After presenting a preliminary recommendation to close EMID schools at the last board meeting, the member district superintendents came forth with a second recommendation: keep EMID schools open without spending any integration revenues on the schools themselves. The board will vote on both options, to close and to restructure, at its next meeting on Wednesday, October 19, at 5:30pm at Crosswinds.
The proposed restructuring of EMID finances would reduce member district contributions of integration funds by 43% to $30 per student and require that this money only be spent on the shared services EMID provides for member districts. The schools would be funded through the “per pupil ‘backpack’ money” that each student brings to EMID and an additional contribution per student from the EMID reserve funds. EMID has enough reserve funds to maintain this arrangement for two to four years while the state works out what to do with integration funding and EMID discerns what should be done with the schools in the long run.
It looked quite likely that the board would vote next week to not close the schools but to restructure the funding instead. However, both these options will be moved and both will be voted on, so there is still the very real chance the board could vote to close EMID schools at the end of this school year. We hope EMID families can find time to attend this critical meeting of the EMID board next week. There is a good chance the news will be positive, but a positive outcome is much more likely with the public keeping careful watch on the board’s work.
We will be posting recordings and notes from the 10/12 work session as soon as possible. Please check this page again soon.
Documents
The member district superintendents shared a draft of their white paper, reproduced here. Hopefully they will eventually fix some of the more embarrassing mistakes, like the consistent misspelling of Harambee! (Update: a revision with Harambee correctly spelled was shared with us on 11/16/11.)
Robicheau’s introduction of the topic
The work session began with a presentation by Superintendent Wells of what became knows as “option 1″ for the rest of the meeting. This spells out again the recommendation shared last month that EMID close its schools.
Wells presentation of option 1
This was followed by a presentation by Superintendent Thein of what the board came to call “option 2″. This describes an alternative recommendation that EMID restructure its finances in such a way that the schools could operate without expending any integration revenue.
Thein presentation of option 2
The board then had an extensive discussion of these two options. They seemed to conclude that there would not be enough votes at the table to carry “option 1″ and began to explore the realities of implementing “option 2″. However, it was stressed repeatedly that both options, school closure and financial restructuring, would be voted on by the EMID board next week.
EMID board discussion of options 1 and 2Notes
We have notes from two sources. Mary wrote up her notes of the meeting after it concluded and Eric cleaned up the tweets he sent during the meeting. These two sets of notes are both informal and may not be fully accurate, but you can compare them to the audio above. Note also that personal asides are scattered throughout, sometimes in brackets, sometimes not.
Mary’s Notes
The board opened their meeting by introducing the superintendents who were present. A draft “white paper” written by the superintendents was circulated, which contained basic history of EMID, two proposals for what to do, and an extended appendix which appeared to be largely an email from someone in WMEP explaining how they operated (it was written in the first person, but there was no attribution made).
[I would note, editorially speaking, that quite apart from the substance of the proposals, the paper consistently spelled Harambee wrong, and was full of grammatical errors and typos.]
Dr. Wells, superintendent of Inver Grove Heights, gave a presentation pointing to all of the kinds of shared services EMID might imagine creating, if they focused their work on “collaboration that could help all 120,000 students.” Her presentation was meant to give detail to option 1 that the superintendents’ “white paper” proposed. Option 1 is to close the schools and focus on shared services. She emphasized AVID, shared early literacy (both English and math), and a variety of other proposals which, as she pointed out, are already aligned with the legislative proposals made in the last biennium.
Dr. Thein, superintendent of the Roseville schools, then presented option 2, which was a brand new option that would keep the schools open at least through the 2013–2014 school year by draining down the reserve funds balance to supplement the per pupil foundation funds (the so-called “backpack” funds) for the schools, and then sending all of the integration funds to shared services or the member districts. He noted that depending on how that option is implemented, there might be enough funds to keep the schools open as long as four years, but that there would undoubtedly have to be major changes in their operation.
This option seemed to elicit a lot of interest on the part of the board members, particularly since it was aimed at increasing the “fairness and equity” of the whole collaborative by leveling the funds being spent per pupil. There seemed to be a significant sense – coming from both the board members and the superintendents – that the EMID per pupil spending has been too high, and cannot be justified to their respective districts.
[I would note, editorially, that Shari’s presentation at the last board meeting actually suggested that EMID school spending per pupil was in the middle of the range of what is now being spent by the various districts.]
Various board members then raised several questions of the superintendents and made statements of their own. Directors Gelbmann, Morehead, Gogins, and Brodrick seemed receptive to the second option, or at least noted that they are “on the fence.” Directors Vujovich, Swanson and Gillette did not venture anything other than questions. Director Prokopowicz seemed quite opposed to this second option, and Director Forsberg questioned whether this might be simply another case of “kicking the can down the road.”
At one point Director Gelbmann said he could count (by which he meant potential votes), and said that it seemed like there were not six votes to close the schools – that is, to take option 1 as proposed by the superintendents. Discussion then ensued as to what should be the likely next process. Director Gillette pointed out that no votes could be taken at this meeting, as it was only a work session. Eventually the board agreed that there would be two votes taken at next week’s meeting (Oct. 19th, Crosswinds, 5:30 pm). First a vote, up or down, on option 1 to close the schools. Then, depending on that vote, if that was voted down (or not even moved and seconded), a vote, up or down, on whether to accept option 2.
There was then discussion about what information was necessary before taking those votes. No one seemed to need more information on option 1. Several people suggested that since the timing is different for option 2 – if the schools are going to stay open, there’s no need to move so quickly – then information could be sought on implementing that option at the time that that option is chosen.
Director Gillette spoke at some length about using a “Teamworks” process for developing a “Guiding Change” document, depending on the votes next week, to determine both what the board desires and what the board would not want to happen. There seems to be an emerging consensus that one thing they desire is for most or all of the integration funding to either flow directly back to the member districts, or to be used only for shared services (which they apparently do not see the schools as providing).
Eric’s Notes
Amazing, supers white paper consistently misspells Harambee!
We are listening to Wells, super of IGH.
Wells says “none of this is decided.” [What have they been doing, then, and why moving so fast?]
Not a thing exists today from when collaborative started, Wells says. [I guess there is no racism any longer.]
Calling their first presentation “the power of ten” with strategy of “identify the goals”.
Interesting slide of timeline, I hope we get this presentation. EMID-SOS saying that supers have been talking about this since 2007.
Wells just said we should “use up” the $60k of DMC funds. But we already have done that!
Off into the weeds, this presentation has no coherence and does not suggest any actual direction. All buzzwords.
Does she even realize that EMID is already running AVID and a magnet school keeps kids from running hither and yon?
Wells notes that some of her ideas are “not competitive” and “don’t steal students from your districts.” [So choice == stealing?]
[Suburbs clearly hope to focus on literacy without any focus on white privilege or racism.]
Q&A now, Gelbmann talks about his two kids of color and a summer program by EMID that went away.
Gelbmann asks how we would get from present to future Wells identified as quickly as proposed.
Wells: I will volunteer to make it happen. EMID-SOS [Then where have you been?]
Hoeppner: why would it be necessary to close to schools to accomplish what you recommend?
Wells: so we can focus and use resources well. Schools distract, keep us from focussing.
[Why does the EMID board resent the 120 students from 622 that it INVITED to stay in EMID?]
Right now we just “dabble” in shared services.
Now moved on to presentation by John Thein, super of Roseville.
Thein: Change is coming, we need to prepare, plan, and take time for families and students.
Thein: EMID not just schools, also integration services and shared services.
Thein now presenting budget numbers.
Thein contrasting 2003/04 with 2011/12 funding models. Describing move from backpack + levy dollars to backpack + integration dollars.
Thein now presenting a supers proposal that EMID lower the integration contribution to EMID to $30 from $52. A stool with three legs.
Leg one: earmark all integration money exclusively for shared services.
Have EMID run schools with backpack money and some other funding.
How to fund the gap for operating schools? Reserves.
This is a return to something more like the 2003 funding model.
EMID could dip into the fund balance (our reserves) with board permission. Notes that grandfathered students’ districts also paid into reserves.
Note, Thein’s proposal would keep the schools open.
Thein noting all the shared services already being offered by EMID, and opportunities to expand.
Thein: stay the course for 2012/13, but with new funding model. Consider task force recommendation in Feb 2012. next step 2013
Now Q&A for Thein.
Thein: these are ALL our kids, let’s not pit EMID district kids against home district kids.
Question: would responsibility for school shift to one member district? Thein: wise to work together while we have find balance.
Thein: EMID schools could be lab schools for all of us. We can learn from them, they can learn from us.
Hoeppner notes that to be valid lab schools EMID schools must lower cost to similar dollar per student as home districts.
Thein notes that most home districts do benefit from greater efficiency of scale.
Thein praises the strong honeycomb design of Wells and says that we can work together.
Gelbmann asks which option the supers are recommending, closure or not?
Thein: we can count votes, we are giving you an option. We need to change. EMID schools have to come into line.
Porter of South Washington County says that closure is the preferred option, but reforming funding is an alternative for the board.
Porter: current funding model creates “intolerable differentiation.”
Gelbmann: I am on the fence. But I don’t close schools lightly.
Gelbmann: I also have to consider the students of color from sowashco who are supposed to be benefiting from integration funding.
Note, Thein model does not spend integration funds on the schools at all. Only backpack and reserve dollars go to schools.
Morehead says that second option is attractive because it gives us time to review the task force and legislative actions.
Goggins appreciates the creativity of a second option.
Vujovich heartened by the second option, looking for a win win option. Change is coming and a lot of great things will happen.
Brodrick thanks everyone for a second option.
Prokopowicz asks who will lead the district if we don’t shut it down? Who will lead the district? [How about KG?]
Thein takes a stab, reminds that 2012 will change the game. Asks for Jerry to stay.
Porter notes there is no ideal option.
Prokopowicz asks for a mechanism to guarantee that by June of next year these issues are resolved.
Prokopowicz asks who will build the bridge to the future?
Porter says he can support the second recommendation, with some reluctance, because it could maintain the collaborative.
[I wonder if the Perpich option really scared them?]
Gillette takes step back to strategic planning process. Now studying and narrowing options.
[And EMID-SOS needs to be counting votes.]
Gillette suggest focus on visions and goals, then set plan in place, set parameters for administrators.
Robicheau: respect to supers who looked beyond closing schools. Notes the schools will look different a year from now, even if open
[Note, the board now referencing closure as “option 1″ and restructuring finances as “option 2″, both of which are superintendent options which are totally distinct from the three consultant options discussed at the last board meeting.]
Prokopowicz says option 2 is asking the board to spend reserves to keep these schools open in hopes that something special develops.
Gillette points out that we can “be creative with the fund balance” and put it toward shared services, not just the schools.
Foresberg wonders if reliance on the fund balance is just kicking the cans down the road like the legislature.
Brodrick responds that it is a fairness issue. Embedded in option two will be less money for these schools, simple as that.
Brodrick notes the board may have to be more hands on during the next few months and years given the drop in per pupil funding.
[Board is under illusion that EMID spends more per pupil now, but there are currently home districts that spend more than EMID!]
Swanson has question of expectations for board. What are our expectations for November meeting?
Gelbmann notes decision is not in Nov but actually next week. Closing the schools would need to start with a vote to recommend this action next week.
Gelbmann notes option 2 would not require a public hearing, but board would have to rule out closing next week.
Morehead: compliments to the staff for putting up with so much change and disruption over and over in the last few years.
Gillette again stresses that if they want to close the schools they have to act on that next week. Vote on option 2 will be on the agenda next week.
Both options will be on the agenda next week. Closure and restructuring funding.
[My hero this evening? Shari Thompson! She seems to have put the numbers in Thein’s hand that he then used to build “option 2″.]
Gelbmann does not see votes for closure. “Let’s save the community a week of grief.”
[Back from a brief recess.]
Swanson has question about option 2, more clarification of structure of backpack aid and how fund balance would be used.
Wells says board would decide.
Swanson also asked if this requires change to joint powers agreement. [Nobody answers this, that I heard.]
Robicheau notes that the fund balance can’t dispurse back to the member districts.
Gillette suggesting a teamworks (?) guiding change document for the board.
Prokopowicz says that he does not need any additional information about option 1 since it is probably not going to go through.
Prokopowicz suggests putting two action items on the agenda and put them each to an up or down vote. Option 1 may not even be moved and seconded.
Prokopowicz: the strategic plan is so far off the table.
Gillette calls for any remaining questions about the option to close the schools.
Gillette notes the distinction between 3 DMC options and 2 superintendent options.
Foresberg suggests plan for closing after 2013 with no new kindergarten or 6th grade students in 2012/13. [This goes over like a lead balloon.]
Gelbmann also likes concept of certainty, but politics is the art of compromise and supers support it.
Gelbmann notes that delayed closing after 2013 would lead to staff flight and poor quality results for students remaining.
Gillette asks for questions and info needs about option 2.
Gelbmann has a lot of questions about option 2 but does not want supers working on this until after board action.
Gillette moves forward with “preparing for planning.”
[I wonder what this teamworks guiding change document is?]
Board member suggests that, for example, no use of integration funding for the schools would be a part of the document.
Goggins wants supers to help fill in the guiding change parameters.
Tensions among board members starting to show. Looks like time for this meeting to end.
The meetings closes. Whew! Next week’s 10/19 board meeting is at 5:30 at Crosswinds.
