May 2, 2002

By Facsimile: 418-7411

Ms. Kathy Walter-Mack, General Counsel

School District of Kansas City, Missouri

1211 McGee Street

Kansas City, MO 64106

Re: Jenkins v. KCMSD, Professional Development Agreement

Dear Kathy:

Yesterday afternoon, after the AFT representatives and you had to leave the telephone conference call, I remained in the Superintendent's office with Dr. Taylor and Pat Brannan and we were able, after some considerable discussion, to reach agreement on the professional development implementation issues that had divided the parties. In the course of those discussions, the KCMSD and the plaintiffs agreed on a number of matters that are not set forth in the two-page agreement that we advised the Court "summarizes" the PD agreement. This letter is to set out those additional agreements. If the KCMSD does not agree to the formulations set out below, please advised me immediately so that we might resolve the wording or advise the Court that our agreement is not yet complete.

1. In Paragraph Five, the second bullet-point obligates the KCMSD to hire twelve "highly qualified content-area specialists". That somewhat broad term is understood to mean "highly qualified" in two respects: a) having a high degree of content skill and knowledge in one or more of the four major content areas and b) having a high level of skill in communicating that content skill and knowledge to other teachers through modeling, coaching, and mentoring while working one-on-one with teachers with students present. It was further agreed that the KCMSD will in fact find twelve such persons before the end of this summer; that if they cannot be found on the KCMSD staff, they will be hired on the open market; that the KCMSD will offer whatever salaries are necessary to hire these twelve persons; and that, in Dr. Taylor's words, "not hiring them is not an option". It was further agreed that the time of these twelve specialists will be made available to all KCMSD schools on a "pro rata" basis, meaning that their time will be divided among all schools in a manner that is roughly but fairly proportional to the number of students in the schools. It was also agreed that the time allocated to the schools by these specialists will not be charged to the schools and their salaries, benefits, and expenses will be a District cost.

2. Paragraph Two describes the allocation to schools of an "additional" $50 per student. This is understood to be new funds for the school to replace, on average, the District's cost of Instructional Coaches even though not all schools had such Instructional Coaches. In other words, this "additional" expenditure will not be funded by the money previously allocated to the schools and will be a trade: all schools lose Instructional Coaches and all schools - even those without such Coaches - get this "additional" $50 per student PDC funding.

3. The $250,000 discretionary funding referred to in Paragraph Two will be fully allocated during 2002-2003 to schools in time for the schools to make good use of it. Some will go immediately, for 2002-2003 use, to the very small schools and some to the very large ones; the balance will be allocated in the Fall soon after the 2002 MAP results are received to reward strong MAP performances or to enable special efforts by schools with poor scores, all in the discretion of the Superintendent, except that these funds may only be used by schools to implement professional development strategies that are centered on modeling, coaching, and mentoring teachers with students present (i.e., job embedded).

4. In Paragraph Three schools are "urged" to use research based approaches to professional development. This does not mean that schools are required to use such methods. It does also not mean that any method of the American Federation of Teachers that is "research-based" must be adopted by any school nor does it mean that schools may not create professional development strategies for their schools that have not be tried elsewhere, provided, however, that all such plans must at least be job-embedded, i.e., focused on teacher professional development with students present; feature modeling, coaching, and mentoring; and be aligned with higher order skills and knowledge assessed by the MAP tests.

5. The optional grade-level or subject area assistance referred to in Paragraph Four is specifically available only if provided "by the principal". This provision is not intended to permit schools to make meetings of teachers in grade or subject matter groupings a significant or regular part of school professional development plans and thus to weaken the commitment to job-embedded, i.e., students present, one-on-one modeling, coaching, and mentoring that are at the core of this agreement. Such meetings of groups of teachers may be important on an occasional basis, if convened and led by the principal, to re-focus professional development efforts in the school.

If you have any questions about these items, please contact me immediately.

Yours very truly,

Arthur Benson

/AB

ec: Dr. Charles McClain

Mr. Maurice Watson

Ms. Patricia Brannan

Mr. Brian Wood