MMW Teacher and Secondary Health Chair, Deanne Hoppe, spoke ...

MINNETONKA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #276
Service Center
5621 County Road 101
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Minutes of December 5, 2006 Board Meeting
The Board of Education, Minnetonka Independent School District #276, met in special session at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at the District Service Center, 5621 County Road 101,
Minnetonka, Minnesota. Chairperson Adams presided. Other Board members present were:
Judy Erdahl, Pamela Langseth, Cathy Maes, Peggy Stefan (arrived at 6:45 p.m.), William
Wenmark (arrived at 6:20 p.m.) and Superintendent Dennis Peterson, ex officio. Absent: Calvin
Litsey.
Chairperson Adams asked that everyone stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Before calling for a motion to adopt that evening’s agenda, Chairperson Adams asked that
the agenda be amended to have the Board move to Executive Session at the end of the
meeting. She also suggested that the presentation of information on the Pre-AP and Middle
Years IB programs be moved to follow the Citizen Input portion of the agenda.
Langseth moved, Erdahl seconded, that the School Board adopt the agenda, as amended.
Upon vote being taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
2. LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
Superintendent Peterson said for the past several years the Citizens Finance Advisory &
Audit Committee had studied school funding issues, discussed legislative strategies to
address revenue generation, and met annually with local legislators to discuss school funding
concerns. He noted that this citizens group was well versed on school finance issues and
motivated to seek legislative change to improve public school district finances. Dr. Peterson
said that the position statements, once approved by the School Board, would be distributed to
all legislators representing the Minnetonka School District and would form the basis of
communications between CASE (Community Action for Student Education) and legislators.
Dr. Peterson then called on the Chair of the Citizens Finance Advisory & Audit Committee,
Dan Sigurdson, to present the position statements.
Mr. Sigurdson presented the Legislative Position statements that he said had been revised
slightly by the Finance Advisory & Audit Committee that morning to include suggestions
given by Board members at their meeting on November 16. Mr. Sigurdson explained the
revisions that had been made to the proposals and responded to Board members’ questions.
He also reviewed the “other issues” that he explained were listed because they were
important and would be used for discussion purposes for members of CASE to use with local
legislators.

2
Erdahl moved, Langseth seconded, that the School Board approve the 2007 Legislative
Position Statement, as presented (Addendum –A-). Upon vote being taken thereon, the
motion carried unanimously.
3. COURSE DELETION
Director of Teaching & Learning, Mark Larson, presented the proposal for the deletion of the
Family and Consumer Science (FACS) Culinary Exploration course at Minnetonka High
School. Dr. Larson noted that the course had not generated sufficient enrollment to run the
last three years.
Erdahl moved, Maes seconded, that the School Board delete Course #4501: Family and
Consumer Science (FACS) Culinary Exploration. Upon vote being taken thereon, the
motion carried unanimously.
4. UPDATE ON ENROLLMENT AND Q-COMP
Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Mike Lovett, noted that this would be the
first public update to the Board on the Q-Comp program since the District began
implementation. Dr. Lovett said that the original plan was to have this presentation on
December 7; however, it had been moved to this evening because of the lengthy agenda
already established for December 7. Because Ms. Ginther was out of town that evening,
there would be a more detailed presentation at the first meeting in January.
Dr. Lovett talked about the work of Q-Comp Coordinator, Bev Ginther, who he said had
worked closely with the Oversight Committee to lay the foundation for a successful
implementation. He also talked the appointment of Teacher Instructional Coaches and the
work done to find suitable replacements for these teachers. Dr. Lovett said he wanted to
assure parents that if there was a teaching change in the second semester, the transition
would be a smooth one for students. He said he also needed to be sure that the students and
families affected by this change understood the rationale behind it.
In the discussion that followed, Board member Erdahl commented that Ms. Ginther was
doing “a wonderful job” on the Q-Comp newsletter.
5. ENROLLMENT
Dr. Peterson said that as a neighboring district struggled with budget decisions, residents of
that district were showing a great deal of interest in Minnetonka schools. He said while
some of them move immediately, most families were waiting to enter Minnetonka Schools
under the open enrollment plan next year. Dr. Peterson said this situation was being
monitored closely because this influx of students could add to the District’s challenges.
6. POLICIES—Second Reading
Policy #461: Administrative Performance Review. Dr. Peterson said this policy now
included the changes suggested by the Board and was ready for adoption.

3
Wenmark moved, Erdahl seconded, that the School Board approve Policy #461:
Administrative Performance Review, as presented for a second reading. Upon vote being
taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
Langseth moved Erdahl seconded, that the School Board delete Policy A-14: Administrators-
Performance Review. Upon vote being taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy #462: Designation of Authority During Absence. Dr. Peterson said this policy was
now ready for Board approval.
Langseth moved, Wenmark seconded, that the School Board approve Policy #462:
Designation of Authority During Absence, to replace Administrative Rules and Procedures
D-2: Designation of Authority During Absence, and that Administrative Rules and
Procedures D-2: Designation of Authority During Absence be deleted. Upon vote being
taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy #409: Copyright Policy. Dr. Peterson said the language of this policy was now
revised and that the Board had talked about Board members Litsey and Wenmark meeting in
subcommittee with Dr. Peterson to look at this policy further and to decide if a policy on
copyright was needed.
Langseth moved, Maes seconded, that the School Board direct Policy #409: Copyright, to a
Board subcommittee consisting of Board members Litsey and Wenmark for further review.
Upon vote being taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
At this point in the proceedings, Board members took a short break.
TAX HEARING
At 7:00 p.m., Chairperson Adams called the meeting to order and announced that the tax
hearing would take place. She asked that anyone wishing to address the Board at this time
sign card and give it to the Board secretary.
Dr. Peterson said the tax hearing was a legal requirement for all School Districts in
Minnesota. He said the background materials used by the Board as they considered the
proposed tax levy were available for members of the audience, and at the end of the hearing
there would be a vote to hold a subsequent hearing on December 21 at which time the Board
would also set the levy. Dr. Peterson then called upon Tom Berge to present the tax levy.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Berge provided background information on the
tax levy and focused his comments on what determines the levy; trends in the legislative
funding formulas; Minnetonka’s budget challenges; factors driving the 2007 tax increase;
and taxes on specific properties. He also noted that Minnetonka had worked hard to keep
spending within the resources provided by the legislature and the property tax increases since
2001 were a result of legislative changes in funding, voter approval or needed to address
deferred maintenance projects. Mr. Berge said a study published in mid-2006 by the State

4
Auditor analyzing school spending FY2002 through 2005 showed “very careful management
of resources by Minnetonka Schools.”
Mr. Berge summarized the major factors impacting the proposed 2007 property tax increase,
including deferred facility maintenance needs; the Health and Safety levy; and the
Technology and Referendum levies. He said that the proposed levy would provide funds to
finance deferred maintenance needs; would enable to the District to avoid borrowing money
to defer the property tax impact and increasing future debt levies; would result in a reduced
deferred maintenance levy for 2008; and enable continued growth of technology to serve
more students, staff and parents.
In outlining school property tax trends, Mr. Berge said that Minnetonka was not receiving
more money through property taxes than six years ago, even though some residents may be
paying more property taxes to schools. He noted that the District was now collecting 18
percent or $6.8 million less in 2007 than six years ago in 2001. Mr. Berge also explained
some of the factors that affect property taxes, including a change in the taxable market value;
changes relative to other properties that can shift the tax burdens over time; the fact that
homes are charged at a different rate than businesses for a significant portion of school taxes;
and municipality taxes that can vary throughout the eleven different cities and two counties
encompassed by the District.
Chairperson Adams invited anyone in the audience who wished to address the Board on the
property tax issue, to come forward. No one responded to this invitation to speak.
Langseth moved, Maes seconded, that the School Board, having conducted a public hearing
on the proposed 2007 tax levy and current year budget at which time all interested parties
were offered the opportunity to speak for or against the proposed tax levy; that the School
Board set December 21, 2006, 7:00 p.m. at the District Service Center, 5621 County Road
101, Minnetonka, as the date, time and location for the subsequent public hearing on the
proposed 2007 property tax levy and for action certifying the final levy. Upon vote being
taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
Wenmark moved, Maes seconded, that the Public Hearing on the proposed 2007 Property
Taxes be closed. Upon vote being taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
7. CITIZEN INPUT
Chairperson Adams said the Board would be taking comments that evening on the proposed
instructional models being proposed. She explained that at the study session on November
30 the proposed models were presented to the Board, and at that time there was no Board
deliberation and no votes were taken. “Our job begins tonight,” she said, “when we listen to
the community.” Chairperson Adams noted that on December 7 the Board would have more
in-depth discussions and by that time there would be a clearer picture of the agenda for
December 21.
Chairperson Adams explained the guidelines for Community Comments and called upon the
following speakers.

5
MMW Teacher and Secondary Health Chair, Deanne Hoppe, spoke about the work done
during the recent health curriculum review process and shared opinions she had gathered
from health professionals throughout the State on the proposed model. Ms. Hoppe said no
other school districts were aware of or using this model and said she opposed the new model
because it did not teach skill-building.
MME Health Teacher, Sandy Gosen, talked about the service learning component of
health education and the need for structured time to reflect on that service. She encouraged
the Board to keep this as part of whatever delivery model was adopted. Ms. Gosen also
expressed her concern about the process and asked that the Board consider keeping a
program where students would have a traditional semester course and that a pilot or phase-in
approach be used to incorporate health education grades 9-12.
Minnewashta 5 th grade teacher and K-5 Health Chair, Adam Jorgenson, spoke about the
lengthy health curriculum review process at which time many ideas were discussed about
what was best for health education. He reported that three months after the review, the
committee received word that there was “…a fundamental change in health education,” a
decision in which he said the committee had no input. He asked that the District’s health
professionals be included in future discussions on this or any other model being considered
so ideas could be shared.
MME/MME Health teacher Teena Bolin, spoke to the proposals for change in the high
potential program and said she was happy that the Board was considering extending these
services. Ms. Bolin cautioned the Board about further changes as they dealt with big budget
concerns and the consequences of moving from a seven to a six-period day. With regard to
the health education model Ms. Bolin said she felt the proposed model was not
developmentally appropriate and asked that the Board be sure that programs such as IB and
AP that served smaller groups did not interfere with health education that affected 100
percent of the students.
MHS Health teacher, Nancy Schuett, expressed her concern about the proposed delivery
model, saying she was afraid that informational models do not always teach. She also said
she felt “very strongly” about the importance of health education being taught within the
relationship of the classroom and the teachers.
MMW 8th grade teacher Susan Brzezinski spoke about the importance of having teachers
be part of the decision-making process and encouraged Board members to work with the
health teachers, involve them in the decisions and to give them credit for their expertise,
talents and dedication to students.
Kristy Burgeson, MHS Math teacher said her concern was with how the change in the
health program would affect the core subjects. She questioned the implementation of the
new health instruction model and whether the math department would be restructured as a
result of this change.

6
Former health teacher Jen Severson, said she had concerns about the prevention piece of
the proposed health model. She questioned whether students would be able to get the skills
they need during their high school careers to prevent unhealthy situations rather than fix
them.
Parent Ron Leaf addressed the proposed High Potential program changes and spoke about
his daughter’s academic successes even though she had not been selected as part of the
Wings program. Mr. Leaf suggested that the Board study what happens to students who are
selected and participate in high potential programs and those who don’t but go on to achieve
academic successes. He also suggested that the Board seek feedback from students who had
participated in the program, saying their perspective could be helpful and interesting.
Paul Forst expressed his full support of the Language Immersion Program and the concept
of neighborhood schools. He questioned the process to determine which languages would be
offered and asked for clarification of recent communications relative to the schools at which
the program would housed.
Superintendent Peterson responded to the questions raised by Mr. Forst. He stated that the
basic issue with language immersion is that it would be determined by the parents. Dr.
Peterson said that while the District would offer what they believed were languages of
interest, if there was little or no interest on the part of the families in those languages, it
would not happen. “This will be driven by decisions parents make after being informed of
the options,” he stated.
Minnetonka resident R.C.H. Schmidt expressed his opinions about the proposed health
education, language immersion and high potential models. Mr. Schmidt stated that health
education should be part of the physical education program; that Arabic be one of the
languages considered for an Immersion program; and that the Board was “overreaching” if
they considered a program for a small number of highly gifted students. He also spoke to the
proposal to extend the IB program to the middle school level and questioned the
communications relative to the instructional models presentations.
MME teacher and President of the Minnetonka Teachers Association, Mark
Chalupsky, shared his disappointment in having to come before the Board that night to bring
the message from the Governance Board that they were opposed to the new model for health
education. While he acknowledged there were many good things in the proposal, he said
there were many unanswered questions and perhaps too many problems to overcome. Mr.
Chalupsky asked that the Board and the teachers work through this issue collaboratively
before action was taken and said if the District was going to make changes that they spend
the money so every student would benefit. He suggested that the six-period day be
reevaluated to learn what students, parents and staff were saying and that consideration be
given to returning to a seven-period day.
Parent and District volunteer, Mary Wiersum, questioned the wisdom of making major
changes before the District was more financially stable. She cited the recent budget cuts and
the fact that the District still had not filled the Director of Finance position. Ms. Wiersum

7
suggested if the resources were available, that the Board consider reinstating some of the
programs that were cut before committing funds to new programs. She asked that the
Board’s top priority be a return to the seven-period day and asked for more time as a
community to discuss and consider the changes being proposed that evening.
Parent and District volunteer, Lisa Wagner, spoke about her experiences as part of the
Strategic Planning Team and commended the Board for coming forward with the
recommendations on the new models. Ms. Wagner said she was a participant on the teams
that worked on the Language Immersion, Pre A-P, and the Middle Years IB models
strategies and that it was exciting to see that hard work now being considered. She praised
the proposed changes to the high potential program and encouraged the Board to continue to
study the new models so she could look forward to having some of them available to her
children in the future.
Parent Anne Groten directed her comments to the changes in the high potential program,
and asked that the Board think of students in this program as a group of learners who
“…learn differently and at a different pace.” She asked that their learning styles and needs
be considered because that there had been no changes to this program in a very long time.
Parent Carol Osterhus addressed the proposal for the Language Immersion program,
saying she was “very encouraged” by the plan to offer Chinese. Until that time, Ms.
Osterhus said she had considered moving out of the District so her children could be served
by such a program.
Parent Maureen Kvam expressed her excitement about the new proposals, saying she was
especially excited about the proposed changes to the high potential program. With regard to
the health model, Ms. Kvam said her biggest concern was with the students taking classes on
line because of the constraints imposed by the six-period day. While she encouraged the
Board to look at new models, she asked that they not include on-line learning options.
Excelsior parent Anne Gallentine urged the Board to consider changes to the High
Potential program and asked that they support and continue to look at the new models being
proposed.
Parent Cindy Montoriol said it was important for students to know another language “from
the beginning.” She shared her concerns about the current high potential program and said
“yes” to an immersion program and “yes” to the proposed IB program.
Minnewashta parent, Brette Herman, encouraged the Board to consider the new high
potential programs, noting that clustering was “very positive.” She said her student was
getting a lot out of the current program.
At this point in the proceedings, Chairperson Adams asked Director of Communications,
Janet Swiecichowski, to talk about the communications tools used to inform staff members
and the community about the Board’s work on the new instructional models.

8
Ms. Swiecichowski outlined the communications efforts to inform staff and community
residents about the new instructional models. These included press releases to local and
metro newspapers; the Minnetonka School News postcard that goes to every household in
the District; the electronic newsletter that is sent the day after each Board meeting and that
summarizes action taken; web site resources that included all of the PowerPoint
presentations; a Question and Answer sheet; an interactive response area and an on-line form
where people could comment and give their opinions on the models. Ms. Swiecichowski
said the District’s website would be updated during the next two months so the community
would be aware of when the proposals were being considered and that information would be
distributed to people using the Early Childhood Family Education programs.
At this point in the proceedings, Board members took a short break.
8. PRE-AP MODEL
Superintendent Peterson explained that the Pre-AP program was a new concept and Dr.
Larson would provide the background information.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Dr. Larson explained that the goal of Advanced
Placement (AP) classes was to provide a challenging and rigorous curriculum for high
achieving students and that these courses at the high school level culminate in an assessment
that may award college credit. Dr. Larson said that the Pre-Advanced Placement model was
an extension of this Advanced Placement model. He noted that the courses cover some of
the main themes offered at the high school level with the intention of preparing middle level
students with a preview and introduction to the rigor and expectations of a high school level
AP course. While the curriculum is similar to the high school level, Dr. Larson said it was
geared toward middle level learners, specifically 6 th - 8 th graders.
Dr. Larson also spoke about Advanced Placement Vertical Teaming that he explained was a
group of teachers from different grade levels in a given discipline working cooperatively to
develop and implement a vertically aligned program aimed at helping students acquire the
skills necessary for success in the Advanced Placement Program. He also addressed how
students would be selected; where the program should be located; how the program would be
implemented; and the costs and benefits of providing the Pre-AP model for students.
Dr. Larson said there was still much work to be done and that the program could not be ready
for 2007-08. He said that it was important to collect public input on the initiative and to get
direction from the School Board. “If the program is adopted, we would need to hold public
information sessions, work with the staff to build support; identify teachers for training and
implementation and begin the application process for students,” he said.
9. MIDDLE YEARS IB PROGRAM
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Dr. Larson gave a description of the Middle Years
International Baccalaureate Programme, whose mission he said was to “…develop
inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people who help to create a better and more
peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.” He explained that the

9
Strategic Plan approved in 2003 had an IBO component and the 2004-05 Instructional
Models Task Force recommended pursuing the Middle Years IB model.
Dr. Larson spoke about the eight subject groups of the curriculum and explained the areas of
interaction including approaches to learning; community awareness; health and social
education and the environment. He also outlined the areas of focus that included
communication; holistic learning; internationalism and cultural awareness and shared
information on how students were selected; where the programme should be located; the
challenges and solutions; start-up costs; and the next steps that would include gathering
public input and getting direction from the School Board.
Middle School Principal, Bill Jacobson, expressed his enthusiasm for the program, saying it
was a “perfect fit” at the middle level. He said staff members were supportive and
enthusiastic about the program because it “…aligned with everything they want to do for
their students in middle school.”
Discussion followed, at which time Board members shared their opinions about the Pre-AP
and Middle Years IB programs. Board member Stefan said both were “very interesting
concepts,” but said she did not think she could support either of them for the upcoming fall.
Board member Wenmark expressed caution because of the cost of the program and his
reluctance to “outsource our students to anybody.” Chairperson Adams said she was
personally “very interested” in both the Pre-AP and Middle Years IB programs, and
applauded the analysis and wisdom of staff members in looking at what happens at the
middle school level because of the impact it has on the success of the program at the high
school. Dr. Peterson said because it was important to consider how Pre-AP and middle years
IB programs at one or both middle schools would impact students moving to the high school,
these programs would have to be studied for at least a year.
Board members then discussed next steps in the consideration of the instructional models
presented that evening.
10. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Langseth moved, Erdahl seconded, adjournment to executive session at 10:45 p.m. Upon
vote being taken thereon, the motion carried unanimously.
____________________________________
Pamela J. Langseth, Clerk