AMPHITHEATER
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Tucson,
Arizona
MINUTES OF
REUGLAR PUBLIC MEETING OF GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time
of Meeting
Holaway Elementary School, 3500 North Cherry Avenue, August
28, 2001, 6:30 p.m.
Dr. Kenneth Smith, President
Nancy Young Wright, Vice President/Clerk
Dr. Kent Barrabee, Member
Mike Prout, Member
Mary Schuh, Member
Central
Administrators Present
Dr. Vicki M.
Balentine, Superintendent
Dr. Richard Hooley,
Associate Superintendent
Todd A. Jaeger, J.D.,
Associate to Superintendent and General Counsel
Constance Cigliana,
Director of Finance
OPENING OF MEETING
Call to Order
and Signing of Visitors Register
Dr. Kenneth Smith called the meeting to order.
The Board welcomed newly-appointed administrators Cinthia Andine, Assistant Principal, Amphitheater High School; John Eichelberger, Assistant Principal, Amphitheater High School; Joene Ames, Assistant Principal, La Cima Middle School; Adrian Hannah, Principal, Wilson K-8 School; and Shannon Smith, Assistant Principal, Wilson K-8 School.
Signing of Visitors Register
Dr. Smith asked members of the audience to sign the visitors
register. Procedures for addressing the
Board were described.
Marc Sabb spoke regarding lack of workbooks and science
supplies, and reduction of support staff at Canyon del Oro High School. Dr. Smith requested that the Superintendent
report back to the Board on these
matters.
Cheryl Lundgren spoke regarding reduction in staff at
Holaway Elementary, and lack of supplies at the beginning of the school
year. Cindy Remme, representing the Holaway
Site Council, presented a letter to the Board regarding custodial staff cuts,
maintenance of an older school like Holaway, and custodians working alone in
the evening. Dr. Balentine will report
back to the Board on this matter.
INFORMATION
1. Announcement of Date and Place of Next
Meeting
Dr. Smith announced the next regular meeting of the
Governing Board: September 11, 2001,
7:00 p.m., at Wetmore Center, 701 West Wetmore.
2. Review of Proposition 301 Class Size
Reduction Plan
Board book information: Proposition 301 includes increased school funding through three principal means: direct funding for increased teacher compensation; direct funding for teacher performance pay; funds for classroom enhancement, for such things as AIMS remediation and class-size reduction. The legal requirements of Proposition 301 prohibit the use of 301 funds in a manner which would supplant normal district funding; funding must supplement district-funding levels. In order to avoid supplanting and to assure equity across the District, the administration is implementing a class-size reduction allocation based upon actual enrollment. By providing a certain amount per student, equality can be maintained. A spreadsheet, Proposition 301 Class Size Reconciliation, indicated 301 funds apportioned to each school to address class-size issues. These funds may be used by schools to fund additional teachers, classroom sections, or classroom aides.
Last school year, schools were given staffing allocations arrived at by formula calculations based upon enrollment projections; with school now in session, some schools were found to be above and some below enrollment projections. Consequently, some schools were staffed at levels above formula and some below. As shown on the spreadsheet, there were presently 17 teachers above formula requirements across the District. This equates to a cost of $533,248.86. Proposition 301 funding may be used to offset this because it supplements the District’s own staff allocation level. To facilitate this function, the administration recommended the transfer of $100,000 previously assigned to AIMS remediation and dropout prevention to class-size reduction.
Dr. Balentine noted that in July the Board approved the 301 moneys in Fund C, thus setting aside a portion of dollars to address class-size reduction in the District as school began. Principals had been consulted the previous week and informed of allocations. Mr. Jaeger reviewed the plan that had been put in place, providing an overview of the process followed in developing staffing allocations at each school, based upon enrollment projections. He spoke of mobility within the District and a number of teaching positions that can be allocated on an as-needed basis to cover pockets where unexpected growth occurs.
In discussion of funding, Mr. Jaeger stated that an established formula had been followed, based upon full-time enrollment. Also recognized was that a portion of the funds should be targeted and directed toward reducing class size in self-contained special education classrooms on an equivalent basis.
By applying that formula, this had resulted in $898,748.01 being allocated through 301 for class-size reduction to schools. Additionally, $22,490.54 had been allocated specifically to the self-contained special education programs, on a pro-rata basis, to support class-size reduction efforts in those classrooms. Thus, under Proposition 301, a total of $921,000 had been allocated under the classroom-enhancement plan.
Board book information: After reviewing the earlier draft of the Pay for Performance Plan with the Governing Board, Deanna Day reconvened the group of teachers and administrators to refine the draft. The most recent draft was presented for the Governing Board’s review and approval.
The goal of this plan is to increase student achievement and
compensate teachers for making those gains with students. In general, the plan calls upon sites to
determine areas for improvement, and to plan strategies, programs, assessments,
and staff development to ensure achievement growth at significant levels. Philosophically, the Amphitheater Plan
attempts to be true to the rigorous intent of the statute, using multiple measures
of academic achievement, including standardized test scores; and, through staff
development, building capacity in teachers for facilitating academic gains with
their students. The plan also includes
measures for improved School Engagement at sites. Ultimately, the plan assumes a continuous growth model for each
school so that student growth in specific areas is rewarded. Participation in the plan is not mandated,
so District teachers must choose to participate. Nonetheless, all teachers at a given site will avail themselves
of the support in the form of staff development and training.
Hank Rowe addressed the
Board, speaking of the role of the committee in making decisions, student
engagement issues, assessment of student performance, and time lines for
compensation. Marc Sabb and Cheryl
Lundgren indicated that Mr. Rowe had addressed their concerns. Joanne Benoit spoke regarding student
engagement issues and participation in the plan. Rhonda Ball spoke regarding communication with the committee and
timelines for compensation. Dr. Smith
emphasized that the District had received no Proposition 301 money at this
point.
Additional persons
addressed the Board: Judy Lewandowski,
regarding delay in the AIMS testing, with
certified staff members being held accountable while students may not
have a buy-in to the test at this time; Dean Packard, the requirement to have
proposals in place by August 30, and the requirement of 10% improvement yearly
at the high school level; Susan Rene Pierce, means of payment for the new
class-reduction teachers. John
Lewandowski, President of Amphitheater Education Association, presented a
statement giving Amphi E.A.’s perspective of the history of what has happened
in the District with 301 up to this point; he put questions before the Board
and presented requests.
There was discussion of
criteria for distribution of Proposition 301 moneys to teachers, and of methods
being used by other districts. In
discussion of a payment schedule, Dr. Balentine spoke of limiting factors being
the payroll department’s level of computerization and staffing. Two payout times each year would create an
additional strain on the payroll department, and would further complicate the
tracking and reporting of 301 dollars.
A May or June payout time is one of the busiest times of the year, with
budget closeout for the fiscal year.
Mrs. Schuh requested,
after implementation of the plan, that the Board revisit this matter at a Board
meeting. Ms. Cigliana confirmed that
301 moneys are accounted for separately, not commingled with M&O
funds. Liz Bemis spoke regarding the
language in Proposition 301, of performance based on evaluation. Alrene Hibben questioned the schedule of
payment dates and 301 pay being included in the year in which it is performed,
related to retirement.
Ms. Day reviewed the
draft, specifically the changes made since the September 14, 2001 Board
meeting. In speaking of the date for
submission of the plans, Dr. Balentine stated that September 30 would be the
expected time to have the plans turned in.
Ms. Day clarified that the criteria associated with the November $600
distribution would be that a teacher participate in the design and
implementation of the plan at the school.
Dr. Barrabee stated he
would like to see more consistency, by lumping the $2,000 with the $600. Instead of making this such a high-stakes
performance issue based on things beyond teachers’ control, he suggested for
the $2,600: for Goal I, instead of 60%,
give 6%; for Goal II, instead of 40%, give 4%; with the other 90% to be
distributed based on satisfactory teacher evaluation. Dr. Barrabee so moved.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Prout stated that
the categories of suspension rate and office-referral rate should not be
included in school engagement; he felt
it was counterproductive. Extensive
discussion followed.
After a point of clarification from Mr. Prout, Mrs. Schuh
moved approval of the Pay for Performance Plan. She requested that site plans be reviewed at the October 9, 2001,
Governing Board meeting.
Mr. Prout suggested that sites develop incentive programs to
help students do their best on tests.
Dr. Barrabee inquired as to the ability of the Board to further discuss
the amounts for participation in
the program. Dr.
Smith responded that the Board has the authority to revise its actions.
The motion passed, 4-0, with Dr. Barrabee abstaining.
[At the September 11, 2001 Governing Board meeting, in moving for approval of these August 28, 2001 minutes, Ms. Young Wright asked that a clarification be added to item 3, Study and Action on 301 Performance Pay Plan: when she invited the public to contact her about concerns, this was not meant to usurp anyone’s position or go around policy; such information is shared with Dr. Balentine so appropriate responses can be made.]
A recess was taken from 9:37 to 9:49 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Mrs. Schuh to approve consent agenda
items A - H; Mr. Prout seconded the motion.
Mrs. Young Wright requested that item A, Approval of Minutes, be
considered separately. Mrs. Schuh
amended her motion, to seek approval of items B - H, leaving item A for
discussion; Mr. Prout seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and
federal requirements are met.
Ms. Young Wright noted for the record that she had submitted
a correction on an executive session set of minutes to the Board
secretary. Ms. Young Wright stated that
in the minutes of August 14, 2001, the Board was approving the minutes of July
13, 1999. She requested clarification,
for the historical record,
of the July 13
minutes, agenda item 23, pertaining to condemnation. Mr. Jaeger stated that no action regarding condemnation was taken
at that time. He noted that, in
considering both open meeting and executive session minutes of July 13, 1999,
he had determined that correct follow-up had taken place.
Ms. Young Wright moved, with that illumination, to approve
the minutes. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Barrabee and passed unanimously.
A. Approval of
Minutes
Minutes of Governing
Board meetings were approved: August
16, 2001; August 14, 2001; July 27, 1999 (See above for discussion.).
B. Appointment of
Personnel
Certified and
classified personnel were appointed, as listed in Exhibit 1.
C. Personnel
Changes
Certified and
classified personnel changes were approved, as listed in Exhibit 2.
D. Leave(s) of
Absence
Certified and
classified personnel were granted leaves of absence, as listed in Exhibit 3.
E. Separation(s) and
Termination(s)
Certified and
classified personnel separations were approved, as listed in Exhibit 4.
F. Approval of
Out-of-State Travel
Out-of-state travel
was approved (source of funding indicated):
Mary Swiderski and Michelle Barcanic, Canyon del Oro High School, to
attend the Link Crew Training (Follow-up)/Learning for Living Training in
California in September (CDO funds); Gail Bornfield, Student Services, to
attend a mandatory meeting for the 21st Century Grant in Texas in
September (21st Century Grant funds).
G. Acceptance of
Gifts
Donations were
accepted by the Governing Board, as listed in Exhibit 5.
H. Approval of
Vouchers
The following vouchers were approved as presented and
payment authorized:
Vo. 1067 $710,232.72
Vo. 1068
44,336.56
Vo. 1069
52,432.71
2001-2002
Fiscal Year
Vo.
114 $87,319.44
Vo.
115 234,236.61
Vo.
116 44,032.97
Vo.
117 164,718.79
Vo.
118 39,617.76
Vo.
119 306,163.77
Dr.
Smith stated that if there were no objections, agenda items 5, 6 and 7 would be
continued to the September 11, 2001 Board meeting.
4. Review of Draft Revision to District Policy KHB Regarding Advertising in Schools and Discussion of Facilities Usage
Board book
information: Current District policy
sets limits on advertising in schools.
This is based upon a philosophy that schools are places to learn, not to
receive solicitations to buy one product or another; it is also clear that,
while at school, students are “captive audiences.” Policy does, however, permit recogni-tion of vendors who
contribute to or otherwise support District programs. Present language allows principals, in their discretion, to allow
the display of banners, signs, and other means of recognition of sponsors
during sponsored events. The policy
requires removal of these displays after the event and prohibits them from
remaining in place during an entire season.
At its December 12, 2000
meeting, the Board approved revisions to Policy KHB that authorize recognition
of sponsors who purchase or make substantial contributions to the purchase of
scoreboards and marquees for schools.
This revision acknowledges sponsor contributions to a school but does
not permit direct marketing to students or staff by individual “for-profit”
businesses. The District permits
individual “for-profit” businesses to lease site space for their activities,
i.e., Jazzercise, karate, which previously had been organized through Community
Extension Programs. The administration
proposed offering the businesses an opportunity to advertise their class or
organization to District staff and students via flyers provided to sites, as
they were previously able to do through CEP.
This revision would permit advertisements and/or promotional materials
to be distributed to staff and/or students on behalf of “for-profit”
organizations that have executed an appropriate lease for use of District
facilities and that are providing an educational service or product, but only
upon approval of the Superintendent or her designee. This item was presented for the Board’s consideration and
discussion. Approval will be requested
at the September 11, 2001 Board meeting.
There was discussion of
various aspects of the policy. Mr.
Prout asked that the Board address the matter of permitting fund-raising
activities/on-site advertising which minimize the impact of teaching. Mr. Jaeger will provide District policies on
advertising in high school newspapers to Board members. The Board requested review of District
policy for political activity on school grounds, particularly as it might
relate to the distribution of political materials or advertisements.
5. Review of Governing Board Policy DKC Regarding Travel Reimbursement
This item was continued to the September 11, 2001 Board
meeting.
6. Review of District Policy BJ Regarding
Legislative Lobbying and Discussion of Lobby Activities
This item was continued to the September 11, 2001 Board
meeting.
7. Review of Policies and Regulations Pertaining
to Gifts to the Governing Board, District and Staff
This item was continued to the September 11, 2001 Board
meeting.
8. Review of Governing Board Policy JICFA
Regarding Hazing
Board book
information: Recent legislation
dictated a modification of Governing Board Policy JICFA regarding
“Hazing.” The draft policy combined
current Board Policy JICFA with a new model policy prepared by the Arizona
School Boards Association. The draft
policy also reflected revisions required by A.R.S. § 15-2301, as enacted by the
First Regular Session of the Forty-fifth Legislature, which defines and
prohibits hazing, requires very prescriptive inclusions to the policy, and
establishes the definition of “student” for the purpose of enforcement of the
policy. Also presented was a draft
regulation regarding complaint-reporting procedures, a Complaint Form Exhibit,
and an exhibit that can be used to post the hazing policy, as required by
law.
In discussion of use of
the word “substantial,” Mr. Jaeger reported that the District is following what
the legislature requires. The statute
actually provides the “substantial risk” language. Dr. Smith noted that the reason for putting the policy in place
is because of statutory requirements.
Statute actually specifies that our policy must include a definition of
“hazing” pursuant to the definition provided in the statute. The policy will be presented for approval at
the September 11, 2001 Board meeting.
Mrs. Schuh: Updates on textbooks, recruitment,
utilization of volunteers, job assignments, provisional teachers, procurement,
policies for fire drills/evacuation, advocacy of political position by
staff.
Mr. Prout: Road
situation at Ironwood Ridge High School.
Ms. Young Wright:
Staff business conduct guide; impact fees/working with other entities;
update on hiring planner and planning for growth.
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee, seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 10:42 p.m.