Comments

An excellent summary, Eric. Thank you! There are so many questions about this recommendation to withdraw -- the speed of it, the rather thin plan of Dist. 622 to develop a new collaboration (and within 17 months!), whether the goals of ISD 622 adhere to the intent and spirit of integration, and whether it can realistically be done. So many more questions...

[Marc wrote this as an email message. Eric posted it here as a response to the letter above.]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Here are my thoughts of why we are at this juncture today and a brief history of what has brought us to this point:

Our district is very proud to have been the first district to join the EMID partnership over a decade ago. During that time it has been a strong partnership that provides very sound and cutting edge cultural, ethnic and year round programming. A model that has proven to work very well.

Fast forward to today, the composition of our school district is very different than it was when we joined EMID that decade ago. Our student base is now very culturally and ethnically diverse. In fact, each year that diversity continues to grow and is projected to continue for the foreseeable future. From my personal vantage point I see our Board and Staff as committed to providing the best possible programs that recognize that diversity while celebrating and respecting both our cultural similarities and differences.

Over a year ago; EMID gathered all of their member districts together. At that meeting, and many following, it was decided that a financial restructuring was necessary. While that process was continuing, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) declared and labeled district 622 as "racially isolated". What that means is that our minority and ethnic populations were now seen as greater than those of some of our neighboring districts. With this designation our administrative team formed a task force to determine what our best options are with regards to integration equity. That new designation now enabled our district to consider its own programming and potentially exercise our option to not continue with the EMID partnership. Parents from EMID were invited to join (selected by EMID); however they did not show up for the first half of the meetings. The recommendation (unanimous) from the taskforce was that our best efforts and impact on our entire student population will be to leave EMID. Our administrative team supported that recommendation.

Also within just the past few months EMID's financial restructure was completed. That restructure would require District 622 to pay roughly 20% of EMID's operating expenses while our student population attending EMID only comprises 10% of that student body.

The process has been transparent to EMID. The EMID leadership has known for over a year that we were looking into possibly making changes and that we were looking forward to an equitable financial restructure. Some suggest that the only reason we are looking at this is for some financial gain. Any Integration Equity money is restricted and will not provide any boost to our general operations. In fact, if we indeed go forward with a restructure, it will likely cost us more than we spend with EMID as we would be rolling out programs district wide and hopefully impacting thousands of more students than what we reach today. But while we were unhappy with the results of the recent financial restructure, it was not the driver for the recommendation brought forward.

Our year long discussions and review of our EMID partnership has very little do with EMID itself. I have wanted, and in my opinion need, to see an increase our Integration Equity programming for all 11,400 students that comprise our student population. Based on all factors it is my opinion that exposing under 3% of our population to EMID programs is not enough.

We do many other great things within our schools and have plans for many more. We plan to act soon on a proposal to increase the length of our school day which will effectively be the equivalent of adding 17 more school days to the calendar. We also will be adding intervention time for all levels of learners. Last year we added all day kindergarten (free for everyone) and also added math and reading specialists throughout the district. If we indeed vote and support withdrawal from the EMID Partnership beginning with the 2009 / 2010 school year, Our administrative team will begin immediately to lay out plans for many new integration equity programs. have no question that we will be ready come the start of that school year 17 months from now.

As for student performance, please feel free to compare our data with that of EMID and you will find we stack up quite well. That being said it is my opinion that both our district and EMID have lots of work to do and need to get better when it comes to test scores and achievement.

Our board will act on this recommendation Tuesday night. No matter what the decision is, EMID has told us that students currently there will be allowed to continue through open enrollment. Again, I can't say enough that as 622 evaluates whether it should remain with EMID, it has never been because fault was found with EMID, but rather what we in 622 could do for all our 622 students not just the 180 or so that attend EMID schools. Should this not be my goal?

Thanks again for your feedback.

[Eric sent this reply to Marc in email, but also posted it here.]

Marc, thank you for this very helpful reply.

I understand that the financial issues have been brewing for a year, and I can't say that the course the district is plotting is necessarily wrong. This may be the right thing to do.

My concern is that the evaluation of the impact of 622 withdrawal from EMID is far from thorough. I hope the district takes more than this one month to investigate this question. In particular, the rational presented by the study committee seem deeply flawed.

The reasons presented include gaining greater autonomy and gaining a greater focus on 622 students. But the course being plotted is toward a new collaborative. Any collaboration will require giving up autonomy and focussing on students of the whole collaborative, not just 622 students. Without a clearer sense of where the district will find partners for a new collaboration and what the terms of this sort of collaboration would be, it seems premature to withdraw from EMID.

The EMID collaboration took many years to negotiate. A new collaborative for 622 and partners will also take more than the 17 months to get off the ground. There is time to consider impact more fully.

One impact that has probably not had enough attention, for example, is the work that the Minnesota House of Representatives has been engaged in to refine the deseg rule that was used to identify 622 as "racially isolated." Rep. Greiling , Chair of the K-12 Finance Division Committee, told a meeting on Thursday that there would be a significant push to change that rule during this upcoming session. While rules to redefine the mandates of the rule will likely take time, it sounds like an effort to more carefully manage the uses toward which deseg funds can be put will probably succeed. If 622 pulls out of a program as widely respected as EMID, the MDE will be even more aggressive in assuring that the funds 622 recovers are used appropriately. Not only will the withdrawal not generate as much funding as the board may expect (likely closer to $600,000 than over $1M), those funds will likely be very restricted in their application.

Granted, the district has some significant financial challenges and it may appear that EMID is costing more that it is "worth." But withdrawing entirely from EMID may not provide the benefit envisioned and will take an enormous effort. All I ask is that this not be done so carelessly. The financial issues may have been considered carefully, but the impact of a withdrawal has certainly _not_ been given the same due diligence.

[Eric sent this in email to Marc.]

Marc, one number in your note rang wrong for me and I've just gone back to check.

You stated... "Also within just the past few months EMID's financial restructure was completed. That restructure would require District 622 to pay roughly 20% of EMID's operating expenses while our student population attending EMID only comprises 10% of that student body."

But I can't make that add up. Harambee has roughly 400 students, Crosswinds has roughly 600 students, and your study packet noted that ISD 622 sends 188 students to EMID. That's 188 of roughly 1000 students. Isn't that much closer to 20% than 10%?

I'm just trying to get my facts straight. Please let me know what I'm missing since this looks like EMID's financial model puts 622 right where it should be.

[Marc sent this as email, Eric posted it here.]

I just went back to the data sheets.

This sheet does not show actual enrollment or paid pupil units, but the column is titled "EMID School Enrollment as % of Total Collaborative Enrollment". The number for NSP is listed at 10.21%, " % of revenue" corresponding is listed at 18.37%.

This data came from EMID, but I believe enrollment refers to all programs, not just full time school numbers. Meaning we represent a total of 10.21 % of all EMID programs and 18.37 % of all funding. South Wash by comparison is 15.54 % of all programs and 15.65 % " of all funding. Roseville is 6.02 % of programs and 8.67 % of funding. St. Paul is 37.86 % of programs and 29.84 % of funding and so on.

Hope this helps clarify. On Monday I would gladly scan and send you the spredsheet.

[Eric sent this email to Marc.]

Marc, that's interesting. It seems that you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

If the 10.21% represents all EMID programs and the 18.37% represents all funding I think I see the dissonance. The vast majority of EMID funding is spent on the schools, not all all the other programs. If 622 has 18% of the students in the schools and is contributing 18% of the funding to EMID. This seems, to me, like very equitable funding. I'm sorry that I don't have the data to back this up, being only a parent on a weekend, but I can't imagine the rest of EMID programs amounting to much expense compared to the huge expense of running the schools.

I think it is disingenuous to say that 622 is not getting its money's worth. Your own numbers confirm that 622 is getting exactly what it pays for.

That said, there may be other reasons 622 would want to build its own collaborative. Again, I just think that the board has not had time to fully assess this matter and it has certainly not opened the process to the public in any effective way until just this week. This is hardly the basis for undoing a decade of collaboration with the other districts in EMID. It gives 622 a pretty ugly reputation to behave this way toward long-time collaborators. How will that help in attracting future collaborations?

This is a very useful discussion. We EMID parents are very removed from the EMID board. It is comprised of board members from our home districts. With minutes being posted a month after a meeting (THEY HAVE TO BE APPROVED.)it is hard to keep current. Minutes don't reveal discussions that would show ISD622 dissent.

I'm interested in understanding the 10.21 % program amount versus the 18.37 % funding discrepancy. Everything I saw was 622 being charged equatably for the % of students.

Did programs refer to after school and bridging programs? Please post the spreadsheet if Marc sends it. Perhaps someone from the EMID office could clarify?

There are a lot of ways we could collaborate better with our member districts. Start by adding 11/12 to a year round schedule in a 622 building. Joint purchasing/ busiing contracts where beneficial. Shared outreach classrooms in other districts. Swimming, band and shop classroom sharing. Integrating varsity,intramural,and after school activities.

I hope 622 stays and helps us out.

[Eric posted this email response from Marc.]

Thanks again for our your very thoughtful e-mail exchange yesterday. In that exchange you had pointed out that some of the data presented did not seem to make sense. As I noted, I also felt it needed clarification. I was also a bit confused as I know that specific graph was provided to us by EMID itself.

None the less it was clarified for me this morning.

The chart shows that under the new financial agreement the North St Paul, Maplewood Oakdale School District "EMID School enrollment as % of total collaborative enrollment" of 10.21% compared to "% of revenue" of 18.37%.

While the column headers are a bit confusing to me, the 10.21% represents our total student population as a percentage of the combined total student population of all 10 member districts. Apparently in the EMID board meetings this past year several member districts wanted that number to be equal to what the financial contribution from each district should be as it would represent our true share of ownership based on total population (total population refers to the districts combined populations whether enrolled in EMID or not and school enrollment refers to our total school enrollment whether enrolled in EMID or not). In the end that was not how the financial restructure was drafted as you could see by our percentage of revenue of 18.37%. Again this chart came straight from EMID and while the data is indeed accurate, I clearly misunderstood the exact measure and again would argue the column headers should not be written as they were.

Your e-mail prompted this Sunday clarification. I have copied this reply to two others that since our exchange yesterday made reference to the same point. In addition, I have forwarded on to the rest of the school board so all of us have the same understanding. Patty Phillips (our superintendent) has also said she would clarify further for you if you so desire. She can be reached at pphillips@isd622.org.

As I said yesterday, I still do not believe the focus of the recommendation is based on money, but accurate data that is fully understood is important to me. Thanks again for pointing this out and playing an active role in the education of your kids.

[Eric sent this email reply to Marc and posted it here.]

Thanks for this clarification.

I have heard from many sources that the district does not feel it is getting a fair shake financially from EMID. This meme has made it out to the public and you can see comments on the Pioneer Press site from 622 parents that reinforce it. See http://www.twincities.com/ci_7992917 and http://www.twincities.com/ci_8013115 for examples of these comments.

What I understand you are saying in your message is that this information is wrong. In fact, the district is paying an "equitable" portion of EMID costs. At least it seems fair to me that 622 pays for what it uses of EMID.

In fact, this would suggest that if 622 wants to develop a new collaborative it could do so alongside the EMID collaborative, shifting the expediture from EMID to a new collaborative as the students shifted to the new collaborative. This would be a gradual transition that would allow both EMID and 622 to adjust to new realities. Then, once the shift was underway and the impact understood, 622 could withdraw from EMID without the same devastating impact a sudden withdrawal would have. Again, the thing I don't understand is the evident rushing of the process, the lack of assessment, and the lack of public input. All of these are possible while stll meeting 622's objectives.

I agree that the finances should not be the focus of the recommendation. But it was cited by the EMID Committee as one of the three reasons for leaving the EMID collaboration. It is fairly significant that you and I in the course of a few emails uncovered the fact that there is no substance to this percenption, just a misunderstanding of data in a spreadsheet.

Again, the committee did fine work. But it was only one month of work. I beg you and the 622 board to slow down and fully assess the impact of leaving EMID. I'm sure there are other questions raised by the EMID Committee report that would benefit from closer analysis than one month could provide.

Thanks again for your engagement in this conversation. Your dedication and attention over a holiday weekend reinforce my faith in local government.

Eric, thank you for constructing this website, for composing and posting your thoughtful and well written emails, and for posting the equally thoughtful responses from Marc.

I have to admit, that as a 622 and EMID parent, I'm still fuzzy on the math. I'm inclined to wonder if had a more 'equitable' new financial arrangement for all EMID participating districts been drafted and accepted, that we might be in a different place. I believe Kathy Griebel attempted to explain the disconnect between NSP/MW/O enrollment and the corresponding funding percentage, but I was not able to follow it.

It's also interesting to read in Marc's January 19th email that the EMID parents invited to join the 622 task force were "selected by EMID" . . .

While it's not likely to change anything, it may help give additional perspective to better understand the financial re-structuring that was recently completed.

[Eric posted this response sent via email from Marc.]

What the chart provided by EMID showed is that we are paying an amount to EMID greater than what our student population is as a percentage of total EMID district populations combined.

The task force referenced finances in the light that we spend 1/3 of our total integration budget on 2% of our population. That fact is independent of the graph that I misunderstood.

As indicated in my original comments, the decission we are being asked to make Tuesday is not from a dissatifaction with EMID. The fact that 622 and other member districts wanted a different financial arrangement does not automatically suggest that what is in place is not equitable.

Personally I understand how EMID calculates our share of expenses and think it overall has been fair. That is even if we would prefer billing to be based on district size as a percentage of total populations.

For me, the question on money comes down to can we reach more people (more than 2 % of our kids) if we allocate differently?

This will not be an easy decission for me or likely for my counterparts.

Thank you once again for your feedback. I have again shared with the full board.