell it, the legislature would handle outstanding bonds through

tax and education committees; iii. An open issue for WMEP is the capital fund for deferred maintenance - What

happens to that capital fund? Does Minneapolis and Robbinsdale get it or does it stay with WMEP?

2. Employee Concerns: Administration, teachers and other staff a. Roseville operated the program while it was still a EMID school and kept the employees b. Perpich allowed the employees to apply c. Our agreement was for teachers to go to FAIR, learn skills in Equity/Integration and

return to their districts in three years. The legal opinion I’ve heard so far seems to be that this part of the agreement went away after the first three years and would not apply to current staff – unless we had someone come within the last three years under this arrangement. To my knowledge that has not occurred.

d. There is law, however, that protects employees under these circumstances and, if they chose, they could “bump” into member districts. The Richfield superintendent, Steve Ulnowsky, came from St. Paul and commented that they welcomed teachers that had been fully trained in equity and diversity and had fine-tuned their craft at the EMID Schools. It is an area to consider, however.

e. If the receiving districts chose to do what Roseville did, this would not be an issue. The biggest problem for them would be seniority and tenure – particularly in Minneapolis. They would have to find a way to “fit” WMEP employees into their system.

3. Programmatic Continuity: for schools and WMEP activities; a. This is the one where our stakeholders will have the most input. Would the new school

districts continue to current commitment to equity and integration and for how long would they do this? Would the students currently enrolled at FAIR from member districts


be allowed to continue at FAIR and for how long? b. How would, for example, Robbinsdale and Minneapolis reconfigure building grades? c. We would need to plan and negotiate what we jointly envision WMEP being beyond the

schools - cultural competence, anti-racism, equity work. The conversations I have been a part of seem to point to the “soft landing” approach where the essence of FAIR (equity, etc.) remains and families are permitted to continue sending their children. There is discussion, however, about how long this arrangement would last.

d. What happens about continuity plan for schools and districts if a district withdraws? If we continued to run the schools, the withdrawing districts would have to have an agreement with WMEP. If Minneapolis or Robbinsdale operated them, they could do it as a tuition agreement or open enrollment. (This will be up to the host and member districts to plan.)

e. The Joint Powers Agreement is pretty sparse on the issue. The operation of school is not in the agreement. There is a reference to tuition, but it does not say we have to operate schools. Amendment of the agreement calls for consent of all member boards.

4. Other considerations a. (Complete dissolution requires a 2/3 majority. If you do that, districts would have to find

new combinations based on desegregation rule; all would have to work with some districts; don’t have to be in more than one partnership.)

b. Keeping WMEP intact allows you/us to shape it into what you want - at least for a year or two while the state figures out what it wants to do with the rule. Determine if the “new WMEP” is working after a couple of years to determine whether to continue or to dissolve or leave. What about current students?

c. For current students we can explore how we would provide options for the students, families and districts (the “value-add” discussion we are currently having).

d. Are Minneapolis and Robbinsdale the only two that could run the schools? They have right of first refusal. We are quite certain another district cannot own and operate a school that is not in their district. (This will be verified. However, the fact that Minneapolis and Robbinsdale have right of first refusal probably makes this a moot point.)

e. Language: As we proceed, it needs to be clear that we are not really closing a school, but, rather, providing for continuity of the current school through another district.

f. Technically, in the case of Minneapolis, for example, it could be said they would be opening a new school as WMEP closes a school.

g. As you know, Minneapolis has talked about this at the district level. Robbinsdale has not. Minneapolis has stated they have concerns about a soft landing, taking care of kids and families, have a transition period and that they would need to work with partners to realign grade configuration. They want to mutually assure a soft landing for families.

h. Transportation: What happens to transportation to the schools if WEMP doesn’t run them? This is state-funded desegregation transportation. If the schools continue as desegregation magnates, it would still be eligible for integration transportation.

Integration and Achievement

1. There has been discussion about the whole issue of integration. The legislature was tentative, particularly the first year EMID approached them that they/we would be losing the integration “battle” by closing the schools. There is/was consensus that some may not have understood the new reality of integration/racial balance.


2. We don’t look like we did when the schools opened. 3. Myron Orfield – who is still very active around the issue of integration - is living with the old

model. The new approach is more about achievement. 4. As we are seeing in action right now, the new law and old rule are not aligned (old- integration;

new- achievement and integration). However, MDE expects there will be both movement and achievement.

5. There will continue to be requirements for working together - but it may be more voluntary. 6. There is a potential lawsuit - supposedly filed by the same people that filed the NAACP suit

previously. While no one has heard about any suits filed to date, Orfield is claiming Minneapolis is violating the federal constitution. Allegedly new plaintiffs are being sought in both Minneapolis and St. Paul with a plan for going after the issue based on the state constitution

Other:

1. The superintendents have continued to meet and have instituted three sub-committees to look into the three areas described above. They include: Future of WMEP: Keith Lester, Chace Anderson, Aldo Siccoli, Bob , Steve, Curt; Soft Landing: Keith, Aldo, Michael, John S., Ric D., Kathy; Legal/Logistics: Keith, Bob, Steve, Curt, Steve Liss, John S., Aldo (or their designees)

2. We will need to include student and parent voice in the discussion. 3. A timeline is necessary – as produced by the WMEP Executive Committee. 4. The sub-committees will look into the following to support the work of the Joint Powers Board

and the Member District Boards (and me): a. Grade Configuration b. Legislative strategy c. d. What legal counsel do we need in this process? e. Communication Plan f. WMEP Plan Development g. Transportation h. Sharing resources in the work between districts

*John Thein - EMID update

• It was a lot about the money - losing kids • MDE, Minnesota Management and Budget (key to whole thing), local legislators, all districts on

board and all district legislators on board • Roseville took their entire staff • He has retained all the paperwork and letters • Scott Croonquist, Kris Amundson were very helpful • Houseman and Wieger - legislators that helped • Superintendents were in agreement. They had no issues with the change. • St. Paul was offered the South Washington County spot, but they couldn’t take it because it

wasn’t in their district • Perpich slowed things up • They determined Harombee would be a joint integration site year around until bonds are paid off. • The plus is free transportation for kids to come to the school. As the year has passed, kids began

to trickle off. They fill the space with their kids. • Indebtedness on the building was the state's.


• What did the legislature want to know about what EMID would look like without the schools? John didn’t offer any information;

• Jay Squires did all the legal - • They merged seniority lists. • EMID is currently a service provider. • Remarkably smooth transition - came out ok • Parents really helped - legislators didn’t like parents screaming at them • Unions knew jobs were secure

Superintendents/Keith To Do:

• Send work session notes electronically to the superintendents • Outside experts to talk about PD • Find out who owns Crystal • Set up meetings of sub-committees • Determine attorneys who handled Joint Powers Board legal work • Determine indebtedness • What legal and financial entanglements will districts get into? • Revisit Mission • Deep dive on Steve Liss presentation • Find out which attorney did the work around - employee concerns - Kevin Rupp • Timeline, steps in the process; Come up with a plan for how to proceed - a timeline with

milestones.