June 11, 2002 - Baltimore City Public Schools

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Board Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 41 outcome this year, of meeting the numerical requirement, is low. The focus, though, is on demonstrating the existence of effective institutional mechanisms. How well we have in place; what we put in place; and how well we're trying to make this helpful. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 4 is the graduation rate. This is the number of students who actually graduate with a diploma. And this, for us, is really our achievement outcome of where the rubber hits the road. This is also a three-year substantial outcome. Right now there's a low likelihood of meeting the numerical requirement. The focus, again, is on the existence of effective institutional mechanism. And in order to have students receive a high school diploma, they have to meet the graduation standards just like any other student. So you can see that the central area and middle and high school staff action steps are quite vast. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 6; will participate in vocational programs. This is a three-year substantial compliance outcome. And there is a high likelihood of meeting those numerical requirements. Data for the past two years has been out, above -- at or above the required percentage. Disengagement Standards for Outcome 7; this is our discipline outcome. It is a three-year substantial compliance outcome. There's a low likelihood of meeting the numerical requirement. Focus is on demonstrating the existence of the effective institutional mechanisms. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 8; within three years, 58.8 percent of students will receive their IAP required services in regular education, or provided programs. This is our inclusion outcome, or LRE, Least Restrictive Environment. There is a good likelihood of meeting the numerical requirements as we go school by school, and do quite well. However, we have concerns regarding the inadequate implementation of the IEP in the general education classes, which make a track for the numerical compliance. So for the next year, we'll be working very hard in providing support, with Dr. Jones' office, to the classrooms for regular education teachers. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 9 is also an LRE inclusion outcome, where 80 percent of newly-identified students will receive IEP services in their home schools. There's a high likelihood of meeting this requirement. Data for the past two years has been at or above the percentage required. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 10; the BCPSS will sustain a system-wide average of 95 percent, and conduct evaluation meetings within timelines. This outcome really speaks to the procedural compliance. It is a two-year, full compliance outcome. We expect to be released from this outcome. There is a high likelihood of meeting the numerical requirements this year. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 11; no more than 2 percent of students with disabilities will have interruptions of services. This is also a procedural compliance outcome. It goes to knowing when students are entering with special needs, or entering our schools, transferring from school to school, and making sure they receive appropriate service. This is a two-year full compliance outcome. There is a high likelihood of meeting the systemwide numerical requirements this year. Outcome 12; will maintain an average rate of compliance with IEP implementations. This is, again, a procedural compliance. It is a two-year full compliance outcome. And there is also a high likelihood of meeting this numerical requirement. Outcome 13; 98 percent of students with disabilities who are designated as dropouts will have an IEP team review meeting. This outcome seems innocent, but it is not. It is a two-year full compliance outcome, which we feel pretty sure well be recommended it to be a three-year substantial outcome. There is a low likelihood of meeting this numerical requirement, and it requires tracking students who are potential dropouts. It means that we have to do a better job of tracking attendance, and making sure that we do intervention to get students back into school. For Outcome 14, it is a two-year full compliance outcome. It is a -- the Complaint Office, that we have written procedures, they give authority and independence to a Complaint Office that we do have. There is a low likelihood of meeting this requirement this year, because it has taken us longer than 45 calendar days to investigate the complaint. It is a -- we know that we will have the monitoring activities due on this outcome next year, but we feel that we have met the requirement of establishing the office. For Outcome 15, it is the IEP standards for OSEMC, and OSEMC is our Office of Special Education Monitoring and Compliance. It is a two-year full compliance outcome. And there is a low likelihood of meeting this requirement, and that we will extend it probably for another school year. Outcome 16 has to do with our SET computer data system, as measured by the BCPSS annual audit. And this is the audit where it's the key stroke audit, where you compare what's in SET to what's on paper. It's a two-year full compliance outcome. We have a high likelihood of meeting the numerical file://S:\CMS_Content\meetings\2002\J11_02.html 9/23/2002
Board Meeting Minutes requirement. And we do our own audits, so our office goes out and compares the information that is put into SET, the accuracy. It's an accuracy with what's in the IEP folder. Disengagement Standard for Outcome 18 is the rate of compliance, again, for OSEMC IEP standards, and that's when OSEMC goes down on a rotating basis and monitors each school for a certain number of standards every three years. There's a high likelihood of meeting this numerical requirement, and being released from this outcome. It is a two-year full compliance outcome. That's the last one. And, as I said, I'll remind you that these are predictions. We do not have all the completed data. And when we do, hopefully, some of these will change and go away. Thank you. MS. WELCH: We will take a two-minute break. (Break taken.) MS. WELCH: Okay. Two minutes turned into ten minutes. So we were already, as I was informed, about an hour behind time. But Mr. Smolarz, you hear that all the time. Are you beginning to take this personally? MR. SMOLARZ: Not at all. MS. WELCH: We're ready. Page 21 of 41 MR. SMOLARZ: Good evening, Dr. Welch, Commissioners, and Ms. Russo. With me tonight is Mr. Emerson Hamilton, to my far left, and Mr. Pete Dixit, Directors of Facilities and Construction and Facilities Operation, respectively. We come forward tonight to go through the capital budget as we prepare for the FY '04 CIP process. We had discussed some very general comments with you at a public forum about a month ago. We then had revisited these items or this information with Commissioner Daniel on June 1st at length. And we come forward tonight to get your guidance on what we would like to submit to the State as part of the FY '04 CIP. But, more importantly, discuss with you our overall capital needs for the System. We think this is very important in view of the impending Task Force that the State is assembling for evaluating the adequacy of capital needs. So we think this is a timely discussion. And, as you'll see, unfortunately, our needs for capital are tremendous. And we want to talk about those needs, as well as some of the options that face us as we try to have our environments become more appropriate for the learning that needs to take place within the facilities. Up on the Power Point, I just have some key dates that I want just to run by. July 1, 2002, the Facility Master Plan is due to the State. So that's about three weeks away. And that's why this discussion is important as we finalize our Facility Master Plan. As I found out last year, as I was immersed in the middle of this process, the State takes our Facility Master Plan very seriously, is really the blueprint for the upcoming CIP submission. So it's very important that there is consistency between the Facility Master Plan and our submission. October 15th, 2002 is when the first -- is when the submission of the FY 2004 CIP is given to the State. And, as we note, throughout this past year, there are various other milestones that follow, in terms of the review process. There's a date in December, and it changes. Like this past year, it was Pearl Harbor Day, when we went to the IAC to go over and appeal. And then there's another appeal process down in Annapolis, usually in March, as we finalize the second process. I put the expected FY '02 statewide. That really should be expected FY '03 statewide. And I don't believe that number's going to change, unfortunately. I want to just remind the public that the statewide public construction fund-raiser was about $280 million prior to FY '02. It was cut in half at FY '02. My preliminary conversations with the State IVC staff is not to expect any more than the $140 million from this past year. In fact, the preliminary numbers are $100 million at this point. But as Dr. Stensler stated, that number normally comes up, as it did this past year. The State has committed to us the following projects, and these are projects that have been approved from a planning perspective this past year in FY '02: The new Northern, obviously, was approved back in -- in, really, FY '01. And we're in the midst of receiving funding for construction of that project. That will be ongoing. We will get funds in FY '04 towards that. We also received approval for planning for Dunbar High, Lexington Terrace, and the Southeast pre-K to file://S:\CMS_Content\meetings\2002\J11_02.html 9/23/2002
Page 1 and 2: Board Meeting Minutes Whereupon,--
Page 3 and 4: Board Meeting Minutes that on Frida
Page 5 and 6: Board Meeting Minutes communication
Page 7 and 8: Board Meeting Minutes continually g
Page 9 and 10: Board Meeting Minutes MR. STREUVER:
Page 11 and 12: Board Meeting Minutes MS. WELCH: I'
Page 13 and 14: Board Meeting Minutes reproduction
Page 15 and 16: Board Meeting Minutes that our base
Page 17 and 18: Board Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 41
Page 19: Board Meeting Minutes money. Commun
Page 23 and 24: Board Meeting Minutes educational p
Page 25 and 26: Board Meeting Minutes MS. WELCH: Mr
Page 27 and 28: Board Meeting Minutes is the only m
Page 29 and 30: Board Meeting Minutes department. O
Page 31 and 32: Board Meeting Minutes MR. SMOLARZ:
Page 33 and 34: Board Meeting Minutes MS. AMOS: Goo
Page 35 and 36: Board Meeting Minutes MS. WELCH: Op
Page 37 and 38: Board Meeting Minutes get a feel fo
Page 39 and 40: Board Meeting Minutes MS. WELCH: Op
Page 41: Board Meeting Minutes UNIDENTIFIED

June 11, 2002 - Baltimore City Public Schools

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?