Agenda.NET Shelby County Board of Education

e|agenda.NET
Shelby County Board of Education

Shelby County Board of Education Business Meeting Agenda - December 20, 2011

Shelby County Board of Education Business Meeting Agenda - December 20, 2011
I. Roll Call II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Moment of Silent Meditation IV. Approval of Agenda

1. Approval of Agenda

V. Recognitions

2. Spotlight on the Arts 3. Recognition of MEA Holiday Card Contest Winners 4. Recognition of Milken Award Recipient, Meah King 5. Recognition of Fred Johnson

VI. Board Business Affairs
A. Approval of Minutes

6. Approval of Minutes from the Special Called Board Business Meeting - November 22, 2011

Attachment: 11.22.11 Special Called Minutes.pdf
7. Approval of Minutes from the November 29, 2011 Business Meeting
Attachment: 11.29.11 Board Minutes.pdf
8. Approval of Minutes from the Board Work Session Minutes from December 13, 2011
Attachment: BWS Minutes - 12.13.11.pdf

Page 1 of 234

B. Other

9. Request from Collierville High School PTSA and SGA
Attachment: CHSsignRequest.pdf Attachment: SCSPolicy1007Naming of Schools and School Facilities.pdf Attachment: CHSMap.pdf

10. Board Self-Evaluations: Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools
Attachment: Shelby County Board Evaluation Results2011.pdf Attachment: Previous MCS Board Operations Policy -1.7012 Board SelfEvaluation and Planning.pdf Attachment: MCS Board Self-Evaluation.pdf Attachment: MCS Board Self Evaluation Summary and Results 2010 and 2011.pdf

11. NSBA 2012 Conference
Attachment: SCS Policy 0017.pdf Attachment: NSBA2012.pdf

VII. Reports
A. Transition Planning Commission

12. Transition Planning Commission Report - December

B. Chairman

13. Chairman's Report

C. Ad Hoc Committee Board Training

14. Board Training Ad Hoc Committee Report

D. Ad Hoc Committee Community Outreach/Engagement

15. Community Outreach Engagement Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Report

E. Ad Hoc Committee Internal Board Organization

16. Internal Board Operations Ad Hoc Committee Report

F. Ad Hoc Committee Legislative

17. Legislative Affairs Ad Hoc Committee Report

G. Superintendent-Shelby County Schools

Page 2 of 234

18. Superintendent John Aitken's Report

H. Superintendent-Memphis City Schools

19. Superintendent Kriner Cash's Report

VIII. Citizens Comments-On Agenda Items IX. Consent Agenda
Action Items-Memphis City Schools-Contracts

20. STEM Academy: $690,174.00
Attachment: STEM Virtual High School Lab (2).pdf Attachment: STEM Scope Sequence1.pdf Attachment: 20111208171140444.pdf

21. Efficacy Institute: $866,750.00
Attachment: Efficacy Work Authorization # 5 Dec 2011 to June 2012.pdf Attachment: Efficacy Continuation Resolution (2).pdf

22. The New Teacher Project: $1,256,171.02
Attachment: TNTP Resolution 12-20-11.pdf Attachment: TNTP Work Authorization #6 Jan to July 2012.pdf

23. Center for Transformative Teacher Training (CT3): $566,000.00
Attachment: CT3 Resolution 12-20-11.pdf Attachment: CT3 Contract.pdf

24. Memphis Marriott Downtown: $82,350.00
Attachment: Marriott 2012 Forum for Innovative Leadership Contract.pdf Attachment: Marriott 2012 Forum for Innovative Leadership Resolution.pdf

25. Memphis City Schools Foundation: $436,320.00
Attachment: MCS Foundation Fiscal Agent Agreement 2012.pdf Attachment: MLC Board Resolution FINAL - December 2011 (2).pdf Attachment: Com_ Lit Fall 2011.pdf

26. Iglesia Nuevia Vida-Lirio De Los Valles Church: $350,000.00
Attachment: Iglesia Nuevia Vida-Lirio De Los Valles Church LOI.pdf Attachment: Iglesia Nuevia Vida-Lirio De Los Valles Church Resolution.pdf

Action Items-Memphis City Schools-Bids, Purchases and RFP

Page 3 of 234

27. FM: Design and Construction: Design & Construction: New K-5, 1200 Student School: Construction of a New Building: $14,919,709.00

Attachment: BWS 12-20-2011 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SOUTHEAST K-5 1200 Student School 22-42763-R-01.pdf

28. FM: Warehousing/Inventory Control: Custodial Supplies to Replenish Warehouse Stock: $104,602.68

Attachment: BWS 12-20-11 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT T8 ULTRAMAX FLORESCENT BULBS 1106310T18.pdf

29. FM: Facility Improvement: Georgian Hills Elementary School: Playground Construction: $69,372.81

Attachment: BWS 12-20-2011 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT GEORGIAN HILLS ELEM. PLAYGROUND CONSTRUCTION 21-41793-R-01.pdf

30. FM: Facility Improvement: Treadwell Elementary School: Chiller Purchase: $36,820.00

Attachment: BWS 12-20-2011 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TREADWELL ELEM. CHILLER 21-45124-R-01- EMERGENCY PURCHASE.pdf

31. AOTI: School Operations: External Evaluator for Teacher Incentive Fund 3 Grant: $229,980.00

Attachment: BWS 12-20-2011 AOTI - EXTERNAL EVALUATOR FOR TIF3 22- 19059-R-01.pdf

32. BOLT: Nutrition Services: Miscellaneous Frozen, Dry & Staple Items for the 2011-2012 School Year to Replenish Warehouse Stock: $590,788.80

Attachment: BWS 12-20-11 BUSINESS OPERATIONS NUTRITION SVCS 2011- 2012 MISC. FROZEN, DRY & STAPLE ITEMS.pdf

33. Common Core 4th Grade Classroom Libraries
Attachment: 4thGradeClassroomResolutionLetter December 11 2011.pdf Attachment: Classroom Libraries - 4th Grade Titles.pdf

Action Items-Memphis City Schools-Grants

34. Tennessee First to the Top: Renewal Schools Award - Year 2: $631,586.00
Attachment: Board_Packet_Form_FTTT_Renewal_ 2011-2012_rev.pdf
35. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development: $75,000.00

Page 4 of 234

Attachment: TN Dept of Labor and Workforce Dev Grant 12-20-11.pdf Attachment: TN Dept of Labor and Workforce Dev Resolution 12-20-11.pdf

Action Items-Memphis City Schools-Other Items

36. MCS October 2011 Financial Statements
Attachment: 2011 10 October Financial Statements (2).pdf

Approval of Consent Agenda

37. Approval of Consent Agenda - December 20, 2011

X. Discussion Agenda XI. New Business XII. Citizens Comments-Not on Agenda XIII. Adjournment

Page 5 of 234

Agenda Item #1

Title

Approval of Agenda

Description Recommendation

It is recommended that the Shelby County Board of Education approve the agenda for the December 20, 2011 Business Meeting Agenda.

My Contact Financial Impact

Page 6 of 234

Agenda Item #2

Title

Spotlight on the Arts

Description Recommendation My Contact Financial Impact

Page 7 of 234

Agenda Item #3

Title

Recognition of MEA Holiday Card Contest Winners

Page 8 of 234

Agenda Item #4

Title

Recognition of Milken Award Recipient, Meah King

Page 9 of 234

Agenda Item #5

Title

Recognition of Fred Johnson

Page 10 of 234

Agenda Item #6

Title

Approval of Minutes from the Special Called Board Business Meeting - November 22, 2011

Description Recommendation

It is recommended that the Shelby County Board of Business Meeting on November 22, 2011.
Education approve the minutes from the Special Called Board

My Contact Financial Impact

Attachment: 11.22.11 Special Called Minutes.pdf

Page 11 of 234

DRAFT

SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
O F THE
BO ARD O F EDUCATIO N O F SHELBY CO UNTY SCHO O LS
TUESDAY, NO VEMBER 22, 2011

8:41 P.M.

SCS BO ARD

MR., W ILLIAM E. O RGEL, CHAIRMAN

MS. SARA L. LEW IS

DR. JEFF W ARREN, VICE CHAIRMAN MR. CHRISTO PHER CALDW ELL DR. SNO W DEN CARRUTHERS MR. ERNEST CHISM
MS. BETTY J. MALLO TT MR. RAPHAEL MCINNIS MR. DAVID PICKLER MR. REGINALD PO RTER, JR.

MR. DAVID REAVES

MR. JO SEPH CLAYTO N

MS. STEPHANIE GATEW O O D MS. DIANE GEO RGE MS. TO MEKA HART
MS. PATRICE J. RO BINSO N

DR. KENNETH T. W HALUM, JR.

DR. FREDA W ILLIAMS
MR. MARTAVIUS D. JO NES MS. TERESA JO NES
MR. MICHAEL W ISSMAN MR. KEVIN W O O DS
MS. VANECIA KIMBRO W

ABSENT

MR. ERNEST CHISM

Page 12 of 234

November 22, 2011

A P P RO VA L O F A G EN D A

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Shelby County Board of Education approve the agenda for the November 22, 2011 Special Called Meeting.

Commissioner Warren moved to approve the agenda and Commissioner Reaves seconded. Chairman Orgel called for a voice vote and with 22 Ayes and 1 Absent, the agenda was approved.

CITIZENS CO MMENTS O N AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSIO N AND ACTIO N ITEM

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Shelby County Board of Education approve the recommendations of the Superintendents regarding Charter School Applications.

Chairman Orgel recognized Superintendent Cash. Superintendent Cash: Staff has worked all weekend on these applications. In our cabinet meeting today, we vigorously reviewed and vetted the applications and the impact that the work of the committee that reviewed the applications will have on the district going forward. When I looked at the data presented, it became glaringly clear that Memphis City Schools cannot now, and into the future, withstand the financial impact that this many charter schools each year would have on the district. He noted that Deputy Superintendent Hamer would read the recommendation into the record and that CFO Pamela Anstey would present a graphic showing what the financial impact would be now and down the road.

Dr. Hamer: I would like to remind the Board that last month we brought to you a number of charter school applications, most of which were denied, however, they had an opportunity to amend their applications and resubmit. This evening, I would like to do two things, read to you our recommendation, and refer you to a statute that supports the recommendation that we are making. MCS received fourteen amended charter school applications since the last time the Board convened. It is the recommendation of this administration that we deny all fourteen amended applications pursuant to TCA 49-13-108. He noted that this provision allows a local Board of Education to deny an amended application because of a substantial negative fiscal impact that approval would have on the district. The sponsors of the proposed schools are listed in the materials that have been distributed to you. Among the fourteen applications, two were denied on merit in addition to the fiscal impact they would have on MCS. For the record, I would like to advise you of TCA 49-13-108 section 3-b-1. If you would indulge me, I will read to you what that provision says, and advise you that it constitutes the basis of our recommendation for the denial of these fourteen applications.

TCA 49-13-108 section 3-b-1: “Prior to approving or denying a charter school's application, the local board of education may consider whether the establishment of the charter school will have a substantial negative fiscal impact on the LEA such that authorization of the charter school would be contrary to the best interests of the pupils, school district or community. If the local board of education denies an initial application in whole or in part for this reason, the local board of

education shall provide” a series of information requests to the treasurer of the state of Tennessee. Superintendent Cash noted that the General Counsel is also on board with this recommendation.

Page 13 of 234

~ 2 ~

November 22, 2011

Presentation by CFO Ms. Anstey:

Page 14 of 234

~ 3 ~

November 22, 2011

Ms. Anstey: This graph shows data on the impact of our charter schools for the last several years. In SY 2003-2004 we started out with three charter schools and a $1.9M budget. In the current year, we have twenty-five charter schools and a budget of $51M. We have already approved two charter schools for FY 2012-2013 at our last meeting. With that, and the built in growth for grades and sections in the application of each charter school, there will be an increase in budget of $11M for FY 2012 - 2013. On an annual basis, we increase charter schools 2-3 per year. From the 2003 – 2004 SY we have gone from three charter schools to twenty-five. We approved KIPP at the last meeting not knowing which ones would come back or which ones would not. If we approve the 12 (twelve) applications on merit we would increase our budget expenditure for charter schools to $87M next year, which would be an additional $24M. What the statute refers to is how you could cut your budget to accommodate that. A problem is that we do not know where these charter schools will be located, and we do not know where the students would come from. It would impact our TEI, we would have to adjust our staffing, and there would be other implications.

Page 15 of 234

~ 4 ~

November 22, 2011

Ms. Anstey: This chart looks at the average increase of ten schools for the next five years. By year 2016- 2017, we would be at $184M in expenditures for charter schools.

Superintendent Cash noted that, if approved, and per the TCA statute, the LEA has to submit to the state a full rationale and justification of the impact on the district within five days.

Chairman Orgel recognized Superintendent Aitken. Superintendent Aitken noted that since the last meeting SCS has received three amended charter school applications. One, Global Leadership Academy was denied on merit, the other two had satisfactory scores, but as we have talked to Superintendent Cash, and in moving toward a merged district, we share the same concerns of the fiscal impact that this would have on us. He stated that his recommendation for SCS is to deny the three charter school applications.

Commissioner Warren: So we denied the two charter schools that failed on merit as one separate thing, and the others as financial damage?

Page 16 of 234

~ 5 ~

November 22, 2011

Attorney Hopson: It can all be done at the same time, just different reasons and different procedural steps the administration would take when discussing the matter with the state.

Commissioner Warren: Should we deny them for two reasons then. It is my understanding that if we deny them for financial considerations and they really were denied for merit, they can appeal, and if the financial is overturned then the merit has not been overturned.

Attorney Hopson: That is correct, and for clarity you should probably do two motions. Commissioner Warren moved that the Board support the superintendent’s recommendations to deny the appropriate 3 (three) from Shelby County Schools for financial considerations, and 10 (ten) of the 12 (twelve) from Memphis City Schools for financial considerations and 2 (two) on merit.

Superintendent Aitken noted that for SCS one was denied on merit and two for financial considerations. Commissioner Warren took that as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Robinson seconded the motion. Commissioner Whalum: For clarity, Ms. Anstey I believe stated, ‘we don’t know where the schools would be and we don’t know where the students would come from’. How is that so?

Superintendent Cash: What Ms. Anstey is referring to is the specific location of the charter schools has not been determined. What is in the applications are the regions, or zip codes where the charter schools would like to set up operation. He also noted that there is no clarity as to which charter schools would garner which students from which school. He noted that without a clear path showing which school students would be drawn from, the district cannot determine full budgetary impact on that existing school.

Commissioner Whalum: The previously approved KIPP schools, am I correct in assuming that they had no negative fiscal impact?

Ms. Anstey: Two (2) charter schools were passed on merit. At that point in time we were just looking at adding two charter schools with enrollment of 240. We did not know how many would come back and amend their application or how many could potentially be accepted. They were not looked at as a financial hardship until the fourteen came back and twelve could be passed on merit.

Superintendent Cash: We had budgeted for a nominal increase, not for the exponential increase in charter applications and potential approval on merit.

Commissioner Whalum: What it sounds like is that because so many of the re-applications were so good, we had to look for reasons to keep them out.

Superintendent Cash: That was not our thinking. Commissioner Whalum: What was the cut-off amount or the amount where we said if we allow two more schools it will cause a negative fiscal impact?

Superintendent Cash: We did not budget for sixteen new charter schools. They would take us outside of our budgeted amount of $11M.

Commissioner Kimbrow: Have we approved the minutes where we voted to approve the KIPP schools?

Page 17 of 234

~ 6 ~

November 22, 2011

Ms. Folsom: No, you have not. Commissioner Kimbrow: Then since those minutes have not been approved, can we recall all of them and judge all of the schools on the same fiscal impact district wide?

Commissioner Warren noted that the previous MCS never had to have minutes read to make actions viable. He asked if SCS had a second and third reading of the minutes, and does that apply to parliamentary procedure in this matter?

Commissioner Kimbrow: Since we are SCS and are using those policies, my understanding is that a reading and approval is required for an action to be binding on this body.

Attorney Speakman: I do not think we have ever addressed the issue of whether we would have to approve the minutes for an action to be binding, however, the bigger question that goes to the heart of what you are talking about here is can you make a motion to rescind. She noted that TN Law is very clear that if an action has not been taken that would affect a body, that is, gained benefit or detriment, you can still move to rescind whether or not it is at the same meeting.

Commissioner Kimbrow to both Superintendents: Has there been an overall ranking of all of the schools so that we as a Board can see where all of the schools rank in comparison score wise to the two that were previously approved.

Superintendent Cash answered that it can be provided. Commissioner Kimbrow: Seemingly, we have proposed that these schools in total would have a negative impact. But, surely there is some dollar correlation to where there is a break even point as relates to the number of students that leave and the number of schools approved, is there not?

Superintendent Cash: The question sounds simple to answer, however, it is complex and involved. What we know is that $10M to $12M has been the cost each year with 2 to 3 charter schools. To go to fourteen after dealing with three puts us in another division as far as budgetary implications and considerations.

Dr. Hamer: The first thing I would like to establish is that charter schools, albeit an interesting and important innovation and we have an obligation to support them, are an unfunded mandate. We get no additional dollars to support charter schools – not from state or federal. He referred the Board to a slide showing expenditure trend data (see slide two above). He noted that every time a new charter school begins operating there is an outflow of cash from the district and no reimbursement. Going back three years, the chart shows that in 2008 we had an additional $23M in expenditures with no additional funding, in 2009-2010 there was a $30M increase, 2010-2011 a $45M increase and a $51M increase for 2011-2012. The question about the break even point, when we figured out that we could no longer afford this, we actually have never been able to afford it, we have never had additional resources to support these schools. He noted that those dollars come out of base operations dollars, both for SCS and MCS. This is an unfunded mandate that requires us to use base dollars, and compromises the basic infrastructure and basic capacity for us to use resources for the operation of the main school system. So, there is no break even point, there is no number of schools at which we made a decision that we should no longer try to support these schools. He noted that the consideration of the Board should not just be in relationship to what we are confronted with today. He noted that this is a long term issue that the Board should take a very hard look at.

Page 18 of 234

~ 7 ~

November 22, 2011

Commissioner Pickler: Is there any information on how the legislature determines the threshold for financial hardship?

Attorney Speakman: There is a provision in the statue that says the Comptroller of the Treasury may develop standards relative to section four. I have not seen those standards, not to say they are not there. I have never been called upon to look for them, and quite frankly, I don’t know if they are even there. I would like to say that we have been operating under the assumption of MCS and SCS. We should not lose sight of the fact that these contracts are for ten years and should be looked at from the standpoint of an aggregated school system and what impact they would have on it. She noted that three charter schools in the SCS system might not be an issue, but in the larger school system where you have 20 (twenty) charter schools it might have a serious negative impact. The Board does not know how much it will be funded by the state as a consequence of consolidation or transfer of administration. As you know, at the conclusion of the next two years you might not get money from the City of Memphis, and on top of that there is a statue that provides, very particularly, that when there is a consolidation of two school systems, maintenance of effort (MOE) is not determined based on this system or that system, but by the Commissioner of Education in his own opinion. We are in an awkward position to expend any monies not knowing what our minimum MOE may be.