East Metro Integration District
Multi-District Collaboration Council
Community Event
February 25, 2008
6:30 – 8 pm
(Un)official Meeting Minutes
(Taken by and for EMID Families)
The meeting opened with Kathy Griebel, Director of Education Services for EMID, who introduced the topic, explained the logistics, and thanked attendees for coming.
Background: For districts that are a part of a multi-district collaboration, a plan must be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) every four years. The development of the plan must include the formation and involvement of a Multi-District Collaboration Council (MDCC). The MDCC determines the structure and content of the plan to be submitted to the EMID Board. The plan will be delivered to the EMID Board on March 12, 2008 for its first review. It is hoped that the final plan will be approved by the EMID Board on April 16, 2008 and be submitted to MDE on April 18, 2008. The final plan is not due to MDE until June 30, 2008, however the budget is due mid-April. The plan and budget must be in alignment; therefore the plan will be submitted early.
Bill Larson, consultant, provided an overview of EMID, an explanation of Rule 3535 (The Desegregation Rule), and an explanation of the process the MDCC has followed in developing the draft of this plan.
Minnesota Desegregation Rule: Minnesota Legislators passed the Desegregation Rule in 1999. Minnesota’s Desegregation Rule for Public Schools addresses the fundamental goal of providing equal educational opportunities for all students to achieve academic success. For racially isolated districts and racially identifiable schools that are not the result of intentional segregation, the Rule requires schools and communities to work together to design and implement educationally justifiable, effective, voluntary strategies that provide meaningful choices of integrated learning environments for students and their families. The rule provides financial incentives and requires schools and communities to work together to: a) reduce racial isolation of schools through voluntary and effective local strategies; and b) to create educationally sound inclusive learning environments.
In 2000, the first year of implementation for the Desegregation Rule, eight school districts were identified as racially isolated and were required to work with 27 adjoining districts. By the spring of 2005, the number of districts impacted by the Rule nearly tripled and included 20 school districts identified as racially isolated and 66 districts classified as adjoining, voluntary, and/or containing a racially identifiable school. During the same five - year period, the number of racially identifiable schools has increased from 32 to 51.
For districts that are racially isolated, districts that adjoin a racially isolate district, or districts that have chosen to voluntarily participate in a multi-district collaborative to address the racial isolation of a school district, a planning process is required. The racially isolated district must be involved in all phases of planning for the funding generated for inter-district integration. After the joint planning process conducted by community members from the various districts is completed, each district’s School Board can approve, modify, or reject the proposed integration plan and a detailed budget to implement the plan. All integration revenue budgets are reviewed for their ability of their proposed programs and activities to reduce the racial isolation of the identified district. The MDCC is comprised of persons who represent, to the extent possible, the diverse backgrounds of the students in each of the ten member districts. A “leadership team” of volunteers from within the membership of the MDCC worked with the consultant in the planning and facilitation of the MDCC meetings. This committee has identified and drafted two Integration Issues and goals that correlate.
Integration Issue and Goal #1
Efe Agbamu, MDCC representative from ISD 622 and Principal of a South Washington County School, introduced Issue and Goal #1.
Issue – Many students of color feel disrespected and marginalized due to a lack of cultural awareness, sensitivity and understanding of race and racial dynamics among staff/students/families/community members.
Goal – Students feel accepted and respected within their school and in their community at large.
Objectives –
- Curriculum (#1) (Create and sustain rigorous curricula within EMID schools and programs that raise awareness about culture, race, racism, and white privilege that are consistently updated and culturally relevant.
- Instruction/Staff Development (#2) (Practices that focus on diverse teaching methods, which are effective with students of diverse backgrounds, will be developed and implemented at EMID.
- Staffing (#’s 3 and 4) (EMID will achieve a measurable increase of facially diverse staff.)
- (EMID will hire and retain employees with culturally and socio-economically diverse backgrounds.)
- School Climate (#5) (EMID schools and programs will expand student and staff activities that promote inter-student acceptance and celebration for diversity.)
Integration Issue and Goal #2
Kim Danielson, MDCC representative for ISD 6 (South St. Paul), introduced Integration Issue and Goal #2.
Issue – Too many students and their families are unaware of the diversity benefits available to them through EMID programs due to issue related to communication, cooperation, and knowledge of EMID’s function and purpose.
Goal – Effective communication, cooperation, and knowledge of EMID’s function and purpose are prevalent and pervasive among and within member districts and their communities.
Objectives -
- Communication (#’s 1 – 4) (Families, staff, students, and the community at large will be actively engaged in dialogue and outreach activities that foster broader understanding of EMID’s function and purpose.)
- (The integration staff/leaders will streamline active communication for student information and staff development.)
- (EMID will enact measures to effectively communicate to all stakeholders’ information about programs that increase intercultural contact {exchanges}.)
- (EMID will develop and disseminate additional information and promotional material which will be disseminated and presented by member- district integration leaders that provides the backgrounds and rationale for EMID’s function and purpose.
- Cooperation – (#5) (EMID staff and integration leaders will devise and implement additional cooperative activities and programs to further interracial interaction for member districts.)
Discussion
Following the formal presentations of these draft goals, individuals present broke into three different groups of approximately eight people to discuss the goals. One topic we were specifically charged to discuss was the use of the term “white privilege” in goal #1, objective #1. Otherwise, groups were given liberty to discuss the goals as they saw fit. After 20 minutes of discussion, we re-gathered as a large group and each small group presented.
Overall, the macro-group seemed to feel that the use of the term “white privilege” was appropriate as it is a commonly understood term for the concept it conveys. Other terms might not be as easily recognized and understood.
Other terms that generated discussion for goal #1 included “feel,” (How can feelings be quantified and measured? Who would be charged with this responsibility? Could the measurement of feelings be misinterpreted? Would those students who express their feelings in a more “measureable” way skew the results at the expense of those who are less expressive of their feelings?) and “students of color,” (While it is widely accepted, this term can be offensive. What about white students? Would it be more appropriate to state “all students?”). Discussion among the participants seemed to conclude that “students of color” would be preferred as opposed to simply stating “students,” “all students,” or “non-white” students. (The Desegregation Rule requires that racial disparities be addressed in the goals.). It was expressed that the benefits for white students could also be addressed, perhaps as a third goal.
Regarding Issue #2, there was some discussion as to why the general community in our member districts was widely unaware of EMID schools or programs. A reluctance to advertise alternative programs in light of declining enrollment and other factors contributing to financial difficulties within school districts was discussed. Why would a district want to promote our schools when they need all of the students they can get? Concern was raised that the goal and objective of issue #2 was too procedural. Is it necessary to state the process throughout the objectives?
The meeting closed at 8:00.
EMID families are encouraged to weigh in on these issues. Your feedback is appreciated by the committee. If you have not already completed your survey, please do so or contact Kathy Griebel to give your opinion.
Respectfully submitted by Amy Rostron-Ledoux