♪♪
ANNOUNCER: The views and
opinions in this program are not
those of CESA 7 or Spectrum.
♪♪
♪♪
♪♪
♪♪
BRENDA: And I would entertain
the motion for a closed session.
KATIE: I move that the
Board convene in Closed Session
pursuant to Wisconsin
Statute 19.85(1)(c),
considering
employment, promotion,
compensation or performance
evaluation data of any public
employee over which the
governmental body has
jurisdiction or exercises
responsibility and pursuant to
Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(f),
considering financial,
medical, social or personal
histories or disciplinary data
of specific persons, preliminary
consideration of specific
personnel problems or the
investigation of charges against
specific persons
except where par. (b)
applies which, if
discussed in public,
would be likely to have a
substantial adverse effect upon
the reputation of any person
referred to in such histories or
data, or involved in such
problems or investigations,
to wit: teacher performance,
employee health insurance
coverage, and
administrative hiring;
and pursuant to
Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(e),
deliberating or negotiating the
purchasing of public properties,
the investing of public funds,
or conducting other specified
public business, whenever
competitive or bargaining
reasons require a
closed session,
more specifically, to wit:
Superintendent Search consultant
contract; and Oak
Learning contract.
BRENDA: Do I hear a second?
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
BRENDA: All right, carried 7-0
and we convene across the hall.
We'll be back at 6:00 for a
regular--or for the rest of the
special board meeting.
Oh, Sandy?
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Here--aye, sorry.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
Also I would like to, just
for people in the audience and
ourselves, our special board
meeting was transferred in and
the public comment around the
American Institute for Research
wasn't included.
But if it's okay with the board
I will include it and add it as
part of our conversation.
I can do that by policy.
I assume that's
okay with everybody?
All right.
So, I will entertain
the resignation--oh,
sorry the motion
under resignations.
KATIE: I move that the
resignations as presented
be approved.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
KATIE: I move that the
retirements as presented
be approved.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
KATIE: I move that the
employment of staff as presented
be approved.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
KATIE: I move that the
employment of Georgina
Cornu-Zacharias as Associate
Director of Bilingual Programs,
12 months at the
District Office Building,
as presented, be approved,
effective July 16, 2019.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
KATIE: I move that the transfers
of staff as presented
be approved.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Sandy?
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTINA: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
KATIE: I move that the American
Institutes for Research,
AIR, be contracted to serve as
the lead turnaround partner at
Washington Middle School for the
second and final school year,
2019-'20, at a cost of
$216,000, as presented,
be approved.
KRISTINA: Second.
BRENDA: Is there
people going to present?
MICHELLE: We do have people.
Judy and John?
We have our Associate
Superintendent for Continuous
Improvement, John
Magus, joining us,
along with our Executive
Director for Secondary Schools,
Judy Wiegant.
JOHN: Hello, thank you
for--getting used to the
new microphones.
I apologize in advance
if I cut anybody off.
I will try to refrain from
that as we get used to it.
So, basically we are here
tonight and we have some shared
objectives related
to our presentation.
Basically tonight we want to
have an opportunity for an
end-of-year review of our
school success process,
where we started
working with AIR,
also thinking about our
co-interpretation process,
measures of success,
behavior team support updates,
celebrations, and
care for the caregiver.
So this really is
meant, when we met in June,
we had an opportunity to share
some preliminary information.
And this is meant as an
opportunity to provide greater
detail of information on
our measures of success.
There still are a few things
we're waiting for the actual
results on.
For instance, the Forward Exam,
the information has not yet been
shared, and if it were shared,
it would still be embargoed.
But we do have the
Star Assessment,
which is a very accurate
projection of what those
scores will be.
So, we do have those measures.
And when we met in June we
wanted to have an opportunity to
come before the board and
share what those results were,
because that was something
that we heard from the board as
something that was important.
There were three other things
that the board largely voiced
there were concerns that
we wanted to make sure
were addressed.
One was in looking at the
support of the American
Institute of Research for
turnaround partnership,
we were hoping that it was going
to be a little bit more of a
gradual release.
And the board noted
the price tag of $286,000
was something that we felt
was a little bit more expensive
than we wanted to look at.
Another piece that was brought
forward by the board was we
wanted to make sure that we were
doing the best job possible of
making sure that the best
practices for Washington weren't
just applied to Washington, that
we were applying them throughout
the district, and what was going
to be our mechanism to make sure
that that was happening.
A third piece that was really
important was making sure when
we were looking at
Washington, and other schools,
but Washington in particular,
what is it that we're doing
around behavior and
culture specifically?
The academic portion
was very important to us,
but also the academic engagement
is one piece that turns around
behavior, but what are
the other pieces we have,
in effect, related to structure,
supports for teachers,
as well as supports and
intervention for students.
So, the presentation that we're
coming forward presents the
results, but it also presents a
new proposal that's a hybrid of
what we presented in June,
as well as taking into effect
things that were
shared with us previously.
So, that's where
we are beginning.
When we started the process,
just a little quick trip through
history, when we looked at what
is it that we want to do related
to supporting Washington?
We knew when we looked
for a turnaround partner,
that we had tried many things
that seemed like the
logical argument.
There were many members of the
board now and previously that
said, what if we took that
money and put it into staffing?
Doesn't that make sense?
To put it into staffing?
And it does, it does make sense.
But we've tried that method
multiple times for multiple
years to put it into staffing.
And we can go into the ratios
later of the expenditures
it had been.
But we really have tried to give
more administrative support,
we've tried to give more support
around staffing to support
students, and we still were not
seeing the trajectory change.
And what we're about to show you
tonight is really the results of
the work at Washington.
Washington had been in decline,
and pretty significant decline
for multiple years.
And the data is showing not only
have we leveled out as far as
our performance, which is a
pretty significant task for a
school that has struggled, but
we're beginning the turn upward.
And that is really
promising for us.
Dr. Wiegant?
JUDY: Where's the button?
JOHN: The little
face that's talking.
JUDY: Okay, thank you.
All right, so as we move
forward we'll take a look at,
one, the measures of success
were defined at the start of the
school year back in November,
as well as then where are we at
when it comes to our
end-of-year report?
And Kristina, if you could click
on the measures of success?
Thank you.
Hopefully you've had an
opportunity to go through this.
So, again, starting with the
academic piece of taking a look
at how we did when it came to
setting the goals for both ELA
and math and having our students
gain one year of academic growth
as measured by the
Star Assessment.
As Mr. Magus mentioned earlier,
we do not have our Forward Exam
scores yet, at this time, but we
are taking a look and using Star
as our predictor.
So, for English language arts,
you can see that we've made
some gains.
And we did--we're
predicting to meet the goal.
Math, we did not.
And in reviewing
where we're at with math,
certainly being able to engage
students in humanities when it
comes to ELA, social
sciences, and so forth,
it is easier than engaging
students and helping them see
the relevance in
math and science.
And so, we need to work
differently when it comes to
showing the relevance of math
and engaging our students in a
different way in order
to see better results.
JOHN: It is
important to note, though,
even though we
didn't meet the goal,
we did make
progress towards the goal.
So, progress is being made,
yet many of the goals we set are
also aspiration goals.
Goals with 100% of students
achieving a certain measure
of success.
And showing progress towards
the goals is an important piece.
We do want to reflect
when we don't make a goal,
but progress is
important as well.
JUDY: Also, regarding all
students improving by one year's
academic growth is
measured by Star.
Again, certainly success, more
success in reading than in math.
But again, certainly seeing
things moving in the
right direction.
Under culture and climate,
taking a look at disciplinary
incidents and
suspensions, as we referenced,
we are on track for the same or
fewer disciplinary incidents.
And then, when it came to the
culture and climate piece as
related to the Staff
Perceptions Survey,
although the survey results were
sent to executive directors,
we have not delved into
those yet with our principals.
But on the guidance and advice
of Dr. Langenfeld and Mr. Magus,
I did pull those questions if
we want to take a look at those
this evening and how those
staff responded to those.
Is that acceptable?
Because I know that putting
things into a presentation after
you've already had it is not.
Yes.
RHONDA: When were those
questions administered.
JUDY: I can check
with Dr. Stramp,
but I believe it was
during April and May,
but I will double check when
we go to the Staff Perceptions
Survey window.
KATIE: She is not.
RHONDA: That's--so--but it is
entirely possible that there are
staff that have not-- are not
in the building any longer,
but it's possible.
So, is it fair to say that we
actually do not have the same
staff as we had in the
beginning of the year?
JUDY: Sorry, yes, yes.
RHONDA: So, when
we look at that,
I think it's important to think
about we're getting feedback
from staff that
maybe there's turnover.
Is that fair?
Okay, thank you.
JUDY: All right, so let's
take a look at those results,
if you'd like.
Thank you.
[shuffling]
JOHN: Sorry.
Sure.
[papers shuffling]
JUDY: So, as I take a look at
the three questions from the
Perceptions Survey that
indicate our measure of success,
I would say that we have similar
results when it comes to,
like the academics.
Some were successes and
some we didn't meet the goal,
or go in the right direction.
So, when it comes to
decreased staff reporting,
the academic
expectations are too low,
below 15% agreement and increase
agreement to 60% that academic
expectations are just right, you
can see the comparison between
'17-'18 and '18-'19.
Moving in the right direction,
but certainly did not meet the
60% that was the target.
The second one, increased
staff reporting that our school
operates as a team.
Thinking fewer than 15%
disagree or strongly disagree,
and 85% or more
agree or strongly agree.
Again, you can see that in
'17-'18 it was a 54.4% agree,
strongly agree, to 56%, again,
moving in the right direction,
but not the gain that we
would like to have seen.
And then, increased
staff reporting that student
discipline is being handled in a
consistent manner by all staff.
And as you can see
from the survey results,
this is not heading in the
direction that we want to see
when it comes to
the survey results.
You can see that agree
last year was 13.1%,
where 7.1% agree.
So, we have to delve much
deeper into this piece of that.
So, again, kind
of mixed results.
So, we see that we are
decreasing when it comes to
discipline
referrals and suspensions,
but yet perception of the
faculty and staff regarding
consistency is--so, again, just
having this today and taking a
look at it, certainly want
to work more closely with the
Washington team
in moving forward.
BRENDA: Oh, Kristina?
KRISTINA: Thank you.
Thanks, Judy.
Specifically as
it relates to AIR,
you can confirm that--or can
you confirm that in the '18-'19
school year that AIR was
not--that particular money,
those interventions were
instructional coaching and not
based around discipline and
helping teachers form teams.
JUDY: Correct.
KRISTINA: So--sorry,
getting used to this.
So, I'm just curious then
as we think specifically,
because I know we're getting
a snapshot of Washington,
but now I'm thinking
specifically about the
AIR proposal.
Can we--or how can
you, as a professional,
make the connection for
the team and the discipline,
if AIR was hired to do
instructional practices,
how can you make the
connection, or can you,
that the team survey
question, the discipline survey,
is connected to that financial
investment in Washington?
JUDY: Thank you for
bringing that up,
and it's not, the AIR
contract was specific,
regulated to the instructional
coaching and the leadership
coaching piece of it.
And so, certainly cannot ignore
the culture and climate piece
and behavior, and so forth.
That's why I did
include the behavior report,
and that is our team,
not contract with AIR,
so thank you.
KRISTINA: One followup question.
Thank you, I
appreciate that clarity.
And I just forgot my question.
[laughter]
KRISTINA: I know.
I'll come back.
BRENDA: Dr. Langenfeld.
MICHELLE: Can you
speak specifically,
if I read things
through accurately,
the team piece is
of interest to me,
I'm glad you brought that up.
Did not--did AIR not work with
the English Language Department,
collaborative
learning teams, or...
JUDY: Yes, they certainly worked
with the collaborative learning
teams, taking a look at
instructional information,
so taking a look at performance
on certain common assessments
and so forth, taking a look
at standards and instructional
practices was really
the main focus for the
instructional coaching.
MICHELLE: So, then would
they have been working
collaboratively and collectively
around a universal or not?
Was that the expectation?
Just curious.
JOHN: Now, related to
universal practices as a whole,
there was some
general training of all,
from what I
understand, within a department,
but it was individual.
And I think--I might
have misunderstood,
Ms. Shelton, but when you
asked the question about teams,
were you talking about houses as
teams or were you talking about
teams of teachers?
KRISTINA: Whatever that--
JOHN: Right.
KRISTINA: --team
means in this paper.
JOHN: Right, and that meant
teams as in teams of teachers.
The one piece that I would
say, even though AIR wasn't
contracted specifically
around behavior and culture,
the leadership guidance that
they provided as far as new
structures to put in place and
the work that was done with
Miss Olson around that was
supporting her as a resource and
thinking partner in changing
some of the structures.
And we'll talk
about that coming up.
But as I noted in our
presentation in June,
the results--the system that
was in place when Miss Olson was
hired and AIR started, was
already the system that had been
in place the year
before largely,
the schedule, the structures.
And through the guidance and
through the support of AIR and
the leadership of Miss
Olson, there are a number of new
strategies that are in
place that address behavior,
and they're also things
that we learned as a district
around--through our work with
AIR around what we needed and
wanted to do differently
related to behavioral support in
Washington, and that's coming
up with the agenda as well.
BRENDA: Go ahead, Kristina.
Thanks, John.
KRISTINA: In terms
of staff survey,
was this the only survey that
was given to staff in terms of
their satisfaction with AIR
and their--its effectiveness and
their teaching strategies
and in their classroom?
Is there anything else that we
can be looking at in terms of
staff surveying?
JUDY: So, the surveys
that are referenced here,
the Staff Perceptions Survey,
and then there's also a
climate survey.
And those are not
specific to AIR,
those have been in place prior
to the start of this
school year.
Mm hmm, so they
weren't specific about,
are you satisfied with
AIR, but it was more about,
again, these are done
in all our buildings.
KRISTINA: I have a
followup, sorry.
So, is there a sense
at Washington about
the satisfaction?
Do we know about the
satisfaction of the staff
with AIR over the
2018-'19 school year?
JUDY: A formal survey was not
administered to the faculty and
staff to get that feedback.
So, it would be all anecdotal.
BRENDA: Rhonda?
RHONDA: So, thanks
for asking that, Kristina.
So, that--someone actually
approached me today and asked me
about, is there an
executive summary?
So, what that would look like,
how they explained it to me was
something--so, what we see
now, but also what Kristina is
referencing as far as staff
survey and getting feedback
about that, and that would also
include any staff that left the
building during the
school year as well.
I think that would be important
because clearly they're invested
in that experience as well.
I think it's also worth
mentioning that if there was to
be an executive summary of
what happened in regards to the
investment of AIR to
Washington Middle School.
When we look back
at how we got here.
We remember a teacher came
forward and resigned in front of
the school board, okay.
And what that did is it brought
a lot to life as far as what was
going on, concerns,
challenges, et cetera.
There was a press conference
that was held not long after
that with a lot of
people standing behind the
superintendent, among
other district leaders,
and there was a lot of
conversation around bringing in
community partnerships.
So, with regards to
community partnerships,
if you're thinking
about what that looks like,
the executive summary of
the very large and intense,
expensive, I know $30,000 a
month is what we spent last year
invested in the school.
It was brought to my attention
that there should also be an
executive summary that includes
were there any community
partnerships that we
joined forces with?
Because there was a lot of
conversation around that that
was going to be a very
integral part of the success
for Washington.
So, with regards to that, there
should be some sort of report
with any community
partnerships that did occur,
and what their
findings are as well.
Because if we are, bottom
line, if we are taking,
you know, substantial amount
of money from the community for
this project, then we should
definitely have spilt some
partnerships with
some summary around it.
I'm just wondering if we
have any of that as well,
and if it's available.
And if we don't, is there
a discussion of why not?
KRISTINA: Can I ask you
a clarifying question?
Are you talking about an
executive summary from AIR on
their interventions and
their contract with us,
or are you seeing that more
coming from the administration?
What is the
pathway to get there?
RHONDA: So, as it
was explained to me,
again, the executive summary
would include what we have,
but also any sort of report,
anyone that was invested in the
last school year as far
as community partnerships,
just in general, as well as AIR
and any of their material that
they used as well,
and their findings,
which would be--provide more
transparency around what was
involved, as well
as their thoughts,
feeling on the whole thing.
JOHN: I appreciate the input and
I think that's something that we
can take into consideration.
The measures that we have are
the measures that were shared
with the board, and so, the
results of those measures to the
degree possible with the data
this time are what we brought
forward for the measurement
and for the consideration.
However, the more
information that we have,
the more it
informs our practice,
and I think that we can take
that under consideration for our
work with them.
We do value the community
partnerships and we have had
some additional
community partnership work,
and we can work with Kim
Shannock on our person who works
with our community partners,
and we can look to put something
together, because I think that
it is important for us to think
about what is that inclusive
community safety net look for.
BRENDA: Dr. Langenfeld,
and Rhonda again.
MICHELLE: Thank you, John, for
reminding us that we brought the
metrics out last fall and didn't
have the additional metrics.
Having said that, I think of the
mindfulness room and the many
community partners who
were investing in that.
It think of our partners with
what used to be Live Wello,
now, and the social emotional
pieces around the yoga kinds of
opportunities and mindfulness
that's been going on as well.
I mean, I think there's
been a lot of pieces,
and I know we have a Washington
teacher in the room that could
probably share much more just
off the top of my head that
immediately come to mind.
The piece that I
would go back to,
is this an overall
evaluation of Washington,
or are we talking about AIR?
Or, is it
intersected so much that,
you know, that's
really what, I think,
the board has to--that's
what we're talking about here.
Are we talking about AIR, or
just doing a full executive
summary, or reflection of
the year at Washington?
Because we're prepared to talk
about the impact that AIR has
had on the teaching
and learning focus.
So, kind of two
different pieces, that's all.
We can certainly be prepared to
bring the full year in review
as well.
But that isn't what
we're prepared to do.
BRENDA: Rhonda?
RHONDA: Thank you.
But with all due
respect, we have to,
today, be prepared to
spend another $200,000.
And so, you're asking the board
to invest on top of the nearly
$400,000, which
added to roughly 3,
or $30,000 a month
last school year,
to invest in that.
So, I think it's very important
to under--if we don't understand
where everything
is coming together,
as far as, you know,
a comprehensive plan,
approach, then I'm not really
sure--the story's not
being told.
And I think in order to
approve another $200,000
into one
school, it's important,
especially when they didn't
fulfill their part of the
contract that we agreed to, it's
important that we do have more
information, and we do have
an understanding of what other
things are in place.
Because, we also know that
we've had parents and community
members share with us, you know,
that's part of the story
as well.
We do know that there are
incidents that have been--I
would beg to say, are
there less incidents,
or is it classified differently?
It's been brought to my
attention that there's been
shifting of that, not
just from one person,
from various people.
So, I think it's
important as a board member,
if I need personally to
know who's all on board?
Because right now this--the
results of this are not
impressive, they fall flat,
for the investment that's
on the table.
And it's--it's kind of
presumptuous to think that
someone could
get another $200,000.
So, I think having more
information in an executive
summary when you're
asking for more tax dollars,
when the original
plan fell flat,
is a really important
part of this conversation.
JOHN: So, we're prepared to
share the metrics that were
decided upon and
agreed to by the board.
If the board is changing
the metrics of success,
then it's something that we
would have to consider for the
future, it wouldn't be something
that we could consider or gather
data tonight while we're here,
it is something that we want to
consider the full picture
because the full picture
is important.
So, what we think of
that full picture,
we're also looking at how many
hundreds of thousands of dollars
of tax payer money have we
invested again and again over
the years related to staffing.
Previously in the
'14-'15 school year,
the staff ratio of student to
staff is one student for over
eight -- I'm sorry, eight
students for every staff member.
We're now under six
to one for our ratio.
So, we've invested in staff and
we've shown that that investment
in staff produced some results,
but it didn't produce the
trajectory change in results.
And I think that looking at
the hard work of the staff,
the teachers at Washington,
and the administration,
the continued downward
trajectory for Washington year
after year was of enough concern
for the district and significant
concern for the board that we
needed to explore additional
options for a new way
of looking at things.
And so, when I think about
looking at that new way and that
investment, if I were to
put a $100 bill on the table,
representing the
entire district budget,
the amount that we're talking
about spending on AIR for
support that could be trajectory
changing and continuing to
trajectory change, would
represent about eight pennies.
So, it is a lot of money.
I'm not dismissing that.
But it's also a lot of money to
continue to pursue the strategy
that for a lot of
years didn't work.
And I want to make sure that
we're investing in something
that is really going to
change trajectory over time.
So, I do appreciate that we're
thinking about spending it in
different ways.
But we are seeing a turnaround,
a flattening of a downward
progress and an
upturn at Washington.
That is significant,
considering that time change.
Also, we're not just learning
about how we can support
Washington, and we'll talk more
once we finish the measures.
I think that there's more
that's explained later in
the presentation.
But how are we not just
taking this and expanding
it on Washington?
Because if it's a single school
expenditure that's learned and
applied there, and
not applied elsewhere,
then shame on us.
We need to make sure
that it is something,
that if it's worthwhile, that
it's something that we're very
thoughtfully,
very strategically,
and very supportively making
sure that it is supported in
other schools.
And that's what we'll share in
just a couple of minutes after
we go through the metrics
that were decided upon.
BRENDA: And I was
going to say, too,
we're at Slide 2 of
the presentation,
so, if board members can hang
on to their questions until the
end, so we can get the full
picture and the full story of
what's going on at Washington,
then I think that will
be helpful.
So, at this point I'm
going to turn it back to you,
John, and Judy.
JUDY: So, going back to
the measures of success,
after the piece
regarding the climate questions,
we take a look at
the attendance,
and again you'll
note that, again,
we have shown
improved attendance,
but we're also stating that
we are aware that school wide
attendance is an issue.
And so, as we are
talking about moving forward,
talking about our partnership
with the Boys and Girls Club,
that the Be Great
Graduate program,
as well as the
changing of positions,
where we'll have a
manager of student engagement,
attendance, and
advocacy on staff,
and we're clearly defining that
individual's role in connection
with that home/school
partnership will be,
I think, very important.
And then also at the end
was about the reverse dots,
making sure that our students
have a positive relationships,
that they can indicate there
is an adult in the building,
and so, as you
take a look at that,
they had 97% identified at
least one adult and 3% did not,
and shared a reason why.
And the school is already
following up with the 3% of
those students.
BRENDA: Yeah, if it's
a clarifying question,
that's fine, I just don't want
to get into the weeds of having
a conversation about the
pros and cons at this point.
KRISTINA: Yes, thank you.
I will not get into
the weeds until the end.
[laughs]
And Judy, can you
identify for me,
and not a data--it's not
a strong piece for me.
So, hopefully you
can help me with this.
So, I'm looking at the
attendance data where it says
the baseline is, for
seventh and eighth grade,
the students who had a greater
number of absences been 15 days,
that's the baseline, correct?
And where we were at the end
of '18-'19 shows the percentage
that have shown improvement.
It looks like those data sets
are--how do they speak
to one another?
Because when I'm
looking at improvement,
what is improvement based on?
Is that just
reduction into 15 days?
It's confusing to me.
JUDY: We could have
presented that differently.
We're certainly taking a look
at the students who had more
chronic truancy issues and
trying to reduce that number
KRISTINA: So, is it based on
the 15 days shown
improved attendance?
So, you're saying that 42%
of seventh graders have shown
improvement, meaning they
have gone below 15 days.
JUDY: Correct.
KRISTINA: Okay, thank you.
That's okay.
Thank you.
JUDY: So, on our next slide we
talk about the monthly reports
that are provided
by AIR, so again,
the AIR monthly report from June
2019 is a summary of the work
that had taken place
throughout the school year.
And then we also have our
behavior team support update.
And I won't open either
one, we don't need to.
But thank you for
looking and checking on that.
But I do want to
highlight the fact,
the big picture.
We are just finishing our fourth
year of implementing multi-level
systems of supports.
And I would say in a
school that is struggling,
it should not come as a surprise
that the systems that were in
place either were not,
or if they are in place,
they were not functioning at
the level needed to address the
academic and social-emotional
needs of our students.
So, we need to take a look at
the support specifically we
contracted with AIR for.
It was both building the
capacity of the teachers to
prepare, plan, and
deliver rigorous instruction.
And having that at a much higher
frequency than what we could
provide here from
district office.
You will see
through the AIR report,
the collaborative
learning team expectations,
and having a well-run
collaborative learning team,
that they re actually taking
a look at common curriculum
assessments, being able
to respond to that data,
and talking about effective
instructional strategies.
Also, a process and protocol
for quarterly data meetings,
and then data
alignment to school goals.
Those are the pieces that I
wanted to point out as very
strong pieces from AIR.
Our behavior team
support update,
and again, as Mr.
Magus referenced earlier,
even though AIR was not
specific on behavior coaching,
by any means, they did lend that
leadership coaching to Cindy.
But I also want to give credit
to our team and the work that
was done here through
our behavior coaches,
and providing that
level of support.
In previous presentations we've
talked to you about CHAMPS and
that type of training, and doing
that book study second semester.
And we are no in place of
heading into the '19-'20 school
year with more
direct application.
Again, I'm going from
that theory to practice.
And having a professional
development plan that supports
staff in meeting those
universal expectations.
And especially important is
that professional learning and
support for our monitors and
paraprofessionals as well.
It really takes
everyone at the school.
Also, our change in the
learning support team structure,
having grade level
problem solving teams.
Again, as we starting pulling
and taking--and pulling off all
these different layers of
Washington this past year,
noting a different number of
areas that just needed to either
be completely
revamped and restructured,
or at least tweaked.
Again, as you read
through those reports,
you see that piece
of it as a summary.
It's always important
to do celebrations.
Again, coming
together as a school,
and developing that sense
of community and having
staff/student
gains, AVID field trips,
one on-time to class challenges,
and then care for the caregiver.
An important piece.
It is not easy teaching and
being part of the work that is
very, very critical.
So, it's important that we
take a look at how are we,
again, supporting our teachers,
and the trauma informed care
training, specifically
through the school safety grant,
the self care module, and
then the compassion resilience
toolkit for schools,
and being able to,
again, take that learning and
apply it to what's important at
Washington Middle School.
I'm sorry.
Lessons learned.
I would say certainly we're in
the early stages of implementing
and monitoring a
continuous improvement
system at Washington.
And we're certainly taking the
lessons learned from the past
year and applying them
to our other schools.
You know, we say we have--are
delivering a guaranteed and
viable curriculum.
Are we ensuring that all
students are accessing
that curriculum.
Are we administering the
common curriculum assessments?
And then, are we taking a look
at that data and responding
to that data?
Again, another
very important piece.
The teachers--teacher
support system.
Building the capacity of
the teachers to prepare,
plan, and deliver
rigorous instruction.
Again, one of the
objectives of our work with AIR.
And we need to continue to
improve the working conditions
of our teachers and
our support staff.
I think it's very important
that they have that sense of
efficacy, that they can and will
be successful with our students.
And the culture
and climate system.
And although not specific
with our contract with AIR,
they certainly then provide some
technical assistance to evaluate
and implement
culturally responsive practices,
again, that meet the needs
of our students and families.
Let's say overall
for Washington,
part of going into
the recommendations,
keep in mind, as
John has mentioned,
we've stopped that downward
trajectory and have actually
started to see movement
in the right direction.
But I would also say that
it's a fragile ecosystem.
So, we have to very careful
as we move forward as to how
we--what supports we continue
to provide and what that
looks like.
So, our next
steps as a district,
did you want to?
JOHN: So, thinking
about our--I'm sorry.
Thinking about our
next steps as a district,
we are focusing, of
course, as we mentioned,
on turnaround practices that
are worked on through AIR being
shared through our leadership
team here at district office,
and with our
principals as a whole,
particularly focusing on our
schools that were identified
under the ESSA work as schools
that were needing to move in a
more positive direction.
There are turnaround practices
that we think will be very
beneficial to a
number of schools.
Because we have to remember that
Washington is sort of--it's to a
degree a segment in a stream.
And there are
tributaries to that stream,
and there are things that happen
further down that stream when
the students move
on to high school.
But what is it that we're doing
related to turnaround practices
in the feeder schools for
Washington to make sure that
when students step foot
into Washington or any of our
schools, that they are very
well prepared as competently
transitioning
elementary students,
ready for middle school.
So, making sure those supports
are there is really important.
At our last
meeting, Miss Sitnikau,
you mentioned that we want
to make sure that we're not
neglecting other schools.
And so, making sure that
those pieces are there is really
important to us.
We also have begun a deeper look
at continuous school improvement
that was part of our board
presentation for the retreat.
That was the second
half of the retreat.
It will be covering in August.
So, in some respects it
was meant as a laying of the
framework, but with the other
redesigned 2020 work that we
did, it was
proceeding so positively,
we didn't want to
interrupt the progress.
But really we need to be using
deeper root cause analysis to go
deeper with our
solution finding.
Because many times
well-intended people,
myself included, and others,
we will look at the symptom of
what's occurring, and we will
create a treatment for that
symptom without necessarily
digging as deep into the
root cause.
So, for instance, when we were
looking at previously what's the
challenge of Washington?
It seemed that they
needed more supervision,
so we put more supervision in.
But that didn't
change the trajectory,
it didn't change things, even
though there was a far more
significant investment of time
and money than occurred during
the AIR investment, it was not a
trajectory-changing investment.
So, we wanted to be more
responsible with deeper root
cause analysis, so that
throughout Washington and
throughout the
rest of the district,
when we're facing
challenging problems,
that we're
addressing them fully.
Also, we had our leadership
teams from our schools attend
our learning, I'm sorry, Leading
for Learning Summit in Madison,
and that was really the second
part of the work related
to this.
We did the root cause analysis
work with our schools and they
were able to go even deeper with
that related to data inquiry
journal and what were culturally
responsive practices that
were effective.
So, we're trying--we're making
sure that our efforts related to
Washington are carefully
woven within our continuous
improvement options and supports
for the district as a whole.
Another piece that we
were considering related to
continuous improvement at
Washington Middle School is the
implementation of CHAMPS as a
school wide implementation
and structure.
That was done as a book study by
the staff throughout the year.
But CHAMPS is really,
throughout the classroom,
what are the structures
that lead to success?
And we have a training coming
up in August for all staff to
participate and go deeper
with that classroom training,
because there's nothing more
frustrating or challenging then
being in a classroom and feeling
like you don't necessarily have
the skills to meet the needs of
the students in front of you.
So, we want to make sure that
we're supporting our teachers in
having those skills.
Not to say that there are
teachers that are trying hard or
teachers that aren't
doing a great job,
but we always look at, what
is it that we can take even if
we're really good, to
become even greater?
So, those are the things
that we're looking at.
We also mentioned
the team structure,
both the teams
within the building,
thinking about greater focus
on the learning support team,
and it's support of
individual students,
the collaborative
learning teams,
which go deeper with
particular subject area content,
and making sure that
there's a study of the work done
afterward, of the assessment to
see what were the strengths and
weaknesses, as well as our
behavior team and our building
leadership team.
Also a very important piece is
the teams and houses structure
that Principal Olson is putting
into place in the coming year
model middle schools have teams
and houses that gather a finite
number of teachers teaching
core content and have shared
ownership of a set
group of students,
so that there's a commonality
of who you're serving,
a commonality being able
to work as colleagues,
talking about solution finding.
If a student that's
struggling with me,
but doing well with Dr. Weigant,
we can talk about what was
successful for her, or what
seems to be a challenge for me
and make progress in
that sort as well.
So, within that, if we
can flip to the next slide,
thank you.
We are looking at more
support through AVID,
which is Advancement Via
Individual Determination,
it's a program that's
throughout many of our schools,
but really it's focused on
helping students that are in the
middle and students who may
have not been as successful
traditionally from their family
backgrounds and things of that
nature, and making sure that
we're doing everything possible
to provide support and move
towards more of a academic focus
and a college going,
college success experience.
We also mentioned as well, the
care for the caregiver piece,
and relating to
particular training
on compassion resilience.
When you're caring for somebody
and when you're giving 110%,
like our teachers do
at Washington and our
administration does, no
matter how good you are,
it can be taxing.
And making sure we don't have
care giver fatigue or compassion
resilience--lack of
compassion resilience,
we want to make sure those
pieces are in effect so that
people can come to work on a
regular basis and feed refreshed
and recharged.
We also are looking at, and
we are going to move towards
increased district level
involvement by the teaching and
learning and behavior teams.
What we are doing for the coming
year is we are allocating one
full-time behavior coach to
Washington Middle School and
Franklin, split between the two.
We're taking somebody that's
already serving in that role,
but serving many, many schools,
and focusing their time deeply
between the two schools, because
we want to make sure that those
behavioral and cultural
components that the board
identified and that the staff
is commented on are clearly
addressed, not just through the
training they'll receive this
summer, but through ongoing
support throughout the year that
will be individualized for
the individual teachers,
but also focus on improving
team practices as a whole.
And within our teaching
and learning department,
we have an individual who
we worked with quite a bit,
Mike Friese, who is our
secondary executive director for
teaching and learning.
He will be embedding himself far
more deeply in Washington and at
Franklin, spending a lot of
time working with Franklin and
Washington staff, looking at
those teams that I described
before, making sure that we're
supporting the leadership and
making sure that
they're in place.
And this work will
be multifaceted.
But two important aspects are
that he will be supporting that
work in making sure that those
changes and supports are
in place.
[coughs]
But we will also be
making sure that the,
as we've expressed before, the
lessons learned from Washington.
It probably would be and is a
very expensive investment at
Washington to have AIR
come for a second year,
but if we look at taking
the knowledge and the lessons
learned from Washington and
applying them not only to
Washington, but to
Franklin as well,
and then also training up and
making sure that Mr. Friese and
others within our department are
fully understanding of what is
working for those
turnaround practices,
then it's an investment made
towards capacity improvement of
our ability to serve schools as
opposed to just an investment to
fix one time at Washington.
So, those two
investments are significant.
So, we are asking the
board to support a final year,
a second final year of AIR
support as a turnaround partner
for Washington Middle
School, for the reduced amount.
It had been $286,000 that
we came to the board with
previously in June, hearing
that the gradual release was not
significant enough, we have
worked towards a price
of $216,000.
And we very much recommend that
this is an investment that we
make to continue to work with
AIR as they have stopped the
downward trajectory, leveled off
the performance of Washington,
and shown some upturn in the
performance at Washington.
Again, it is a
sizable investment,
but in the scope of our
resources as a district,
we're talking about less than
one-tenth of 1% of the budget.
So, when we think about the
performance and the amount of
time that we've
talked about Washington,
I believe that the
teachers of Washington,
the students, and the parents,
deserve the turnaround support
of AIR.
BRENDA: Are there any--what I
was thinking is we finish up any
technical questions and then see
if there was anyone who would
like to make a public
comment, and then have whatever
discussion board members
want to have after that.
Does that work?
So, are there any technical
questions at this point?
Okay, Kristina.
KRISTINA: John, so I had
heard from some of the staff,
again, I know it's not a
representative example,
but I'm curious if you can
shed some light on this,
that there were inequities
of which staff had access to,
or chose to seek the
coaching with AIR.
That not all staff
sort of chose to,
and that there were differences
in who did and who didn't.
And there was concern that
was shared about how that
would--that equity lens would
show up in practices
in the classroom?
Can you speak to that
at all for '18-'19,
and then maybe shed some light
on how that may look in '19-'20
for all teachers, if this
money would go through would be
available to them?
JOHN: Sure.
So, when a new initiative
is started in a school,
quite often one of the
strategies that's used is to
first partner and work with
the willing participants and the
people who are interested in
being pioneers in a movement
towards change.
So, there was an interest by
a number of people that were
within the English language arts
and math department to work more
deeply with that
partnership coaching.
There were opportunities in
which the coach worked with and
met with the entire department
for English language arts and
math, but there was
significantly more intensive
support for those that
volunteered and wanted to have
that support.
I think it's important for us to
look at in the coming year as we
look towards change, how are
we making sure everybody is
accessing that coaching support?
How are we making sure
that we're documenting it,
and we're, not in
a punitive way,
but making people accountable
for the changes that
are expected.
If I'm performing at a very high
level and my class is incredibly
engaging and I'm not having
behavior issues and my results,
my academic results
are through the roof.
If I can demonstrate that,
that's a different question
as far as how much
support I need.
But, if our results are not
what they need to be from an
individual, then we need to make
sure that that support is there.
And in general we need to make
sure the support is there for
everybody who is in the
math department and within the
English language
arts department.
When we talk, too, about
special education and ELL,
I think it's important
that we're taking the best
instructional practices
with that equity lens,
that we're making sure that
those best practices for English
and mathematics are applied
for our more varied
student population.
So, that would be something
that's really something that's
really important to me
and to our team as a whole.
BRENDA: Okay, is there--do
you have forms filed out?
Just one.
I'll give it to you in a minute.
Oh, okay, all
right, yeah, all right, okay.
So, I have one person who
has requested to speak.
Is there anyone else that wants
to speak before the board on
this particular item.
Okay, do you have
a form filled out?
Okay.
It's a yellow form
out on the table.
You'll be called on second,
so you'll have enough time
to do that.
And then hand it to...
All right, and then
Rhonda, before we call speakers,
you wanted to add something?
RHONDA: So, when you
say a technical question,
what do you mean?
BRENDA: A question question as
opposed to statements about,
as opposed to follow up
questions about the answer to
the question.
Does that make sense?
RHONDA: Okay, I don't really
know how to classify mine.
BRENDA: Just ask it.
That's fine.
RHONDA: I have a few.
So, can you, for the
good of the order,
can you lay out the, you know,
we had a contract with AIR,
and we agreed to pay them
$30,000 a month for
the last school year.
So, we know we met our--we
delivered on what we were going
to do.
Can you list again for everyone
what the deliverables were
supposed to be specifically?
Thank you.
JOHN: So...
BRENDA: Your microphone, John.
JOHN: Sorry, we need to go
back to the deliverables.
So, Judy, if you can share
the deliverables specifically,
or really the measures--the
goal--progress towards the goal,
and achievement of those
goals was our primary objective.
JUDY: Kristina, could you go
to the AIR May-June report.
And if you click, I guess,
for--I don't know if this
addresses your question or not.
Take a look at that
second page of the report,
key deliverables and actions
for this reporting period.
That was my understanding of
the deliverables as to
what--from AIR.
There's several pages.
Would you like me
to read all of them?
JOHN: There are nine
pages of deliverables,
do we want the nine
pages of deliverables read?
BRENDA: We have them.
[inaudible]
RHONDA: Let me, because
basically it says right here,
by the end of '18-'19 school
year all students will make one
year's academic growth in
math as measured by the Star
assessment, and
that came from AIR.
So, that's one.
There was another one for ELA.
And then...
JOHN: I understand what
you're--I'm sorry for the lack
of clarity.
There's similarity between the
objectives and the measures.
So, the measures of success were
by the end of the '18-'19 school
year at least 49% of Washington
Middle School students will
score basic or above on the
English Language Arts Wisconsin
Forward Exam.
RHONDA: Can you--sorry, can you
give the answer to what that is,
the status of that?
JOHN: Previously?
Sure.
Overall 50% of the
students did achieve that goal.
And even though the information
is based on the Star exam as a
Forward Exam predictor,
that goal will have been met.
49, I'm sorry 42% of Washington
Middle School students will
score basic or above on
the Math Forward Exam,
and the result of that was
29% overall were forecasted.
That was an increase as
compared to the year prior.
But again, that is
based on a projection.
That goal was not met, even
though progress was made towards
that goal.
The next one is all students
will improve by one year's
academic growth as
measured by the Star assessment.
And looking at the percentage of
kids that were making one year's
growth, there were a significant
number of kids that made one
year's growth, and it was when
compared to longitudinal data it
was an improvement
over the year prior.
So, this is, as well as
others, when the trajectory was
downward, and when it was a
negative downward trend of all
these measures, stabilizing
and showing an upward trend is a
significant piece from my view.
RHONDA: Sorry--but
was the goal met?
JOHN: There was
progress towards the goal,
but the goal was not met.
So, the next one, cohort group
of seventh and eighth grade
reduced disciplinary incidents,
administrative referrals and
suspensions when referring
to the '17-'18 school year.
So, again, looking at sixth
graders who are now seventh
graders and seventh graders
who are now eighth graders,
the result was the
seventh graders,
there were 71.2% that were on
track for fewer disciplinary
incidences, as well as eighth
graders at 82.9% and that goal
was met.
Decrease staff reporting
academic expectations are too
low, between 15% agreement
and increase agreement to 60%,
the academic
expectations are just right,
according to the
Staff Perceptions Survey.
And there was an increase in
that score of approximately 3%
to--from 63.29 to 66%, so
there was a 3% increase.
So, sorry, so we do have
the Staff Perceptions Survey.
So, if you want to go
through those three.
JUDY: Sure.
So, decreased staff reporting
that academic expectations are
too low, below 15% agreement and
increase agreement agreement to
60% that academic
expectations are just right,
so as you take a
look at '18-'19,
it is not at 60%, right?
We have 2.4% that are too
high, just right at 42.9%,
so it did not meet the
60% that was benchmarked.
The next one, increase
staff reporting that our school
operates as a team, fewer
than 15% disagree or
strongly disagree.
And 83% or more
agree or strongly agree.
So, again, taking a look at
the--although moving in a
positive direction,
it did not get to 85%,
it was at 56%, up from 54.
And then the third one, increase
staff reporting that student
discipline was being handled
in a consistent manner by all
staff, 15% disagree
or strongly disagree,
and 85 agree or strongly agree.
It was the benchmark, and we
moved in a different direction
for the third one.
The next one on the measures
of success when it comes to the
cohort group of seventh and
eighth grade students and the
improved attendance compared
to the '17-'18 school year,
we did see the percentage has
shown--the cohort has shown
improved attendance.
And then the last one was by the
end of the '18-'19 school year
all Washington Middle School
students that have attended
since September of 2018 will
have at least one adult that
they acknowledge as having a
positive relationship with as
evidenced by the
Reverse Dot Feedback Survey.
We were at 97%, not 100%.
Is that what you were asking?
Okay, very good.
BRENDA: Okay.
RHONDA: So, I'm
counting, one, two,
three, four, five,
six, seven, eight,
roughly ten goals
that were set out,
is it nine?
Am I counting wrong?
Okay, sorry.
Nine goals.
Three were met, just based
on what was set as far as
objectives, metrics in
that, so is that fair?
Three out of nine?
JUDY: That is correct.
RHONDA: And that's--no,
this isn't anecdotal,
this is data, this
is evidence, this is,
you know, this is
what we have to go by.
And when this is what I have to
turn around tomorrow and look at
my constituency and say, I
had nine goals on the table,
and three were met.
So, based on that, I need to
be okay with moving forward.
I'm just really concerned
about--I would have felt better
if even half were met.
Some of these goals were related
to the climate and culture
in the building.
And that's really important,
I think, fundamentally.
I believe that you need to be
able to have the environment
where it needs to be in
order--I would bet that if the
environment was
where it needed to be,
there were
probably be more goals,
there would be less turnover.
It would look much better.
You know, for a person that
I didn't support the initial
proposal because I was very
concerned that the priority
wasn't climate and culture.
And I just don't believe
if that's not in place,
personally I don't believe
this is the right time for AIR.
So, when I look what was asked
of AIR and the school and the
district and the community as
far as what surrounds all of
the objectives.
When you have three out of nine
that weren't met--if you were to
take this as a project and
apply it as a classroom project,
and it was a math project, and
you looked at all the factors
coming into play,
and you thought about,
you know, the
question was asked,
would you move forward?
If I'm a student and I take all
of the information that I have,
I'm pretty sure
the answer would be,
you know, now
what, something else.
Let's refigure,
let's reimagine this.
Because it's hard to
shy away from the facts,
and the facts are there were
three out of nine goals met.
I don't know what other--I mean,
if we had a food service budget
for $400,000 and we
contracted with vendors,
and they only met three out of
nine goals that we needed them
to deliver the objectives, it's
very unlikely we would continue
partnering with them.
I imagine that
would be the case.
Just trying to say as
pragmatic as possible,
and as objective as
possible, you know,
behind all this I know the
information I've received over
the last school year
from staff in the building,
they're not buying
into this, they're not.
And if you don't
have staff buy in,
you're going to see
numbers that you see,
you're going to see goals
unmet, I think that's universal.
BRENDA: Okay, I think now we're
getting away from questions.
RHONDA: No, I think...
BRENDA: No, you're making
statements now about the answers
to the questions.
RHONDA: And I'm going to
continue to make those
statements because
this is a lot of money.
BRENDA: I'm going to ask the
people that have asked to speak,
I'm going to have
them come forward,
so that we can get
their input, too.
RHONDA: Great.
BRENDA: The first person is
actually representing someone.
The person is Andrew Austin, but
Kristina Shelton has been asked
to read his statements, so--
KRISTINA: You want
me to go up there?
BRENDA: --go up there, yeah.
And please, in general we like
if you can keep your comments to
five minutes, and prior
to starting your comments,
please provide your
name and address,
thank you.
KRISTINA: Hello?
BRENDA: It should be on, yeah.
KRISTINA: Ooh, it
feels good to be up here.
Hi.
So, I'm--I was asked tonight
to speak on behalf of Andrew
Austin, he couldn't be here, so
he shared a letter and I'm here
to speak on his behalf.
Dear school board members,
my name is Andrew Austin.
I'll also note Andy
lives on Porlio Street.
I'll get the
street number for you,
Sandy, he did not
share that with me.
I am a tenured faculty member
at the Department of Injustice
Studies at the University
of Wisconsin Green Bay.
I am a member of the community.
My oldest son graduated from
East High School and is now at
the University of
Wisconsin law school.
My youngest son is currently at
East High School as a sophomore.
My wife Mona is a
paraprofessional with the
school district.
Unfortunately I cannot
attend tonight's meeting,
but I have asked school board
member Kristina Shelton to read
letter on my behalf.
I apologize for the
length of this letter.
Holding advanced
degrees in sociology,
a master and a doctorate,
specializing in crime and
delinquency, I have been an
educator and researcher for more
than 25 years.
I have been at the university
for nearly 20 of those years.
I have presented scientific
papers at professional social
science conferences on using
sociological theory to explore
ways of reducing delirious
climate change in urban school
settings, as well as the
politics of anti bullying public
school programs.
I have presented and published
papers on many topics relevant
to my expertise.
I recognize that there
are problems at
Washington Middle School.
I have read news stories about
improvements that have been made
over the course of the last year
and I applaud these successes.
I am sympathetic of the need to
create a climate conducive to
academic achievement
and personal growth.
Indeed, the earlier part of my
career at UWGB was working with
the Green Bay community on
behavioral and social issues
surrounding truancy,
climate, and literacy.
I want to spend just a minute
discussing those activities for
the record.
In early 2000 I was a consultant
to the truancy assessment
abatement center in Green Bay,
organizing data and revamping
the center's intake assessment
device to increase precision
of results.
I authored and submitted reports
to the school district on
truancy and
performance in 2002 and 2003.
On 2002 I was consulted on
the East High Climate Survey.
This was an elaborate project
on which I was involved in all
aspects adapting the survey,
training the staff on the survey
encoding results.
I authored two reports in
2002, a comprehensive report,
and a report suitable
for public consumption.
I authored a later--later I
authored another report in 2007
focused on literacy and dropout
rates from Preble High
using data.
I presented these reports
before the school board and
leadership teams.
Furthermore, I developed
online version of the survey,
and regrettably--sorry,
lost my spot.
I worked on the survey and met
with officials to implement this
across the high
schools and middle schools.
Regrettably this did not happen.
For the record, I did
that work pro bono.
Given that there are local
educators and researchers
capable of doing this work, it
is surprising to me that the
district would retain
the services of an outside
organization at a sum of money
that would be greater
spent locally.
I have read in the media that
the school district provided
nearly $400,000 for AIR's
first year at Washington.
I understand local officials are
pleased with this investment.
Now AIR is asking for an
additional amount of 280,
and we know that's now 216,
for a second year of consulting.
To what extent has the board
sought to put together a local
team of behavioral, social, and
educational experts to examine
the problems at Washington?
Beyond the amount
of money spent,
I'm concerned with
matters of local autonomy.
I recognize that there's a
range of opinion on this,
but that is mine and I
ask that that be discussed.
I also find myself uneasy
about the selection of AIR
for this work.
In 2003 you see
Berkley professor,
in "Ethics Versus
Realism, an Anthropology",
a book concerning
commitment to professional,
ethical conduct and
responsibility in
behavioral sciences.
Reported that AIR has served as
the research hub for clandestine
intelligence, produced by
academics for use by the CIA and
the Department of Defense.
For instance, AIR ran the
Defense Department's counter
insurgency program in
Thailand during Vietnam.
AIR is an ongoing relationship
with the Defense Department.
Some board members may not
know that there is a broad and
enduring debate in the academic
community about the ethical
propriety of working for or
using outside organizations that
extensively serve
war-making institutions.
It is a
discussion worth pursuing.
In a New York Times
article dated 1994,
Charles Murray, author of one
of the most notorious books,
"The Bell Curve", from 1994
which claims that intelligence
is unequally distributed amongst
racial groups and that this
distribution is an
innate feature of
racial differentiation.
Revealed that he worked for
seven years as a chief scientist
with AIR.
Murray describes his
experience as formative.
In fact, he worked on
the Thailand project,
and according to the
southern law center,
wrote in his report about the
potential applicability of the
findings of counter insurgency
operations in Thailand in the
United States.
Who did Murray have in
mind for this operation?
Murray's words, in many of
our key domestic programs,
especially those directed at
disadvantaged subcultures,
the methodological problems are
similar to those described in
his proposal.
And the application of the Thai
findings at home constitutes a
most significant
project contribution.
One might counter that this
was a long time ago and an
organization should not
be judged by its purposes.
I leave the relevance and the
significance of the facts to the
judgment of the board.
Last paragraph.
Finally, a senior
consultant AIR,
is an advocate charter
schools and school choice.
Prior to joining AIR, Tayshia
Adams served as director of
state services for the National
Alliance for Charter Schools,
an organization the Walton
family of Walmart helped
establish and
enjoys, among its fans,
the U.S.
Secretary Betsy DeVoss.
Adams is not isolated--is not an
isolated case of charter school
advocacy at AIR.
AIR expresses the
following on its webpage,
AIR has a history, reputation,
and track record for supporting
states, districts, and
stakeholders with school choice
efforts and activities.
AIR is at the forefront of
neoliberal reconstruction of
public education and the act
of paying an outside firm to do
this work is itself a mark
of neoliberal philosophy.
Perhaps there are members of the
school board whose orientation
is neoliberal and are
supportive of charter schools.
If so, this information will
likely not strike those members
as significant and worrisome.
But I do find it
significant and worrisome.
I'm suspicious of an
organization this deeply
involved in the neoliberal
reconstruction of America's
public school system receiving
my community's resources,
thank you.
BRENDA: Okay, thanks, Kristina.
Next is Janet, is it Angus?
JANET: Hello, I'm
relatively new to this issue.
However, I did
watch Miss Wescott's...
BRENDA: Could you
restate your name?
JANET: Oh, my
name is Janet Angus.
BRENDA: And your address?
JANET: My office is at
1383 West Mason Street
in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
I became involved in a matter
and decided to get more involved
in school issues, so I watched
a number of your school board
meetings online.
And I did watch Miss Wescott's
statements that were made
regarding
Washington Middle School.
I think that was
a two years ago,
year and a half ago.
And you know, I was
really concerned.
I pay a lot of
property taxes in Green Bay.
I, in fact, went to
Franklin Middle School.
I'm a graduate of West High, and
recently I decided to look at
the test scores
at these schools.
I was not impressed.
The element--my question, I'm
not going to digress into many
of the areas, but my question is
very specific for AIR tonight.
You indicated that, I believe,
a tributary stream exists,
and looking at students
are ready for middle school.
So, my question is, what are the
elementary schools like that are
coming into
Washington Middle School?
And if these elementary
schools are not meeting basic
requirements, how can you expect
these students to do well at the
middle school level?
Now, you have a lot
of fancy talk here,
I don't understand half of it,
because I'm not an educator.
I'm just a lawyer, and I'm
a personal injury lawyer,
and I'm pretty basic.
But I went to
school a long time.
And I think that the school
that I was looking at online,
the elementary school, who had a
18 or 19% proficiency in English
and an 8 or 9% proficiency in
math score is not acceptable.
If you have children coming
into Washington Middle School,
my humble opinion,
with low scores,
how do you expect them
to achieve anything?
And how are we failing them at
the elementary school level?
So, if you're looking at the
wide spectrum of elementary
school feeding into middle
school feeding into high school,
maybe that would explain the 18
ACT scores that are found at,
I think, West
High's score is 18%,
I did not look at East High
School average ACT score.
But I don't think these scores
are good enough for Green Bay.
I think our
students need better,
I think they need a lot better.
I don't know how to do that, I
don't know if you know how to do
that, but I do know that these
children receive the best that
our community can give them as
far as a public education goes.
And without a good
education, what will they have?
What will they
have in the future?
This is your job to figure out.
Is hiring a fancy consultant
from some place other than
Green Bay going to do that?
Or are we better off on relying
on our staff here and putting
213,000 or $216,000 into
our elementary schools?
Let our teachers get that
money and do something in the
classroom, because it doesn't
just start at Washington
Middle School.
If you don't have
discipline, in my opinion,
you don't have a teacher, and
you don't have an environment
you can learn at, starting in
third grade in some of these
schools, are three year olds
they start at some of these
schools with,
Headstart programs.
What are we doing?
Our community is only as good as
safety and schools systems and
infrastructure, in my opinion.
And if we don't have
good school systems,
and good infrastructure,
and we don't have safety,
what have we got as a community?
And after listening to
Kirsten Wescott's speech,
I don't know how safe is
Washington Middle School?
Has it got better
because of AIR being there?
Are students still
swearing at teachers,
and saying horrible things,
and doing things that I've found
totally unacceptable, or has
this become the norm in our
school system?
And this has become
the norm, if it has,
then God help us all.
Because in my
opinion in sixth grade,
8%, 8 or 9% proficiency in math
in a day when we are technology,
computers, all these things, and
some of these underprivileged
schools is not acceptable.
Hopefully you addressed that.
Hopefully you addressed
those root causes in your study,
and I hope that you look at that
because it doesn't just start in
seventh grade, sixth grade.
It starts third grade--it starts
when you're three and
sixth grade.
And if you don't have that
discipline and wanting to go to
school and wanting to
learn, and read a book,
I don't know how you
install that in children.
I don't think 18% math and 9%
reading scores are acceptable.
Thank you for your time.
BRENDA: Thank you, Janet.
Is there anyone else who would
like to speak before the board?
Okay, we'll continue
with our discussion.
RHONDA: Brenda?
BRENDA: Yes.
RHONDA: I have three very quick
statements from the public
as well.
BRENDA: Okay.
RHONDA: So, can I
give them to you?
BRENDA: Sure.
RHONDA: Okay.
I have them on my phone,
can I send them to you?
BRENDA: So,
what's going on here?
RHONDA: I'm also going to read
some statements from the public.
Ooh, sorry, help,
I'll just hold it.
So, if you want to
call the first person.
BRENDA: Okay, is the
board good with this?
It's sort of
setting a new precedent.
RHONDA: Isn't this
just what Kristina did?
BRENDA: It is.
RHONDA: It's very short.
ANDREW: I mean, if we want
to discuss after today going
forward how to handle these
types of requests mid meeting,
we can have that
discussion later,
but I think we're
doing it right now,
so yeah.
KATIE: We set the precedent.
RHONDA: Thanks, Kristina.
BRENDA: Just
wanted to double check.
The first person here
is Tiffany Hoffman.
RHONDA: I just want to say the
city council has done this also
for citizens that maybe for
some reason can't make it to the
meeting, or really want
their voices heard but feel
intimidated, which this is a
very intimidating experience,
so I can see that.
BRENDA: And their city
council members read it?
RHONDA: Yes, that's where--okay.
So, Tiffany Hoffman is
actually, she's a parent,
a Washington
Middle School parent.
And she had asked that
I read her statement,
measure that she had sent to me.
She could not be here tonight.
She said, the vote
tonight to spend another 200,000
on math and literacy
consultants is extremely
important and fully understand
the value of projected results
gained with spending that
kind of money is important.
It's true with the socioeconomic
area and temperature of violence
that goes on there is a concern
that education for those who are
challenged to be able to learn,
but for those who are distracted
and cannot learn because of less
than desirable happenings
around them.
As a parent it is a huge concern
and has been the topic of
discussion in our
household many times.
In order to get test
scores up in math and literacy,
there has to be a safety and
security factor met for
all students.
Domestic violence,
absentee parents,
drug use in the home are a
few issues I believe put many
children at risk of
falling through the cracks.
The topic I'd like to address in
so many schools--is a topic I'd
like to address in
so many schools,
not only in our
district, but nationwide.
Mental health resources is
also something that is lacking.
It's too bad that moneys can't
be final for more counseling as
I feel this is an issue that our
local schools need to address.
The ratio of counselors
to students has dropped
significantly at an
all-time low nationwide.
It's at its lowest point
that it's been in 31 years.
This information comes from the
statistics found in the American
School Counseling Association.
One in five children suffer
from mental health issues,
so maybe putting money into
having more counseling staff at
Washington Middle School would
be a good asset to not only the
school in the community--as
well as the community.
People who feel safe can
learn, reducing depression,
bullying, and even the
suicide rate can lessen.
Counselors can give
the scaffolding needs to
academically develop.
And that's from Tiffany.
And who's the next?
BRENDA: Next one
is Alana Winslow.
RHONDA: Okay.
Alana is a
teacher, a De Pere resident.
She is a teacher in the Green
Bay Area Public School District.
And she asked that I
read her statement as well.
Where is it?
I will find it.
Apologize.
Okay, she had every intention
of attending the board meeting,
but she hurt her back and
is not able to be here.
Regarding the vote, I think it
would be a mistake to continue
on with the consultant group
for Washington Middle School.
I hope you and your fellow board
members have taken the time to
take a close look at Washington
Middle School and have listened
to teachers and parents.
I don't think, no matter
what data is thrown your way,
that this firm has helped enough
to warrant spending that much
more money.
Something needs to be done,
but this is not the answer.
As always, thanks for
your time and work.
That's Alana.
BRENDA: Okay,
lastly is Tim Myer.
RHONDA: I took a picture of his.
The board must have a
chance to read what was done,
when, how many people were--how
many people spent how much time
doing what was needed.
Most important, what were the
measurable objectives set in
advance and to what
extent were they met?
Were they met and why not?
Equally important, what is the
probability of achieving the
results with the
proposed additional activity?
Many consultants will be as
brief and vague as possible,
this enables claims, if total
or partial success more ways to
explain how the lack of
success was not their fault.
And that's Tim's comment.
Thank you.
BRENDA: Okay, thanks, Rhonda.
RHONDA: I'm not going to try.
BRENDA: I guess.
ANDREW: Do we have any other
members of the public with
the forum?
BRENDA: Anybody else
filed out any forms?
No, that's for the open forum
after the social board meeting
is over.
You would like to speak, sir?
Is it about AIR?
Okay, we can have
you do that after.
Did you fill out a form?
Oh, oh, okay, I got it.
Oh, okay.
And is your topic on the
school board training?
Pardon?
Oh, you do also want
to speak on this topic, too?
And you have a second topic that
we'll call on you later for?
Is that right?
And when you say,
school board training,
are you referring
to the AIR proposal?
That's my confusion.
Go ahead, you can come speak.
I was confused about
the topic, so go ahead.
DAVE: My name is Dave
Boyce, 123 South Quincy,
Green Bay.
And I've been listening to
the people that were talking.
I have a little bit
of a disjointed reply.
You know, I just at last
minute decided to come down here
because I was
considering not coming,
and I got overwhelmed
by wanting to be here.
So, generally I think this
expenditure isn't a good idea
as a preliminary bottom line.
But I think the attempts to
control the problems without
serious efforts to find
sustainable solutions are
troubling to me.
There was a mention of
culturally responsive practices
and stuff, as I listened here.
But I think that the root
cause is not being addressed,
and the root cause is going to
take maybe several cycles of
classes to, you know, it's
like an engine that isn't
running right.
You've got to check
all the symptoms.
You've got to
replace a bunch of things.
Like gas and the engine and
carburetor cleaning and stuff
like that.
I think the main root cause is
the l lack of emphasis on civil
society and proper educational
environmental structure.
Basically I suspect that some
students and parents may have
developed an intergenerational
tolerance to an uncivil society.
Some students may have been
gradually programmed to be more
disruptive than others by
sourceless indoctrination.
Some students have become
addicted to the power that civil
disobedience gives them at an
early stage of their lives,
so they just accumulate a sense
of power that they derive from
different levels of civil
disobedience and the most civil
authority in front of
them is school instructors,
the local police, when
they're on school break.
I believe that this two-year
training program will provide a
temporary rock to hide under to
mitigate the socialist challenge
to traditional values.
I mean, this is a gradual thing
over the years and you can't
reverse it right away.
You know, I think basic school
curriculum should be centered on
becoming a good
citizen, basically.
You know, above everything else.
You know, it has nothing to
do with celebrating this and
celebrating that and dividing
into classes and this mention
that I had the word
struggle and stuff,
that's a buzz word for
socialism situations.
You know, we've got to really
care about these people one at
a time.
I know there's all these
different problems that they
have, like where they come from
and who they associate with,
and social media, and
cell phone addiction,
and all kinds of
stuff like that.
I believe that we've got
to substitute sustainable
traditional, healthy values for
political social engineering.
I'm a guy that's Eisenhower
when I went to West High School,
so I'm not really trendy.
I'm, you know, a
lot of people say,
you're just an old sucker,
you're going to be dead
pretty soon.
But you know, I believe that
these traditional values are
glossed over and it's almost
like everybody for themselves.
And the people that rise to the
top are the people that are able
to stress the people
around them better than others.
You know, and there's all
this competition for top dog and
stuff like that.
When--I would just love to have
an opportunity to actually go on
the site at Washington High and
do my own evaluation for just a
little while and write
a report to the board.
And get to
interview some teachers.
And I think that this AIR
training skirts the root cause.
You know, you got to grab a
stinking bull by the
stinking horns.
You know, you can't just let
everything try to slide off your
back, you know, you can't sit
there like you are and expect to
throw money at a
situation and make it go away.
I know Tony Avers is our
educational guru right now,
maybe he could direct some
efforts to focus the school
system on traditional values
and the civil society so that
students in general,
over several generations,
will try to get back to
a more civil society,
but you can't
cure this overnight,
and I don't think it's
Washington High in particular
that's the problem,
it's a, you know,
when you have a c cauldron,
some things sink to the bottom
of that cauldron.
It's just the particular mix
at the particular situation,
kind of causes a
light to be shown on it.
But I have tremendous compassion
for the instructors that have to
deal with obtaining good
outcomes from each individual
student there.
You know, I feel really upset at
what they're going through and
locally some of the students
that go to Washington High,
they're in the neighborhood,
they have just disturbing,
kind of disruptive
values in some cases.
Generally most of the
students just kind of blend in,
but there are some that kind
of wander around in packs.
So, all summer long
they're disturbing things.
They go back to class and they
want to show off the new tricks
that they learned
over the summer.
So, basically I'd seriously like
to be contacted by someone on
the board and offered the
opportunity to see for myself.
Because it's like you get the
stiff arm when you go near
the school.
You can't see this,
you can't think that.
You know, and I'd like
to officially request an
opportunity to see for myself
and share my observations.
So, that's pretty much it.
But I know that with this
program--I went through the
woods one time.
And I could go through the woods
if I pushed all these bushes
aside if I went through, but
when I let go of these bushes
and I looked behind me, I
couldn't see where I was.
I believed that was the
effect of all this money,
you know.
As you're in the program you
can kind of see some results.
But as you turn around,
like they say in Korea,
they say [speaking
foreign language]
what happened here?
That's pretty
much in a nutshell.
Thank you.
BRENDA: Thank you.
Michelle.
MICHELLE: Dave, we can certainly
get you communication with the
principal and have you
visit Washington Middle
School, absolutely.
The door is open.
I apologize if you
think you can't get there.
I'll make sure you get there.
So know that.
A couple of thoughts as
I've been sitting here.
And I know a little bit of data
that might be helpful to
the board.
One of the things that's been
mentioned a couple of times is
the large turnover.
And if memory serves me well,
and I know that I've got human
resources, our new
executive director in the room,
it's about 8%, if I
recall accurately.
Just a clarification that
we didn't have a number.
So, I think that's one piece.
Another thing I just
wanted to point out,
and I really appreciated the
history and I'm very interested
in talking to the professor
from the university regarding
American Institute for Research.
One of the pieces
that I find of interest,
and this is where I keep going
in my head really confused after
hearing all that is that they
were the partners that worked
with the state of Wisconsin.
Dr. Tony Evers and myself and
others to start the Wisconsin
Urban Leadership Institute
in partnership with the
Urban League.
So, I'm a little
confused about that.
And will want to learn
more about that as well,
because that certainly doesn't
seem to add up in my head.
[inaudible]
MICHELLE: I just put that
out there so you can see
my confusion.
I'm not refuting it, I'm saying
I'm confused about it because
they came to my attention when
they were working with the state
of Wisconsin and the Department
of Public Instruction.
So, that being the case, I
think the other piece for this
important conversation
is to recognize that,
again, that the students--and I
think about that whole notion
about how are the children,
and I appreciated the other
testimony that came
forward about the children.
When we spend a fair amount of
time thinking and valuing the
children, and I think about
the--I keep going back and it's
rattled in my
head so many times,
the tribe talks about how
they greet one another,
how are the children?
And when
everything is going well,
they say, the children is well.
And they say, going status quo.
But when the
children aren't well,
the focus is really around
the notion of what do you do
to reset?
And I want to take us back
and the focus around Washington
Middle School, and the focus
around really looking to disrupt
the status quo was a real focus
to bring in American Institute
for Research that has a long
history of disruption in schools
and changing a trajectory.
So, that was really the
conversation and the impetus
around this.
I think that as we
look to the results,
I think we all agree that it
isn't where we wanted to be.
That is absolutely true.
Three out of nine, I
believe, is that accurate, Judy?
I think that more--but more
importantly I keep going back to
also thinking
about the trajectory.
And I know that there's a lot of
anecdotal information out there.
And I think going back and
disputing whether or not the
behavioral data is
accurate and what not.
I think that's really the key is
to be able to stand up and look
in the mirror and say, will this
help to improve children today?
Will this help?
Has it helped, and will it
continues that trajectory?
I think at the end of the day,
whenever you introduce a new,
intense universal in the school.
Many of us in this
room have run schools,
and it's not always popular.
And so, people aren't
always comfortable.
But more importantly I go
back to Judy and Cindy Olson,
Principal Olson and
the team, and say,
how are the children?
And say, is this the reset we
want to for the continue
next year?
And do that
important investment,
that's really what this
conversation is about,
and that's where it began, and
that's why we're here tonight
as well.
BRENDA: I just want to say where
I sit with this is that I think
the concerning data is
around more of the behavior.
I think there's been definitely
a trajectory change in terms
of achievement.
And I know the
behavior piece is two-fold,
and one of them is the engaging
instruction in classroom.
And to help classroom
behavior, you know,
that's critically important.
But I'm--and I've got a lot of
things going through my head at
one time.
And I'm glad to see that there's
increased emphasis this coming
year on the behavior.
You know, not as much for AIR,
because that's really not their
expertise, you know, the
turnaround with instruction.
But I think we have the
Boys and Girls Club coming in.
We have the halftime
Franklin/Washington
behavior interventionist.
We have the
principal, Miss Olson,
in her second year.
I mean, she took on a lot
last year and has learned a lot.
And she's changed some
structures in the school really
to address the behavior by
having the same group of
teachers have the
same group of kids.
I think that will help with
consistency with behavior,
and have teachers
help each other,
figure out how to work with
some of the kids that have
been challenging.
I, and again, this was a
lot to take on last year.
And I know a lot of
people worked really hard,
the
administration and the staff,
and there is a
trajectory change.
And I'm not comfortable pulling
that rug out and saying we're
getting rid of what
we just did last year.
You know, I think we've had a
struggle having a consistency
last year in Washington.
This year will be
the first consistent,
you know, the same associates
and the same principal from
year-to-year.
And I like having Mike Friese
learning and figuring out how to
spread that, but at the end of
the day my concern is that the
Washington students don't just
need behavioral interventions,
they need an education.
They need good instruction, they
need to succeed academically.
They also need to succeed in
terms of their social
emotional status.
And I feel as if there's a
combination of resources that
are put in the school.
The structural changes, and
continuing with AIR in terms of
helping coach teachers with
really good instructional
techniques, and that's--those
are the reasons I'm going to
support moving on and continuing
with the contract for one
more year.
Is there any?
RHONDA: I'll go.
So, I'm going to
stick with what I know,
because that's how I
need to operate on this.
And what is that?
I know that three
out of nine goals set,
objectives, were not met.
And so, when I look at that,
I think about--to me that's
not--that might be good
enough for some in this room,
but I'm not really interested
in good enough at this point.
I think our kids, our community
deserves the best that we
can do.
I also have to wonder about
what's the incentive for AIR to
actually improve if they
can literally come into this
situation, make $30,000 a month,
and meet three out
of nine goals?
I just don't--it's unclear to me
how anybody thinks that's
a good idea.
I think it's very obvious that
staff is not buying into
this plan.
It might be anecdotal, but I'm
not going to discount all the
voices that were comfortable
enough and courageous enough
to reach out to me this past
year from the school building.
A considerable amount of people,
as well as other citizens,
and staff from other
buildings as well.
I do appreciate the conversation
around looking into the culture
and climate plans around CHAMPS
and other things that are in
place for the schools
and Franklin as well.
But to the point of the schools
coming into--the feeder schools
coming into
Washington and Franklin,
for that matter.
We don't need AIR to invest in
the culture and the climate of
the building.
I don't think we do.
And I'm sorry, I know a lot of
staff doesn't believe that as
well, because I
haven't heard from them.
But it's also--first of all,
how do we know that this is
actually--the three goals
that were met out of nine,
how do we know that
was attributed to AIR?
Maybe that wasn't
attributed to AIR.
How do we know these teachers
actually were able to just do
that on their own?
I think it's a very slippery
slope that we cannot trust our
teaching staff to do
the job of academics.
That's why we hire them.
And frankly, that's why we
have a considerable amount of
administration with high
level of education as well.
I think there was a comment
made--many of us in this room
have run schools.
We have that in this room.
We have that in this district.
When you have an outside
entity who's coming in,
collecting a very nice paycheck,
and isn't meeting the goals,
not even half of the goals, and
we're still willing to continue
to working with them, then we
have to start thinking about,
if we have that many people
in this district who have run
schools and we have
to go outside of that,
that's a whole
other conversation.
But more importantly, my vote's
going to reflect what I know.
I know three out of
nine goals were not met.
I will honor the parents that
staff in the school as well as
the staff outside of the school
who have continued to reach out
to me, especially
in the last month.
I would also say
that Sullivan, Howe,
all of the other schools that
are in play that are feeder
schools into our middle schools.
Think of what we
could do with this $216,000
in those schools.
We have a lot of ideas for
Washington Middle School with
the Boys and Girls Club with
things that were mentioned,
but what about the
rest of the schools?
You're going to
spread the rest of that,
I believe it was $70,000 across.
But at the end of the day that
does really--it sounds good,
but it doesn't
really add up to much.
So, I think personally as a
person who is essentially in
charge of spending
thousands of dollars,
if this was something--if
this--I keep relating to this.
If this was another department
or if this was your whole
budget, you hired a contractor
to come fix nine things of your
home, you know, your
roof, redo your floors,
the infrastructure
of your storm sewer,
and you gave
them--they were paid
$30,000 a month to take
care of all of this.
But they only finished three out
of the nine objectives that you
had agreed, together
agreed, by the way,
to meet, I cannot imagine
that you would turn around,
look them in the eye
and say, you know what,
here's another $200,000, let's
see what we can do with that.
You've already shown me I cannot
rely--I'm not comfortable enough
to believe that
this is possible.
It's just not there.
The information's not there.
BRENDA: Kristina, did
you have a comment?
KRISTINA: Yeah,
I'll try to be brief.
I know this has gone on.
I just want to thank the
community members that reached
out to me.
I talked to parents and
teachers and social workers and
counselors, over 26 people.
It's been a busy couple of
days getting back to everybody.
Let me say, too, that none of
those people were supportive
of this.
I'm not saying
that's representative,
I just found that
to be fascinating.
But again, those are
just people I spoke with.
To me the question isn't do
we need a deeper investment?
We do.
The question isn't should we be
more courageous in our
decision making?
We should.
The question isn't, you
know, do staff need more
support structures?
They do.
We also know that just hiring
more staff isn't going to solve
our, you know, concerns,
and address the whole child,
because hiring
staff isn't the answer.
To me the question is, how do
we ensure that our investment
connects to our community in a
sustainable way that we know is
based on the
evidence of effectiveness?
And I think the letter that I
read from Andy Austin tonight
talks a little bit about the
passion and the skill set that
we have in this community.
So, for me, I think that
I haven't seen any data,
in my individual opinion, that
clearly demonstrates that the
money spent with AIR indicates
that that work was linked
directly to the outcomes that we
see either out of the three or
the nine, I just don't see that.
I think that Washington Middle
School and their staff and their
family should be absolutely
applauded for their time and
their deep, intensive work.
I know it's been a stressful
year and they've really
dedicated themselves
to their students.
I know Cindy has done, you
know, she's a leader there.
It's not about, I don't look at
the three out of nine and think,
oh, it's a failure on teachers,
it's a failure on leadership.
I think, for me, it's
a step back to say,
how can we ensure that what
we're doing is worth the time,
and the money,
and the investment,
so that we are going to
get the greatest results?
And from the data
that I see with AIR,
I just don't see that
connection for me, personally.
So, that's kind of
where I am right now.
BRENDA: Anybody else?
Or Eric?
ERIC: So, my quality Green Bay
Public School education taught
me that experiments, in
order to be effective,
you have to limit the variables,
so you can measure to see what's
impacting change.
And unfortunately, school
turnaround is a hard process.
It's not a science,
there's a lot of art to it.
And in conversations that
I've had with administrators,
sometimes that can
take up to seven years.
And when the school board
was faced with the decision,
they felt like we
didn't have seven years,
we needed to invest much sooner.
AIR was brought in to accelerate
that turnaround process.
And similar to what
Kristina just said,
I feel like the
results were mixed.
And we did do a lot as a school
board and as an administrative
team to invest in
Washington outside of AIR.
And then I look to what
our plans are for next year.
I mean, simply bringing a
principal back for a second year
is an improvement.
That's something that we
haven't been able to say.
I sat down with Cindy Olson and
got to talk with her and see her
investment and her
passion for Washington.
And I frankly think that's part
of where Washington got to where
it was is because we didn't
have consistent leadership.
In thinking about
the AIR proposal,
the first time we
got in June, you know,
one of the ideas that I had
for a suggestion would be,
what if we cut back AIR in the
teachers and invested more in
Cindy as an
instructional leader,
as a learning leader.
And what I've come to
learn after is that,
you know, Cindy said she
would actually go the other way.
And Judy, she attributed a lot
of her success and growth this
past year to you and the
leadership and support that
you provided.
And I thought that
was really powerful.
I love the ability for us to
grow our leaders and to grow
our capacity.
And I want to see Cindy to
continue to grow in that role.
But I also wanted
to make sure, Judy,
I appreciate your
role in this process,
and certainly,
John, yours as well.
I look at the manager of
student engagement and advocacy.
I think that is a
tremendous solution,
and I personally know both
Dwight Hancock and Jason Thomas
at Franklin, and I think they
will do a wonderful job in
their roles.
I looked at the schedule that
Cindy had up in her office that
showed the looping structure.
And I asked what if I
just messed it all up.
And she threatened to do some
things to do to me that I won't
repeat here.
She said I
shouldn't do that, yeah.
So--but I think that looping
structure in seventh and eighth
grade is going to make
tremendous difference for our
kids and their experience day
to day and their connections.
I mean, I'd be fascinated
to see those survey results.
You know, the
behavior coach, again,
tremendous, tremendous idea.
The idea that we're going
to take one of our strongest
administrators, the second
director of teaching and
learning, and imply him
to those two schools.
When I think about the
investment that that is,
that's tremendous,
not only of his time,
but also in the lack of
investment in other areas that
he could be helping
to lead our district.
So, when I look at the success
that we've had at Washington,
I can't definitively say
that it was because of AIR,
I can say it was definitively
because of talented people in
our district.
And because of that, I
cannot comfortably support AIR.
This is something that I've
talked to a lot of people and
I've lost a lot of sleep over.
And this is a
really hard decision,
and it's a battle
between my head and my heart.
But ultimately I'm going to vote
with my heart and not
support it.
BRENDA: Laura.
LAURA: So, I've spent a lot of
time with people in conversation
about this as well.
I've spent time with Cindy.
She's a terrific leader.
And I've talked to
support staff and teachers.
And I get anecdotal
feedback also from parents
and grandparents.
You know, we promised
this school some continuity.
We promised that we would give
them the support they needed.
We promised this community.
And I can't imagine at this
point just throwing up our hands
and saying, well, we gave it a
year with a brand new principal.
And it's not good enough,
so we're going to just stop
midstream and try
something else.
What would that be exactly?
What's Plan B?
Because there isn't a Plan B.
So, you know, some of the
universal things I've heard from
people are, Cindy's terrific,
she's been a great hire.
She, herself, said the
same thing about you,
Judy, that you've been
a huge support to her.
And she has told me that AIR has
been a huge support to her and
her staff.
I think it's been
money well spent.
She thinks so and she's
the leader of that school,
and I trust her.
Let's see here.
The other universal thing that
I've heard from all of these
people is that this
school is fully staffed.
I asked everybody, do
you need more people,
do you need more support?
What do you need as
far as personnel?
And everyone of them
said, no, we're good.
We're good with the
people that we have right now.
It's important to me that
they feel like they have staff.
It's really important that for
the first time in years they're
going to have the same admin
team go into the next year
all together.
There won't be
anybody to ramp up.
There's not going to be anybody
who needs a lot of professional
development, you know, to
get integrated into our
school district.
That is really important.
But the big thing I took
away is they trust Cindy.
They trust her leadership.
I think of what it
was like a year ago.
She came to us to be hired and
what a horrible night that was,
and how she's kind
of came through that,
and has been proving herself
every day in that school.
You talk to her and she
just loves that school,
she loves those kids.
And so, when she tells me
that she wants another year of
support, and not for herself,
she feels like she's got what
she needs now.
But she wants it for her staff.
I believe her.
And the teachers that I've
talked to have said that they
would like more
support with behaviors,
so I believe them as well.
They are doing
that work every day.
That school is doing
everything we ask them.
And I'm not going to take
that support away from them now,
so I'll be voting yes.
BRENDA: Katie?
KATIE: I had the same
conversation with Laura and a
similar conversation
as Eric did with Cindy,
and it was the most compelling
part of that conversation was
how much success she
does attribute to AIR.
Found public
comment disconnecting,
but you had some clarification.
I really think--I
trust Cindy Olson,
and I think I need to
support her in what she sees
as something that is going
to help her continue to
turn Washington around.
I know I said three out of six,
I'm inclined--three out of nine,
but the 97% is
really close to 100%,
but it's not 100%, so it
wasn't a complete pass.
I just think it's important
to--if a school leader tells you
something is working
and really helped her,
she would like that help
to continue for her staff,
I would have a hard
time not supporting that.
BRENDA: Andrew?
ANDREW: So, I, too, have done
my own research and looked into
this issue.
And I've asked
about AIR frequently,
since they've been in place.
I've gone to
Washington many times,
I've asked people and the staff
that I talked to felt that they
were benefiting from AIR, that
they were getting real positives
that they could use
in their classrooms.
And it was--there was maybe--it
was different degrees
of positive.
I heard no negatives.
When I visited Washington, I
had a couple of comments with an
email that were against
AIR, but what I looked at,
also, my concerns going into
this when I was wondering what
an AIR proposal would
look like this year,
what happens next?
What's different?
How are we taking in the
input that we've received here?
I think there's two important
things that I look at here.
First of all, this is--this
proposal is clear in the wording
of the proposal is this
would be the second year of two.
When we're wondering when does
the release of
responsibility happen?
It happens over the
course of this year,
as we put more
people into place,
as we have more people drawing
in AIR's research to become the
train the trainers.
It's taking away the question
of--because I did worry,
and I believe I said this when I
first--when we first went with
AIR, and I wanted to
only authorize one year,
because I wanted to see
where things were at,
and I didn't want to get
into a longterm commitment.
But I also knew that we probably
wouldn't be done after one year.
I think when you look at goals,
if you have--there's pros and
cons to having a 100% goal.
You're setting a target,
you're setting an objective,
but if one things goes wrong,
you can never recover that goal,
so I do look at
that differently.
I look at the overall progress,
and I keep coming back,
in my mind, to teachers and
staff that I talk to randomly
walking around the building.
If I bumped into people who are
all members of the AIR fan club,
I certainly did accidentally.
People talked about real
strategies that they're using in
their classrooms.
I, too, looked at what about
the fact that we have staff here
that have turned around
schools and they have,
but everyone I've talked to
who's done it has said that they
did it--they would be
capable of doing it,
but also their knowledge
isn't--their knowledge of what's
going on now running a
building is not the same,
it's different.
We have different
circumstances here.
I do want to get
some clarification,
just to make sure I'm
understanding correctly
how--what options there
will be for other schools,
not just Franklin,
to benefit from AIR,
but how we're going to
spread that further.
That, too, is important because
all this money going into
just Washington.
And I did receive a
comment like that.
Where does that
leave other schools?
And if we didn't have a plan
to have a meaningful amount of
participation of other schools
into getting some of what AIR's
doing, I wouldn't be
able to support this.
If this was an open ended
commitment that didn't make it
clear that this was year two
of a two-year project with a
release of responsibility, I
wouldn't be able to support the
project either.
But given that
those things are there,
although I do think maybe I just
need to hear a little bit more
about some of the concerns
of the gentleman of UWGB,
because some of those are
serious and they're new
information that I
didn't have before tonight.
So, given that this
becomes year two of two,
and given that it's something
that Cindy herself thinks is
beneficial and is
helping in her school,
I think continuing this for one
more year is the right things
to do.
But I, before we take that vote,
I guess I would just like to
briefly review
how, beyond Franklin,
how other schools will
directly participate in this.
And also, if you have any
answers to--besides the fact
that, yes, AIR worked on
other projects that share our
district's values,
okay, that's great.
If AIR has a--I need to
know more about this,
and I would--perhaps that would
require a delay of a week to
get that.
I haven't made that motion yet,
but those would be my questions.
JOHN: So, in looking at how are
we going to share the turnaround
practices, there are quite a
few practices that we've already
implemented, and you've
heard quite often about,
and you've commented
on some of the solid,
good hires that we've made.
The hiring process,
particularly for administrators,
was changed through the AIR
training and process that we
went through.
And it was meant as a
systems-changing piece.
Many of the high quality
administrators that we've hired
in the past year, plus,
are part of that process,
including the
person to my right.
ANDREW: I'm sorry,
John, we've got--yes,
there are some good transferable
things we've already got.
But really looking at if
part of a rationale for really
continuing next year is
bringing new things next year,
broad, or that's what
specifically I'm looking to.
JOHN: Sure, and the reason I'm
explaining was because I wanted
to make sure that we were
showing you that we had examples
of showing you that applying
knowledge to systems changing
practice based on
prior training,
and we will be doing the same
with additional training that
we receive.
So, we will be working on
training up our district office,
individuals who will
be supporting schools,
so that the supervising
executive directors and our
curriculum people really
understand what are the
essential learnings that have
come through the AIR process and
the turnaround practices
that are utilized there.
We will also be giving practice
and informational training to
our principals as a whole, with
a greater focus for our ESSA
identified schools.
So, that would happen
throughout the school year.
We are still looking at the part
of the work with AIR would be.
We have not put together with
AIR the definitive contract for
that work, but it is definitely
something that they have and
have done with great effect.
When I think about why will AIR
work with us this coming year,
they have a variety of other
districts with very similar
needs, similar concerns,
that want their business.
And the demand for such services
far exceeds the supply of
individuals that can offer
those turnaround services.
So, we are working with them
to make sure they still want to
work with us.
And I believe they do want to
work with us in those practices.
But when we think about the
job embedded nature of what our
support looks like, it's not
like we have our principals sit
down for a class, it's work
that's done with our executive
director that
supervises schools,
it's done with Mike Friese,
who works with our curriculum,
along with the team from the
teaching and learning department
to take the lessons and apply
them throughout the work we do.
Just as an example, looking
at the scope and sequence of
particular courses
and making sure that
instruction--instructional
objectives that are going to be
assessed for the Forward
Exam and other assessments,
that we're accomplishing that
teaching before we're asking
these students to identify what
they know within hat
subject area.
That's an important area as well
as looking at the four domains
of turnaround practice that we
shared quite a few months ago
with some of our
initial work with the board.
But that really is the summary
of the turnaround practices that
will be shared
with our principals.
Dr. Langenfeld, I'm sorry.
KATIE: Turn your mic on.
MICHELLE: As we
look forward, too,
I know we've had
a conversations,
AIR has connected us to the
national organization realm on
behavior with a tremendous
amount of resources and a full
analysis of
Washington they would provide.
Actually the district MLSS we
talked to them about as well
in conversations.
So, really looking at the
systemic deeper dive into our
own behavior efforts around
supporting children and the
journey around their behavior.
The other piece as we think
about the fact and I appreciate
and absolutely agree that
Mike Friese is an
extraordinary educator.
To have him--each of the coaches
is to be onsite 27 days each,
which is significant, according
to what I'm reading in
the contract.
To me that's a great
opportunity to say,
okay, what are we--where are we
the absolute national experts
around best practices, pedagogy,
and I think to the point we have
looked more deeply recognize the
fact that to truly transform,
there are some significant
changes that we can replicate
that are already in play,
but as a leader and I know an
instructional
leader like Mike is,
and also Nancy, who also support
coaching and coaching models,
this is a really
important opportunity,
because to be perfectly honest,
when I look at sometimes not all
our coaches are alike.
If we can say that accurately,
and that the amount of work
that's been done and needs to
continue to be sure our coaches
are being leveraged
the best that they can.
I believe we'll be
also positively impacted.
I see that there's a tremendous
amount of work that's already
been invested and our teachers
are working really hard.
So, to have the best coaching as
they walk through the process,
and I know they've done
an extraordinary job.
But to look at what's going on
in the nation and that as well
will be very helpful.
JUDY: I'll j just quickly add
to--going back to the comment
that Kristina made at the very
beginning of the presentation,
too, I think it's good to
get our teacher voice as well,
so those teachers who are
working directly with those
coaches, what is
working well for you,
so that we can then take that
and apply that to the other
buildings as well.
Embarrassed I
didn't have that piece,
it's a very important piece
to have that teacher voice.
BRENDA: Rhonda?
RHONDA: So, I'm not
sure anyone's aware,
but we set kind of a new
precedent at the school
district tonight.
We decided that data doesn't
really matter like it needs to,
and that we're willing to move
forward and make decisions not
based on data, or data
that supports moving forward.
I think that's unfortunate.
I'm extremely disappointed.
At the very least that is our
job as board members to actually
take evidence and apply it, and
not bring personalities into
the situation.
You know, it's easy to
personalize things and make,
and shift it and blur the
lines, but that's not our job.
Our job is to take evidence
and make the best decisions with
what we have.
And this is what we
teach our students.
We teach them that data matters,
evidence-based decisions matter.
But we're making an
exception for some reason.
I'm not sure I understand why.
To your point, Andrew, you had
talked about giving it a year to
see what happened.
I would ask you
as a board member,
as a fellow board member, when
you voted for the first $400,000
of AIR services, did you
picture in your mind if they
would only meet
three out of nine goals,
I would give
them another $200,000?
I would be pretty shocked that
that's how you feel about that.
You know, we can craft
narratives to fit our needs
on this.
But what it comes back down
to is we're giving an outside
company over half
a million dollars,
we're not building
relationships with this money,
by the way.
The sustainability in this
professional development should
be part of the proposal.
Going forward and saying
that the priority is math and
literacy, and by the
way, what happened to math?
By the way, what
happened to math?
Are we okay with that?
I'm not sure how we are.
Going forward knowing the
challenges in the school,
I fundamentally disagree
that--and this is coming from
everyone that's ever talked to
me that's in that school that's
frustrated, they
don't come and say,
if we only had better
coaching for math and literacy,
these kids can learn.
I've never heard that.
I continue to hear the
investment needs to be
courageous, it
needs to be intense,
it needs to be evidence based.
So, if you think about
it, as a board member,
you have to turn around.
If you vote against this,
you know that you are--you're
listening to your voices,
you're making decisions based
on evidence.
I will never pretend to know
everything about education,
I don't.
But what I do know is I continue
to have discussions district
wide about how to use data, how
to apply concepts for our kids,
we're telling them
what to do with this,
but we don't apply it
at the board table.
If in any other business
organization in this world,
I'm just going to
say it, pitched 30%,
they would not get more money.
And we cannot continue to ask
the state for more funding and
cry around that mantra when
we do not use what we do
have responsibly.
Again, this isn't anecdotal,
I'm not going to throw people's
names out there
and say this, that.
My job is to look at
evidence and data.
You know, we employ an
entire department around that,
this school district, but
today it doesn't matter.
And I'm so confused by that.
And I'm extremely disappointed,
and I'm frankly very frustrated
and sad, because
now moving forward,
if you bring me data, I'm going
to massage it the way I need it
to be, and it's not
going to be certain,
it's not going to
be the end all,
and that is what
we've always done.
Tonight that is not happening,
because three out of nine goals
being met for $40,000
is $30,000 a month.
We did not even get close
to making this worthwhile.
Maybe you can normalize this,
maybe you can go back to people
and--but the big picture is
this did not meet the mark,
and that's what's on the table.
Thank you.
BRENDA: All right,
we'll take a vote.
Go ahead.
LAURA: You want to talk, Andrew?
I just wanted to
add one more thing.
So, I had a conversation
with a teacher who teaches at
Washington today.
And one of the things that
really stuck with me is how sad
she is about how her school
is portrayed in the media,
and at this board table, and
in our community in general.
So, I would like to challenge
everyone in this room to tell
the whole story
about this school,
or better still, stop portraying
it as a failed school.
It affects the mental
health of the students,
which she told me today she
hears some things from her
students, how they talk
about how their school is.
I know our school
isn't very good,
it's not--that's how they
feel because that's how it's
portrayed
constantly to them that way.
It affects the mental health of
our students and the teachers
that teach them all day.
And the steady stream of
scrutiny affects that
learning community.
It filters into our community
and it becomes accepted truth
when the real truth
is--it's just not told.
It's much more complex.
Everyone knows that.
And I think it's a wonderful
school that's working very hard
to overcome its challenges,
much like other schools in this
district, and in this
state, and in this country.
Please think, when you talk
about this school publicly,
how you're portraying it,
because it affects the people
that were going to
that school every day.
And I am worried about that.
That's all.
BRENDA: Andrew, did
you have something?
ANDREW: So, if--maybe I--for
me I think if--for me to know
tonight and perhaps I missed it,
and perhaps it's something that
needs to be flushed out
more specifically with AIR,
and that hasn't happened yet.
Like I need to see what's
different as far as other
schools having more
involvement in this.
So, I would say a school
learning something through
something that Judy
has learned from AIR,
that would happen whether
there's a Washington only focus
to AIR or a broader involvement
of other schools in AIR,
or you, John, right?
So, that's valuable, but that
would happen even if we had it
be a Washington only program.
So, I need to know, like, how is
that going to look different and
do we need another--if that's
something that we need another
week to know how
that's going to look,
I'm okay with that, because I
don't want to rush something
like this.
I also am wondering if, again,
is there any--do we need to take
a bit more of a look at
the issues brought up by the
gentleman at UWGB?
Because there--I think there
might be enough--there might be
enough positives to outweigh a
negative past of people who used
to be there, but it's some
pretty serious charges that
came suddenly.
JOHN: I think that we,
given the circumstances,
it would probably make more
sense for the board to decline
further contract with AIR.
The concerns we had related to
the support for Washington were
that, again, similar to
what Miss McCoy said,
if we continue to use Washington
Middle School and attach it to
AIR as the reason
for the controversy,
the negativism which has
been part of the dialogue,
is causing more damage than
the good of the AIR proposal.
So, I'd like to--I'm doing
so in part from my opinion,
not necessarily--defer
to Dr. Langenfeld,
but before the board meeting we
were in consideration of whether
or not we could
bring it forward.
And we felt that continued
controversy around Washington
doesn't support Washington,
and we'd prefer to focus
on solutions.
And if AIR is something that's
come back month after month out
of concern, if it's
become the divisive issue,
I'd rather focus on
what are the solutions,
and I would like to know more
from the board about what it
sees as the changing, courageous
solution that we have not come
up with yet, because what we are
looking at is going back to what
we've done in past years.
We've invested money, hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of
dollars into additional
staff, into trying to do things
different, into looking at
principals and feeling that they
were not the person that we
wanted and changing out
the principal.
So, I would ask that we give
consideration to withdrawing the
proposal until there's a
different environment in which
we're ready to hear
what can be offered.
BRENDA: Dr. Langenfeld.
MICHELLE: Thank you, John.
I know that we have engaged
in this conversation very
seriously, and I talked to some
members of the board about it.
The piece that I would
ask, and it continues to be,
is that are we going to
let Washington move forward?
I think that's our concern.
We feel very strongly that if we
take--if AIR-- we know that's a
very important
investment for the school.
There are teachers we will
find this very problematic.
More importantly, it
goes back to what you said.
If not this--this was
meant to be an investment,
I know that the money is for 27
different coaching sessions in
math and literacy.
And I share the concern that
if we just focus on behavior we
will not be able to--I don't
know who was in the room that
talked about their--I
believe it's our attorney here,
is a graduate that
came through Washington,
did I misunderstand?
BRENDA: Franklin and West.
MICHELLE: Okay, similar
in terms of opportunity.
My point being is that
this is an investment,
and if the board chooses
to move forward with it,
I think that we would do a very
good job with continuing that
trajectory and supporting it.
I have great
concerns, and join you,
Laura, in concerns and
the trajectory around
the conversation.
And again, if it is a question
if this becomes and continues to
be a place where people hang
their hat all the time and put
failing school in
the same breath,
it's not healthy.
And it does go
back to the children.
Yep, the staff, but the
kids, the kids feel it,
the kids see it.
And nobody's worked as hard as
Cindy and the staff to
change that.
I just put that out
there, and I agree with you,
John, and we've had
that conversation.
It would be--I have great
concerns about pulling things
away without the
investment, you know.
Sometimes the district, and
especially central office,
gets accused of keep
changing, keep changing,
keep changing.
And it's do you keep moving
forward because you do see
movement, progress, that's all.
LAURA: Kristina.
BRENDA: Oh, Kristina?
KRISTINA: So, I'm a little
confused how we're now using
words like
negativism, controversy,
failing school.
I didn't hear anybody say that
Washington was a failing school.
What I heard in
that conversation was,
we care about our students,
we all agree we need support,
the teachers needs
support, Cindy's important.
We care, we care, we care.
I didn't hear it's a
failing school at all.
What I heard from this
room is a consensus,
we care deeply, what we're
talking about is ideas on how we
meet their need.
So, it's not an either/or,
it's an investment in AIR,
or it's nothing.
We all agree it
needs an investment.
So, if AIR is not the investment
that we think is going to get
our students and our
staff what they need.
If it's not teacher-supported
and student-centered and backed
up by the data, then we take
that investment and go back to
the drawing table and we say,
what can we do differently,
because we are
committed to our school,
because we care
about your school,
and because that is the central
idea that brings us to
this table.
So, in my opinion I'm
getting a little fired up here,
because this isn't
negativism about Washington.
Nobody's sitting here
saying teachers and staff fail.
I didn't say that.
What I said was they should
all be applauded for their work.
What we're talking about is if
AIR fulfilled their contract
responsibilities
and their duties,
and if we feel confident
that they're going to be the
continued leaders
of this school,
worth the additional
investment of $216,000.
If we do not
spend that $216,000,
I think we should, with
AIR, I think we come back to the
drawing table and say,
what does that look like?
We have a--we go to
the teachers and say,
what would you like to see of
your staff and you have a low
student to teacher ratio, right?
That's--we don't
need anymore staff.
What do the students want?
What do the teachers want?
What do the parents want?
So, I don't know what that is
because I'm not them and I would
never sit up here and assume
that's not what they need.
But it's not an either/or, and
I just want to make that
very clear.
The money is there, we are
committed to Washington.
The question is, is AIR going
to be the turnaround partner,
are they going to get us
the results that we need?
LAURA: I just want to clarify
that I was relaying the feelings
of a teacher who is tired of
the public narrative around
this school.
She works in that school,
she deals with the students,
she hears from them, she
hears from the parent,
and the narrative is negative.
I think we'd be naive
to think otherwise.
We've had two plus years of it,
and it's hurting that school.
It's hurting that
learning environment.
And I am not going to discount
what that teacher's told me.
KRISTINA: I'm not
discounting you,
Laura, I'm just saying that in
this conversation we all agree
that Washington is a great
school that has great leadership
and has great teachers.
And that narrative of, you
know, it's not a good school,
cross cuts all of our schools,
so that is a culture we need to
overcome and
demonstrate to our community,
you're absolutely right.
My point is just saying
that in this conversation,
that is not where
this is coming from.
The conversation was
centered around AIR.
I apologize.
That wasn't directed at
you, that was just a
general observation.
So, thank you for that clarity.
BRENDA: Rhonda?
RHONDA: Okay, I would echo
everything that you've discussed
about the negativity.
The motion on the
floor, at the table,
is to approve another
year with AIR services.
And I'm using the information
that I have available to me,
which does include
conversations with staff.
Now, I know that superintendent
mentioned that teachers will
find this problematic.
I did not hear from one of
those teachers personally.
And you would think that if
you're a teacher that wants this
to pass, I'm a person that
you're going to reach
out to, right?
Let's be critical
thinkers about this.
You're going to reach out to me
and you're going to let me know
how much you support this.
If there's enough teachers in
that building that's going to
think this is problematic, I'm
going to hear from at least one.
And I haven't.
Who I've heard from
are the people that say,
this is a waste of
money, it's internal decay,
those are the words, and we need
more support in other areas.
Again, very encouraged
to hear the ideas that
are happening there.
Two things can be true.
I support the additional
services and everything that was
discussed at this table tonight.
But as a board member who has
heard from a ton of people in
that building, some people
who no longer work there,
by the way.
I'm interested in reality.
It's not my job to decide
if I like people or not,
it's to look at a
proposal, the money invested,
and to make a decision with all
of the evidence that I have in
front of me.
If I can't do this tonight, and
I'm just going to have thoughts
and prayers, right?
A lot of people in this room
probably use that narrative and
say, school shootings,
thoughts and prayers,
you know, we don't
believe in that.
I don't either,
actually, for the record.
I believe in looking
at concrete evidence,
data supported decision making.
And then human piece of it.
If I would have had
teachers messaging me that they
absolutely need
another year of this,
I wouldn't feel the
way I do about this.
But I have not heard that.
And again, I would be a
person I would reach out to.
We all know this,
sitting in this room.
It would be me.
You would want to--so, I can
sit here tonight and I'm assured
that the problematic negativity
is not going to come from this
not passing.
There will be more of an outcry,
there will be more people,
hopefully there will be more
people lining up to run for
school board, personally, but
there will be--the negativity
will not decrease, I
can guarantee you,
with this
decision, if it passes.
We have great ideas
that we discussed tonight.
One of those great ideas is
not moving forward with
this proposal.
And the evidence
tells you that story,
thank you.
LAURA: I just want to
push back a little bit.
What's that?
BRENDA: Microphone.
LAURA: Oh, sorry.
So, the teachers I talked to who
brought their concerns to me.
I said, well, do you feel like
you would like to share them in
open session, and they said, no,
because they're afraid to come
before the school board, and
they're not afraid--they're
afraid of how they
will be portrayed.
The last time we had teachers
come from Washington Middle
School to talk to us and to
give their sincere concerns,
they weren't treated very well.
And they had threats and
there was a lot of negativity,
and that came up in
my conversation today.
And when I said, well,
you're afraid of retaliation?
They said, not
from administrators,
they're afraid of retaliation
from school board members.
And they won't come.
That's just what happened today.
So, yeah, you might think
that teachers would feel free to
reach out to
school board members.
But it's a lot more
complicated than that,
and we all kind of know why.
They were treated
badly the first time,
why would they come again.
BRENDA: Andrew?
ANDREW: Okay, this is--so
I--this has gone in a strange
direction here and I'm very--I'm
wondering now because--I would
have been--if I had the same
kind of--if I heard a strong
negative opinion from
staff that I went to,
I would have been done talking
about AIR a long time ago.
I would probably have let
the administration know that
I wasn't in a place that
I could support AIR,
but that's not what I heard.
But obviously there's
some--maybe some kind of a split
here that I'm not aware of,
and I need to learn more.
To me it's--to me I think it
would be reasonable to--and I
know that this can't
drag out indefinitely,
it can't be weeks.
But I'm going to make a motion
that we postpone the vote on AIR
until the next board
meeting, which is in one week.
It would give time for some,
or any remaining questions
or feedback to be gotten.
And I don't intend to make
another motion to that effect.
Again, next week,
I'll say that now,
it's to give one week to
research some new perspectives
that were brought forward today
with the final decision
in a week.
So, I move to postpone
the decision for a week.
LAURA: Andrew, what would
it take you to vote on
this tonight?
ANDREW: I don't think this is
just--I don't think this is just
about me and what it would take
for me to vote on this tonight.
I think we had some important
perspectives come up from
the community.
And I think I'd like to see a
little--I'd like to see more
about how other
schools would benefit.
And I think
there's a plan for that.
It's just this has come up
quickly and there's still a
little to be
fleshed out about it.
I'm confident that other schools
would have a chance to be
involved in it.
LAURA: The person that came
forward from the community
offered up research
from 2002 and '3.
Some of those things were
quite old pertaining to AIR.
I mean, I can't give
that a lot of credit,
you know, all these years later.
RHONDA: Can I
just--okay, again, you're right,
this is getting confusing.
So, research and data
either matters or it doesn't.
So, we can craft it
how we want it to be,
and we'll cherrypick what
matters as far as reality.
But does it
matter, or doesn't it?
Because, I mean, that's not a
concern of mine personally.
There's what we do know that
shows this fell flat matters
to me.
But it's an interesting
conversation around what
actually matters
and what doesn't.
What's our bar, what's our
line in the sand of what we're
willing to use as
evidence to make decisions.
I have a question
for you, Andrew.
What would you need to hear
to make you not vote for it?
So, what is it that--what's
the--I appreciate you wanting to
take the time.
What is it that you're looking
for that's the game changer,
that's the deal breaker, it's
just this--I can't sign
onto this.
If three out of nine
goals being met with $400,000
of money invested, I'm not
sure what you could hear--I
mean, what is it that you need
to hear the exclamation point
to say no?
I'm sincerely asking you that.
ANDREW: Okay, so when I--I'm
looking at a bigger--I'm looking
at a bigger picture here.
And whatever we do,
whatever we do next year,
if it's AIR, if it's not AIR,
here's what I'm going to do,
this, I think, didn't
help our discussion tonight,
which ever way it goes.
You can't--if you're going to
have whatever goal setting when
you talked about
the smart goals,
the attainable goals, okay.
I didn't put a lot of stock in
a goal about getting to an 85%
I didn't put a lot of stock in
a goal about getting to an 85%
response on our
school operates as a team.
I never once thought, knowing
that the number of agreement was
54%, had I thought that in a
year that not getting to 85%
from 54 on a survey was a make
or break goal that was going to
come down to this, I would have
saved us the trouble and said
statistically it's very unlikely
that any intervention could move
you from 54 to 85.
By the same
token, I think, sure,
I wish it was higher, but a good
motion by staff on the staff
survey percentage wise, on the
academic expectations are just
right, they're not too low.
That's re lated to AIR.
You know, that's an improvement.
Again, I would not have said
that we have to get from
32 to 60.
I would have saved you
the trouble and said,
in one year you're
not going to hit that.
I've--I think I've said I would
like to check a couple of things
on the background of AIR who
came from someone who is a
respected
professor at UW Green Bay.
I think my concerns there
probably will be allayed.
But I think--I
think that question,
do I put--do I give it a huge
amount of overwhelming weight?
Nope, but I think it was
enough--I think it was enough to
justify one more week.
And a little more time to show
how--because it's not just about
saying we're going to
bring--other schools will have
an opportunity.
I think it's showing.
Here's what the other--here's
where other schools will
physically get a chance.
Maybe there's some job opening
likes other schools may get
to do.
We could have a good--we
have good information.
And I would imagine people
probably have more opportunities
to talk to staff
over the next week,
but it's not really about that,
it's about these two things.
And I did make a motion
to postpone for a week.
So, we should deal with
that motion and then...
BRENDA: Yeah, okay.
Can we--we'll just second.
JOHN: I do have information
that would possibly affect your
decision as to whether or
not to move for another week,
and that would be that I will
not be here next week and
Dr. Weigant will not
be here next week.
We will not be in Green Bay, so
if there is new information that
would have to be shared, it
would have to be shared by
others, and so that
may influence things.
So, I just wanted to
put that out there.
I apologize for cutting in, but
I knew it might be something.
BRENDA: We should second
before--is there a second to
Andrew's motion?
We can continue the discussion.
KATIE: I will second it.
BRENDA: Okay, so go
ahead, Dr. Langenfeld.
MICHELLE: I think Mr. Becker, I
share the concern about what was
brought forward
by the professor.
I said I found that
confusing, much less troubling,
because that would not be
somebody or something that we
should take lightly or
dismiss if it's accurate.
So, that would
be--is there a way?
I mean, I think one of the
pieces that I have concerns
about, I don't know besides
creating greater clarity about
what that expectation with AIR
would be and what the additional
staff--what else could be
gained in a week's time.
What I would offer, and I don't
know how you take a vote with
the caveat that they are
aligned with what was shared,
that's problematic.
You know, I don't know how
you make that investment.
That would be the
only thing that I think,
I don't know that we can
know that answer today.
That part I can't.
What I can say is that I think
there's opportunity to create
and shape what those
expectations are with AIR within
that framework for our leaders.
I know there is opportunity
in my conversations and our
conversations
collectively with the AIR folks,
you know, what I heard
here, and I agree with you,
Andrew, some of these goals were
big and way ambitious within a
year and having
turned around a school,
I know you take
incremental baby steps forward.
But more importantly I go back
to if the board chooses to make
this investment,
one of the critical,
critical pieces that I will
offer that has to happen is that
as we set these metrics of what
this--what their investment is
looking like and what our
public's investment is looking
like is beyond just the
framework of the opportunity
that's laid out.
It talks about all the
additional coaching hours
in the metrics.
But again, as part of
the co-interpretation,
I recall, some of
this came out of that.
Is that accurate?
The metrics came out
of that discussion?
I'm not sure of that.
But more
importantly, that would be,
you know, if we're measuring
things other than these metrics,
they would have to be part
of that investment over time.
So, I put that out there.
I think that's the
opportunity out there,
and again, I don't know if
anyone wants to engage in a
company that was
described like we saw.
I'll be really honest, I
was taken aback by that.
BRENDA: So, other than the
complication of Judy and John
being gone, I mean, if we're--if
this motion is just asking for
some information, is there
someone else that can
provide that?
MICHELLE: We can
certainly provide it,
but I think the piece that I
would go is you wouldn't have
everyone at the table.
I think that, you know, we can
certainly lay some things out.
I can certainly help with that.
But I would certainly point out
that the advocacy piece in the
team that is here tonight really
represents the work and the ask,
and I join them in
that, obviously,
but I think that's an
important part of this.
You know, I don't know what
other discussion the board would
want to have, and make sure that
we have the right people at the
table to support the
work, so you know.
BRENDA: This is Andrew's
ask, so I'll ask Andrew.
ANDREW: I really think it's
just--it's a chance for everyone
to get a little
more clarification.
I think the administration's a
case for the positives of AIR
has been laid out.
I think the case, you know,
and if you're--again I say,
I'm not planning to do
this, whatever we do next,
you know, it's tricky, and
maybe you need a different word.
Maybe you need to
have certain, you know,
having 100% as a target
serves a strong purpose,
but it is a certainty
of missing the large,
and so, and so is,
statistically speaking,
so is taking anything that's
survey based from a 50 to an 85.
So, whatever happens next, I
think it just seems to me that
there were--a week
here is a good idea.
If not, vote no
on postponing it.
I don't think we'll need
three hours again next week.
I think there's just a couple
of--I'm sure it's probably not
the first time AIR's been
asked questions about the past,
or--so that's my request
is to delay for a week.
KRISTINA: I'm sorry,
Andrew, I don't want to wait.
We're talking about a
consultant company.
A lot of these turnaround
partner consultant companies
really aren't that
different, to be honest.
I really wasn't surprised by
some of the stuff that Andy had
talked about because I had
shared some of that stuff last
year when I came and talked
about the initial AIR proposal.
So, I appreciate that request
so that you can gather more
information, but I think we need
to make the decision tonight.
The other thing, too, I'll say
around the conversation around
the nine objectives and
the three out of the nine.
Here's the thing, if we wanted
to show that a high demand from
the teachers, because I agree,
people don't want to come and
talk, and that goes
whether they're happy
or not happy, right?
Whether they like it or not,
nobody wants to come forward.
But if you have those three
out of nine and you're saying,
okay, how am I going to
illustrate to the school board
that those teachers
absolutely want it,
we would have done a robust
teacher survey for Washington
Middle School that would
have said we need this,
we need this.
We need this.
And we don't have that.
We don't have that.
So, whether the teachers don't
want to come because they're
afraid, or the administration,
and AIR didn't build that into
their report.
At the end of the day the
data doesn't support it,
and the teachers haven't
demonstrated to us that they
wanted it and we haven't
surveyed them in a robust way
that communicates that.
I think we need to take the
vote tonight and move on.
RHONDA: I'm not sure if you're
listening to the conversation
around the process,
right, the turnaround process.
So, we have established,
and it was said again by the
superintendent that
we turnaround schools.
So, the process that lays the
groundwork for the turnaround,
potential
turnaround of a school,
it was told to me that
it was well thought out,
the co-interpretation
of setting metrics.
Now we're saying
we're questioning that.
So, it's interesting how we're
trying to hide from the fact
that three out of nine goals.
We don't...
BRENDA: Let's take a
vote on the first thing.
RHONDA: I'm sorry.
That's the third time
you've interrupted me.
Please let me finish.
I need to finish.
BRENDA: This isn't about the
question that's on the table.
This is about the next question
that may or may not be on
the table.
RHONDA: And that's fine, but I'm
just clarifying before we get
into something else.
And I would love to finish.
And I think it's important
because this probably won't be
the last time we do
this, we talk about this.
But if we can't attach ourselves
and be committed to the process
the district set in
place for this turnaround,
the metrics that were out there,
now we're not sure it's the
right thing because it doesn't
fit our narrative to
continue forward.
We have to be really
careful about that.
ANDREW: I'm not
changing the--what I'm doing,
what I'm saying is there is a
different purpose of a 100% goal
or an 85% goal.
I look at a goal like that as a
longterm target and not a make
or break after one year.
Because, like I said, I think
we all knew what the answer was
about getting from--getting
to 85% after one year.
The answer is no.
it's almost
physically impossible to do.
That--so that doesn't make sense
to me that not reaching 85 on
something in one year is the
same thing as missing other
types of targets
that are--again,
there are different
purposes to these targets.
The 100% target is a goal, it's
the with highest bar that you
can't set that you can't reach.
It's a reminder
to keep striving,
an 85% bar is a longterm target.
There isn't anybody that's going
to get you an 85% in one year.
But you don't want to
set low bars either.
So--but I do think, we do need
to make a decision on the delay
for a week, which I think is a
good idea that can clarify a few
more things.
I think we need to make
the decision on that.
All right, so we'll
take a roll call on that?
KATIE: Can I just address
that about this question?
BRENDA: All right.
KATIE: I'm more inclined to take
the vote tonight to defer what
Michelle issuing
about vetting out.
And then with the
option to not sign it.
Because I think we discussed it.
And that's my only
concern, too, Andrew.
That's the only
reservation I have.
That's the only
reservation I have.
I appreciate data.
I don't see data as a
black and white situation.
I also appreciate input from
teachers and administrators.
And when the leader of the
building tells me that it was
beneficial to have them there,
I'm going to trust her and I'm
going to support her.
But I think putting this off a
week is going to get us where we
need to be.
I think a vote tonight and
not sign if we find some
reason not to.
I would rather do that.
So, I will not
support your week delay.
ANDREW: I need to know
how that works legally.
Passing something,
and then saying,
but if we uncover
something that concerns us,
we're going to not sign?
[inaudible]
BRENDA: She said, the board
has offered the district the
option--the
opportunity to contract,
but it doesn't make it
binding, is that right?
Come forward.
Press the one with
the voice coming out.
MELISSA: We still need to
negotiate the contract.
You're authorizing us the
ability to enter in a contract,
to award the contract with AIR.
But there still is
the negotiations,
and sometimes after boards give
the district administration the
ability to contract, you're not
able to come to an agreement,
then a contract is
not entered into.
BRENDA: Okay, thanks.
All right, go ahead, John.
JOHN: Could we also?
If there is a agreement
that we're passing it based on
whether or not that
stipulation is met,
we could also work with AIR and
work amongst ourselves to put
together a more formalized plan
for what the turnaround practice
training could look like, not
that it would be shared as board
presentation, but it could be
something that could be shared
with the board
president and vice president,
if that was assuring.
LAURA: Are you talking about as
far as using it district wide?
JOHN: Correct.
BRENDA: Yes, thank you.
RHONDA: So, every time we do
something I try to think of
what's the headline,
what's the takeaway?
What is this
going to sound like,
look like?
So, the board asked for metrics
through a heavy duty process
that brought the community in.
No.
KATIE: Robert's Rules will tell
you that addressing the motion
that's on the table, and the
motion right now is to put this
off a week.
RHONDA: I'm going to get there.
I'm going to get there, though.
We're doing this, the board is
deciding we're going to put the
brakes on because we might
have uncovered somebody that's
involved in this group that
didn't deliver what they said
they would for the
money they're paid.
That's--this is
the headline, okay.
The brakes are put
on because of this.
So, the next time this
school district wants to go to a
referendum, this is what people
are going to remember and I
think it's
important that, you know,
we might have short memories
to help ourselves through this,
but the community
does not, thankfully.
So, holding it to uncover
some--even though what's put in
front of you, the
metrics that we ask for,
the, you know, process
asked for didn't deliver.
So, finding some other
reasons to ignore that is a very
slippery slope when it comes
to asking the community for
referendum money.
I just want to
lay that out there.
That's my thoughts.
Thank you for letting me speak.
BRENDA: Okay, we're voting on
whether or not to delay the vote
one week, yeah, Andrew's motion.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: No.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: No.
BRENDA: Did you push your...
LAURA: No.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTEN: No.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: No.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: No.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: No.
BRENDA: So, it
was, what's the word?
Defeated, thank you.
All of the sudden, defeated 6-1.
So, now we have the original
motion on the table that we vote
on tonight.
Sandy?
ANDREW: That doesn't mean
that discussion will necessarily
close down the
former, on the main motion,
unless someone
recalled the question.
BRENDA: Oh, so you
have something else?
ANDREW: So, why?
Do we have some idea as to
how the other schools would be
directly involved?
And I guess that--it was--my
reason for the delay was more to
give time to look at that
than it was about--I mean,
I take the other
thing seriously, too.
And I'm going to have
to decide not knowing.
I mean, any large organization
there's going to be some past
concerns, although this
is a pretty serious one.
JOHN: Sure, so when we work with
our principals on new content,
around new learning.
We value, just as we expect to
value our students and what they
bring to the table, we
value our principals as well,
and we look at it more as a
professional learning community
where we're taking knowledge
that's in the room already.
But also looking at where are
the lead learners in the school,
the principal, in
their continuum of growth.
So, thinking about, we don't
want to give a universal dosing
to everybody that's
exactly the same.
But we would be giving a general
summary and in great detail in a
environment that would be
supporting our principals in
thinking about best
adult learning practices.
So, it would be in an
environment that was
collaborative work together,
and that there was a partnering,
as you had mentioned
before, Mr. Becker,
where we would be allowing
principals to work with one
another, pair up,
work in groups,
as--and this is actually
something that is part of our
process that we're learning and
incorporating already that would
have been part of our retreat,
the second half of the retreat
is really different principals
are focusing on different areas
of improvement.
This would be an aspect where
particularly our ESSA principals
could be gathered together,
as well as others who are
interested in different
principal meeting time,
or other opportunity, and they
would actually receive content
training from the AIR
coaches that are coming in,
the people that have used
these practices in schools and
effectively turned around
multiple schools themselves as
principals, and now as coaches.
Thinking about that, there are
ways we work with our principals
when we're working on content.
Again, it's not just a lecture,
sit and get type approach.
It has to do with partnering
with principals on a regular
basis with coaching processes
as well a group work together.
And Dr. Weigant can explain a
little bit more about what that
process looks like.
JUDY: So, part of my work
as executive director for
secondaries is to work directly
with each individual principal,
as well as a collaborative
learning team and bringing the
principals together so that
the practices and so forth that
Cindy has learned at Washington,
and then the application of
those whether it is at Franklin,
as well as Edison and Lombardi,
we can all learn from those.
And those are monthly
meetings that are held.
And again, being able to
differentiate what that looks
like, because Lombardi is in a
much different place when it
comes to their systems and how
they are responding to--when it
comes to curriculum assessments
and instructional practices,
versus another school.
So, again, it will have
to be differentiated,
but again, all can learn from
the practices that are being
brought forward.
JOHN: Also, this process has
been done by AIR with
other districts.
And so, it will not be a problem
to reach out to AIR to share as
a template that we
could work from.
Of course, we want to
differentiate it based on the
needs of Green Bay.
But we can look at what that
planing and what that support
has looked like for other
districts that have contracted
for similar work and share that
so that people have access to
that as part of their
decision making process.
BRENDA: Laura.
LAURA: Maybe it would be a
good time to just think back.
A little over a year ago when
we were talking about hiring a
turnaround partner.
Can you just give us a brief
history lesson about how AIR was
vetted and how AIR was chosen?
Sorry about that.
JOHN: So, I'm trying--taking
a tired trip down memory lane
trying to recall.
We went through a
process of RFP,
request for proposals.
And we had established criteria
for what was it that we wanted
to seek in a turnaround partner,
and we laid that out for the
request for
proposals that was shared.
And we looked for submission
based on what we were
looking for.
There were a number of
turnaround partners that came
forward, not a vast number,
because again the--it's a market
economy in which the demand
is higher than the supply of
turnaround entities.
And so, when we looked at our
partners there were three that
we gave serious
consideration to.
And what we felt
was most effective,
as I remember correctly, is that
the model of application that
AIR had was clearer to us, and
that it really--the process of
the co-interpretation and how
they were going to listen deeply
to what the staff said and what
they would learn through the use
of data and the
conversations of staff,
that that was something that
we were very interested in.
It was also the
structure in which,
the way in which the
services were being delivered,
and that it focused on not
only instructional--change of
instructional practice, but it
also focused on cultivating the
leader, and making sure that new
leader was effective as well.
We had also done some work with
AIR with the training related to
the principal hiring practice
and administrator hiring
practice, which we changed
significantly in the district.
And that was a very productive,
satisfying product and process
that changed the way we hire
administrators and was involved
in our hiring of our Tank
principal position today,
as well as our
Franklin position.
So, those are things that we
looked at when we were making
that choice.
LAURA: And one of the
things I've heard regularly from
teachers, primarily,
but some administrators,
is how much superior the
hiring process is now,
the AIR process and
how effective it is,
and how much they like it.
Some of the teachers I've
spoken to have been part of that
process, so they're
really happy about that.
But I guess the bottom
line is AIR was fully vetted.
JOHN: Yes, it was fully vetted.
And then we also, when we went
over the proposals and went over
our proposals shared, we
had additional questions for
multiple entities what they
had brought forward for
their proposal.
And we based our decision not
only what was in the original
proposal, but what was
ascertained when we asked deeper
questions that we had to make
sure that we were aligning what
we needed with what the
service provider could agree to.
LAURA: Thank you.
BRENDA: Rhonda?
RHONDA: Okay, so we
just established that the
co-interpretation
process was solid,
that's what we're saying here.
And we're saying that AIR
listened deeply to staff and
they determined metrics.
So, we're going to
commit to the metrics,
I assume, based on
all that conversation,
I hope.
It was also just discovered and
communicated that Laura said AIR
was fully vetted,
and you agreed.
So, if that is the case,
then it's highly unlikely that
you--when you have discovered
something in the process,
or did you go into
the backgrounds?
I mean, I remember doing a glass
door search on AIR in general
and that--what I found
there was problematic,
that was another
part of my decision,
but we're--so we just
said they were fully vetted.
Now we have concerns
we're not sure if they ere.
So, again it's still a conflict.
I would like to wonder what
the principals of Sullivan,
Howe, Tank, what would they
do with an addition $200,000
for social/emotional behavior
challenges in their school.
I would love to be
there the day you actually,
you know, had that
conversation with them.
I wonder about the impact made
to take that money and actually
apply it to the schools that
feed into our most challenging,
I'm not going to say failure,
because I'm not going to say
that and I never have,
actually, by the way,
I've never said that word.
But the challenging schools
that we have that feed into our
middle schools.
What would it be
like to take $216,000
and apply that in ways
that we could use that for
social/emotional behavior
challenges in the classroom.
JOHN: Sure, great questions.
So, thinking about
the airing of AIR,
we looked at what were
the--whether or not they had met
criteria for us based on the
decision making that we had
based on what our need was.
We also looked at the résumés of
the people that had participated
and that would be
providing service,
to make sure that
they had solid,
reputable, multi school
change frame of reference.
And we also looked at the
schools in which they were
working to see, did
they deliver on results?
And the answers to
those questions were yes.
I'm very curious, too, about
information from 1994 and 2003
about, you know, work in
Thailand and other areas.
I would like to
learn more about that.
I heard recently that there was
a car crash is some community
and some wondered if it
was AIR related as well.
There are different
things that occur.
And I'm not
trying to make light.
I did make light.
RHONDA: Sorry, that was
actually kind of funny.
[laughter]
JOHN: So, yes, I
was making light.
We've been at it
for three hours.
But I don't know what happened
in Thailand during the Vietnam
War that wasn't part of
the screening process.
If they have been part of
serious transgressions,
that would be something that
morally would violate my code,
the superintendent's code, the
supervisor of school's code.
Thinking about would we
work potentially ever with a
Department of Defense school to
share information or research?
We might do that in
some point in some time.
But you could also say
that entity had a different
relationship to clandestine
activities and things of that
nature, too.
Where do we draw the line?
I would not want to work with
an organization that had really
serious, really deep
concern about that type of work.
So, that would be something
that would be a concern of mine.
The board did address three
major things that they wanted us
to focus on which is the price
tag is too much for gradual
release, we want to hear more
about what you're doing for
student behavior and
cultural discipline,
and what is your plan for
applying this throughout
the system?
So, based on that I really
appreciated that governance
piece because it
allowed us to reflect deeply,
go back to deeper
conversation and communication,
and come forward with what I
really believe is a better plan
to address behavior, to reduce
the amount of the contract,
and to make sure that we're
really deeply considering what
that change process looks like.
And when we talked about the
data from the co-interpretation,
they were agreed upon goals,
and there was a degree between
deeply attainable goal
and aspirational goal.
So, that's--what we're referring
to is when we set a 100% goal,
because we wouldn't want to
say 99% of the students at
Washington need to have a
positive relationship with at
least one adult,
because that would say,
who are the eight or nine
who aren't going to make it?
So, the aspirational
goals are in there,
and I think it's important to
have a mix of aspiration and
attainable goals.
But I would also say that if
we were in a plane that was
crashing, and the trajectory of
that plane was headed towards
the ground at a
pretty steep descent,
and we wanted to change the
trajectory of that plane,
and the plane evened out and
was beginning to climb a bit,
even though we might
not have achieved the
10,000 foot altitude
that we hoped for,
I would still be considerably
happy with that result and not
wanting to revert back
to our old strategy.
So, I would hope that there is
more than a black and white with
the data, and I think the
positive trajectory is really
where the proof
is in the pudding.
RHONDA: I'm going to just finish
that thought I was having.
So, we continue to talk about
the School Perception Surveys
and that seems to
be where, you know,
we're struggling
with the goals here.
It is, I'm sure most of us can
agree that student discipline
being handled,
operating as a team,
I believe that our schools
can do that without spending an
additional $200,000.
That's the
question on the floor,
on the table.
So, I'll give you
two more goals, okay.
So, we're up to
five out of nine.
We still are going to say that
we're not going to take this
money and put it into where
the needs are the greatest,
all right, the heavy duty
social/emotional needs that we
have in our schools.
We have money, we know
we do, it's on the table.
We could make some
serious impact with that money.
But we're deciding tonight
that we'd rather give it to an
outside consulting company
who did not deliver in their
contract agreement with us.
If I'm a journalist,
that's what I'm writing,
that's my headline, that's
what I would put in there,
and it's hard to defend
that because I cannot,
again, stress how the needs in
the schools of the students for
early intervention, coming
into Franklin and Washington,
if we're not willing to be
honest about that--I've set
through expulsion hearings,
I'm just going to say this,
and I've looked into the history
and I have consistently said
this, and I will
consistently repeat it.
We have students who have
significant needs in early
childhood, as well as in
the elementary school.
We have money, we all know this.
We have money we could put
into these schools right now to
address these needs.
But we are going to make a
decision to take that money and
apply it to a company that
didn't deliver what they were
supposed to, that was
part of a community process.
And I personally,
at this point,
the state of the district where
I have a daughter who is going
to be an eighth grader.
At this point I don't
care, quite honestly,
if someone is having
cocktails with Betsy DeVoss,
and is crafting
something that can make game
changing--significant
game-changing decisions for our
school district.
At this point I think we're--we
have to think about facts and
what we can do with our money.
And again, if you believe that
it's a good idea to give money
to people who didn't deliver,
good luck the next time that you
want to go to a referendum.
JOHN: I have one piece of
information that's an answer to
the second part
of your question,
which is, what can we
do with that money?
What would the
impact be on the schools?
Thinking about that
$216,000, it is a lot of money.
In the economy of
scale in the district,
unfortunately it's less than
one-tenth of a percent of our
district budget.
Still, though,
it's a lot of money.
So, what would that look
like if we dispersed that
$216,000 through--amongst
our multiple schools?
It would be
approximately $5,000.
If we--so we might look at
the question again and say,
so what if we dispersed just
amongst our neediest schools?
It would be
approximately $18,000.
And with $18,000 you could buy a
20th of one person's contract to
work with and service kids based
on the rough approximated value
of a certificated person.
That is valuable,
it does have value,
but if I'm looking at a tenth
of 1% or less to invest in the
whole district, to be a
changer of the way that we serve
universally, I would put my
money towards that investment as
opposed to $5,000 per school.
RHONDA: So, I spent some
time, not that long ago,
talking with a principal of a
Title I school who was crying to
me saying the aids that she
had I place through a grant
were disappearing.
And she talked about the
significant behavior changes
that she experienced and what
that looked like for her school
and her classrooms, and
the playground as well.
Incidents went down, she felt
the kids were just having a
better experience at school.
So, that was very valuable too
er and she was very concerned
about that.
So, these are the things I
think about when I think about,
you know, she's losing
that, those extra supports.
Sometimes it is just a matter
of somebody on the playground.
It is somebody to build
relationships and make
connections and be present, an
additional human being in front
of the students.
And I believed her, I believe
that she meant every word of it.
And I will stick to that.
I mean, we can say we don't have
enough money to make an impact.
But if we're willing to take
this and hang our hat on people
that didn't, you know, didn't do
what they were supposed to do.
I'm willing to gamble
that money and send,
you know, one lunch
aid, one playground aid,
somebody that this building
leader believed made a huge
difference in the
ability of their school.
So, we can dissect
this all we want.
The money didn't
deliver, we have it,
and we have needs.
Those are the
three things we know.
BRENDA: Is
everyone ready to vote?
KATIE: Yes.
ANDREW: I have one more thing.
How did we get to--I just
can't get past the fact that we
got--and I recognize that
different people will seek out
different board
members with an opinion.
Did we, I mean, where are--was
anything reflected in
survey comments?
Nothing?
No, no, not a separate survey,
but we did this school wide
survey that had
response comments.
RHONDA: We're not allowed to
have comments unless we're--the
board isn't allowed to have
comments unless related to
the board, so...
ANDREW: No, that's
actually not--first of all,
I wasn't necessarily asking
about reading specific comments.
Second, that
isn't how that works.
KRISTINA: But I think you're
exactly right that that is a
misstep, right, because that
would be able to bridge the gap
between who's saying what and
what staff is actually
looking for.
So, yeah, I mean, it's
definitely problematic.
RHONDA: So, then you
can agree, Andrew,
that you're making an
uninformed decision?
ANDREW: I don't agree.
But here's--my one
regret after this.
And I did multiple times,
I've been in Washington multiple
times, I've asked
multiple perspectives about AIR.
I guess I wish I
talked to more people.
But probably at some point
or another don't we all?
It's just very, I guess, what it
comes down to on this difficult
vote for me in the end is I'm
reminded of this rule that I set
for myself, and it
hasn't let me down yet.
That I used to get chewed out
by the paper by abstaining too
much, because I would do that if
I thought something had its good
parts and its bad parts, that
I had to be 85% on board with
something before I could
make a commitment to it.
And there's enough, there's
enough negatives that if,
and since we have
to vote tonight,
I could not honestly tell
people that I was 85% there.
Tonight I can't,
there's too many.
And it's not about--this
is not about Thailand.
This is not about
Thailand 20 years ago.
It's a little bit about, it's
maybe a little bit about charter
school advocacy, and it's
probably a lot about how we
have such deep
differences of opinion.
I hope that we will
get past this look at,
you know, taking away
positives that we heard here,
which is that we are--I think
we're committed to spending
money to make things better
in Washington and finding a
collaborative way to do that.
And I look forward
to our own next step,
and I don't--and I do think that
we gained a lot from what
we had.
And I do not think--and
I'll stand by this to the end.
The one year that we
did do was not a mistake.
I think we got a lot from that.
But that's--ultimately after
these three and a half hours,
I cannot tell people tomorrow
morning that I was 85% or more
on board tonight.
More than 50, but that's
not enough for this big
of a commitment.
BRENDA: Dr. Langenfeld.
MICHELLE: Just for
clarity's purposes,
we're talking about an
investment of about $215,000.
In terms of just getting
clarity from the board,
is the
expectation, Rhonda's model,
that we give the money
to each of the schools?
Is it Kristina's model that says
we're still investing in
the school?
I think one of my real concerns
now as we move forward without a
plan, I think what is really
unsettling now is to figure out
in mid-July what
that plan would be.
I think more importantly now is
to recognize that many of our
schools have additional resource
entitled dollars coming into
their schools.
And Washington does not.
Our middle schools don't
receive title dollars.
So, this investment, I mean, the
investment that was to be made
is for teachers, for
professional learning
for teachers.
And I think that the piece
around it is that if it's not
AIR, if we're talking about
professional development,
there's he social/emotional
learning piece that we're
working on collectively.
There's the investment of
the individuals that we
talked about.
And so, then the question is
what is the expectation of the
board moving forward so that I
have a team of people that are
working very hard to
be able to deliver.
I have a principal who is
counting on this resource,
or at least asking
for this resource.
The question is I'm not
sure she's counting on it.
What is the expectation now from
the board of education moving
forward, so that we have a very
clear direction of this vote,
what this vote really means?
Because I'm not sure I'm clear
anymore what the vote means.
So I'll just put it out there.
BRENDA: Kristina.
KRISTINA: Michelle, I think
we have a very clear plan.
AIR is a piece of a much
larger plan for Washington,
for Franklin, and
our school district.
So, when you say we
don't have a plan,
I actually would
respectfully disagree with you.
Because I think the plan speaks
to the work of you've got what
you have done, CHAMPS, and
Mike Friese and support systems,
and the behavior coach, and
all of that really great stuff.
That's fabulous.
We need to be committed
to that, in my opinion,
we should look at that and the
resources and the services that
AIR was going to provide.
And if it doesn't
pass, then okay,
say what of that
do we still need?
How do we connect with resource?
How do we provide those?
And what are some other
opportunities if we go back to
the staff and
survey them and say,
is there something else we could
be providing you beyond the
services of AIR, and how do
we do that with our community.
I don't--I think it's a
really critical question,
and I'm glad you asked it.
I think we would have to have a
decision and we would need to
have a much longer
discussion on that.
But I'm appreciative
that you brought up that.
MICHELLE: Thank you.
And I appreciate the plan.
I'm talking about the impact in
building capacity and teachers
for English language
arts and math as well.
And then question then becomes
is the board giving the staff
and the team the authority then
to go out and look for other
resources to provide that gap
in resources and support that is
needed, or is the expectation
to do more social/emotional,
and focus all the dollars there,
and not address the
academic components?
I'm just trying to gain clarity
on that because I think tomorrow
morning we're going to have to
have some conversations
with Washington.
That's all.
I put that there, so...
RHONDA: I hope that moving
forward we actually really get
into talking to the staff.
We talked to the monitors,
we talked to the SLA's,
student learning advocates,
we talk to the teachers,
the librarians, all of the
people that are really living
the decisions that we make.
I hope they're part of
how to spend this money,
how to move forward.
I really hope
they are, thank you.
BRENDA: Anybody else?
Go ahead.
MICHELLE: I just want
this clarity again,
so tomorrow morning, if
this were not to pass,
does the team have the ability
to go look for other resources
to invest in math and reading,
or is it one of those where we
go to staff and say, how
do you want to spend it?
BRENDA: My concern with going to
the staff as to how you want to
spend it is you get 50 different
opinions as to how it should
be spent.
And I think we've invested in
an organization that has a track
record of turning
around schools.
It feels very last minute
to just bail on a plan that,
again, a principal who
we've all agreed is,
I don't know if
we've all agreed,
but many have agreed
she is an excellent,
and she's looking at
what AIR brings to her,
and is a very
important tool moving forward,
not the only tool, and certainly
again we've talked about the
other investments
regarding behavior in there.
But I mean, I still am concerned
if we don't move this forward,
because now you're asking
a piece meal approach to
addressing math and ELA
instructional support in that
school, where it's
going to cost us money,
it's not going to be free.
When we have an organization
that's done this before,
and again, has that
positive track record.
And I just feel as if we're
letting the school down by our
last minute pull out of a plan
that they've been working
on for a year.
To Andrew's point,
it's the final year.
And I just, I--so I'm not
able to give you guidance,
because my position is
to move forward with AIR.
RHONDA: And I would
argue that I think,
and I've heard from teachers,
and I do value their voice,
but there would be much more
movement with the culture and
climate of the building being
balanced and being tended to in
a much more significant way.
I think from what I've been
told from a lot of teachers and
staff, until we actually get
control over that and we take a
lot of challenges in that area,
you can do all the professional
development you want, but that
is not addressed the way it n
needs to be, we're
wasting our money.
BRENDA: So, are you
okay with spending $216,000
at Washington for
mental health and behavior?
RHONDA: That's
actually not what I said.
I've been consistent when
I've been talking tonight about
making sure that the schools
that are coming into--we have
plans already.
We established that tonight with
regard to some services coming
into Washington, which I'm
very encouraged to hear.
I'm very happy about that.
I consistently talk about the
schools that are feeding into
Washington Middle School, and
that is where we should spending
the money.
When I look at the information
that I receive for expulsion
hearings, and the behaviors, and
how these kids basically get set
up into failure by the time
they get to middle school,
it's happening all in
the elementary schools.
I will never
steer away from that.
I will absolutely, hands
down, always fight for that.
BRENDA: Eric?
ERIC: I think that we've
invested a great deal
in Washington.
I think we have a great plan
going forward that I believe the
work of our staff has just as
much or more to do with the
success and
turnaround at Washington.
John, I appreciate you
saying that back to 2014.
You know, we've done something
similar to this before,
but where you're wrong
is we've never had you,
we've never had Judy Weigant,
we've never had Cindy Olson.
And we're better
than we were in 2014,
I believe.
We know more about trauma.
We've trained our
entire district.
And I also feel that, you
know, with respect to the
conversations around the
negative atmosphere and the
negative talk
around the community,
we need to get past that.
And ultimately what made my
decision tonight is that I
believe that continuing to
contract with AIR keeps that
negative vibe in the community.
And that, again, it wasn't easy,
but that's what I see is that
contracting with AIR,
when we talk about a plan,
Washington never knew that, we
never talked about this was a
year-two.
So, this was never
part of the plan.
I do respect Cindy Olson's
opinion that resonates a lot
with me.
But I look at what
we have in place.
We're increasing in other areas
that we haven't done this
past year.
And if you came forward
with another recommendation to
provide services that was
informed by the voices and
across the district, I'd be
wiling to listen to that.
And I understand that
sounds counterintuitive,
and I apologize.
I can imagine what it's going to
be like to come to work tomorrow
and to feel like, but don't want
you to feel like you're
starting over.
I want you to get
the message that me,
personally, I guess
talking for myself,
believe in you and support you.
And I look forward to
helping out however I can,
to be a part of the
turnaround process.
And I just can't get
behind that contract.
I don't know if that
provides anymore clarity.
That's where I'm at and
where I'm coming from.
And willing to listen to
conversations around what we do,
to continue to help all
schools in our district,
because I think we've got a good
plan to help out Washington
next year.
BRENDA: All right,
are we ready to vote?
Sandy?
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: No.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: No.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTEN: No.
SANDY: McCoy.
LAURA: Yes.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: No.
BRENDA: All right,
it's defeated 4-3.
Next, we move to our
regular board meeting.
Is there anybody?
First is our open forum.
Is there anyone who would
like to speak in our open forum?
Seeing none we'll move on to
our teaching and learning
work session.
That'll be facilitated by Katie.
KATIE: Thankfully
we have one item.
And the motion is that pursuant
to Wisconsin statute section
120.12(13)(b), the list and
the description of the 2019-'20
school academic standards
in the areas of mathematics,
science, reading and writing,
geography and history as
presented and with
said academic standards,
constituting the Board-adopted
standards that are required
under Wisconsin statute section
118.30(1g)(a) be approved.
ERIC: Second.
[inaudible]
KATIE: It's written as a
motion, it's to be discussed.
This is something [inaudible].
It cut me off.
Just back off.
I read it as a motion,
and you did.
And you did, that's good.
I appreciate that usually.
BRENDA: Is there any questions?
KATIE: This is something
that we have to do annually.
Hearing nothing, we'll move that
forward and that concludes the
teaching and
learning work session.
BRENDA: All right, so I'll
entertain the motion to go back
into closed session.
KATIE: Okay,
organizational, yeah.
BRENDA: Okay, sorry, I
can go through that.
Organizational work session,
that'll be facilitated by
Andrew, sorry, Andrew.
ANDREW: Okay, we have no
items on organizational support.
That doesn't mean things didn't
happen in that department,
but it was either covered in the
special or certainly there will
be some late hires that will go
into the superintendent's report
next month.
So that concludes my report.
BRENDA: All right, so, then
now I will entertain adjournment
into closed session.
LAURA: So moved.
BRENDA: Probably should read it.
You don't have to reread it?
KATIE: Thank you.
BRENDA: All right, so is there
a second with Laura's movement?
KATIE: Second.
BRENDA: Okay, Sandy?
Sandy?
Oh, sorry.
SANDY: That's okay.
McCoy.
LAURA: Aye.
SANDY: Shelton.
KRISTEN: Aye.
SANDY: Becker?
ANDREW: Aye.
SANDY: Maloney?
KATIE: Aye.
SANDY: Sitnikau?
RHONDA: Aye.
SANDY: Warren.
BRENDA: Aye.
SANDY: Vanden Heuval.
ERIC: Aye.
BRENDA: Carried 7-0.
We'll convene across the hall.
[shuffling]
♪♪
ANNOUNCER: You have been
watching the Green Bay Area
Public School District's Board of
Education meeting. Please visit
the school district's website,
www.GBAPS.org to view the
program again.
♪♪
ANNOUNCER: If you cannot fully
access the information on this
video, please censor the
accessibility issue you're
having by calling
920-448-2025, or by emailing at
communications@GBAPS.org.
We will try to provide
information to you in an
alternative format and/or make
the necessary improvements to
make information accessible.
♪♪
