001I was totally going to say this. I saw Greetings everyone. It's just after 6 PM, so I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Let's establish that we have a quorum, please, beginning with a roll call vote. Juan Carlos >> here, >> Christopher >> here, >> Meredith >> here, >> John >> here, >> Corby >> here, >> and Joe >> here, >> and I am here as well. We do have a quorum. Corby, has this meeting been properly noticed? >> It has. >> Thank you. To help ensure that we're centering our boardwork around our shared values and serving our students, we begin each of our board meetings by reading our district's equity framework and the Ho Chunk land acknowledgement, which can be found at the top of the agenda. U Meredith, would you be
002willing to read those for us this evening? In the Brona Area School District, our mission is that each student can acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve their personal goals, thrive in a diverse global society, and lead a healthy, self-fulfilling life. To meet this mission, the Verona Area School District will ensure that every individual has access to the educational, social, and emotional support they need to feel valued and affirmed in their unique identities and experience. We acknowledge that inequities and power dynamics exist in our system such that some individuals on the basis of their identities face barriers to accessing the opportunities they need to experience success. An acknowledgement of such that Verona area school district is committed to disrupting these systems of inequity. And our Ho Chunk land acknowledgement reads, "There are currently 12
003tribal nations who call Wisconsin home with the Ho Chunk Nation being the primary group living around Madison. No matter where you are in the state, you are on the ancestral land of a tribal nation. As we begin our meeting, we honor the land upon which we stand. >> Thank you. Board meeting or board members, I'll draw your attention to the remainder of tonight's meeting agenda. Any questions, amendments to tonight's agenda? Otherwise, I'll accept a motion to approve. >> Thank you, Juan Carlos. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Christopher. All those in favor of approving tonight's agenda as written, please signify with I. >> I. >> Any opposed? The agenda has been approved. We will move right away into our superintendence report. We get some updates about the fact that this is the
004first board meeting since the school year has started. So, >> yay. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much and welcome everyone. Thank you for joining us today. Uh again, officially the kickoff of the 2526 school year. It's just been an amazing start uh due to the dedication of our staff and our building leaders and thank you to the board for setting the tone with our with our policies. uh our leg our excuse me our not motto I don't use that word our mission this year is building a legacy of excellence and we brought that to life during our convocation uh dur and during which we had a um a group of speakers that really focused in on helping our staff appreciate uh the power of their impact through education uh as being a part of the
005legacy of excellence uh we focus on bringing alumni uh back in the alumni focus uh so we can understand the impact of service beyond graduation and how they impact uh so many into their careers and beyond. Uh with that we were able to share uh the stage with a multitude of speakers including representing the board of education. Uh Corby Corby White and Jen Murphy, thank you so much for uh lifting up the spirits of our of our staff. Uh we were joined by a dynamic and I I want to call her students but she's not. She's a graduate uh an alumni but and uh she just kind of a credit to the experience she had in the Berian school district and the impact of staff. Uh she is a emerging special education teacher uh at
006Edgewood College to be doing her student teaching this year and would love to see her one day as a Wildcat um to join us back uh with with Delaney. And uh uh additionally we were graced by the governor of the great state of Wisconsin uh Tony Ivers who continued to give the message of uh his mission of ensuring that there is a world-class education across the state and and but having him on the stage to reaffirm the uh the work of the Broner School District and that continued commitment and him being a part of the alumni himself and also having great kids in our system just really added added to that um phase. Our keynote that day was Ryan Hack. Ryan uh acknowledged some of the uh impactful um educators that influenced his life. Uh
007if you haven't read his book, please take opportunities to do so. But his focus on inclusion and how um despite uh uh having a a a a disability uh in the form of uh a one one arm never was felt excluded and our we think about our focus on ensuring that uh diversity, equity and inclusion live strong in Bonire School District. He brought that message to life with clear examples and just um a lot of lot of cheers a lot of tears in the same in the same message but really a powerful day. If you haven't had the opportunity it is it was recorded on fact TV. I think we can pull that up at any time if you weren't able to join us but uh we want to thank everyone who participated in uh
008in the event and what it meant for uh our staff to come together in unity around the common message of building legacy excellence. So, thank you all for for the great work. >> Thanks to the team for all the behind the scenes organizing. It was a really awesome morning. >> So, that momentum we carried over into um the each of the buildings and our focus uh was was really on on five primary areas and when staff went back to the buildings. Um obviously beyond the commitment of having uh a top tier educational experience is ultimately our responsibility to make sure that every student is and staff member is safe. Uh so we really went deep into our standards standard response protocol safety training. We have changed some of our adjusted some of our systems this
009year. Uh but really wanted to put that at the forefront of of training to ensure that every staff member was prepared. uh every leader knew what to do and and we had systems that were completely set to ensure that every child uh that comes to us also goes home safe at safe at night and we want to continue that commitment. Uh from there we transitioned to standards based uh teaching and learning uh as part of the continuous improvement plans and then uh launched which we found to be very successful and want to continue the work our professional learning communities followed by and many of you I were able to see um we were able to see in the in the spaces and your role as parents the family family contacts and evening events uh sponsored
010by each of the each of the sites. So really a powerful week. A lot happened in one week or uh and and a partial week at that in in four days. But um uh thank you for everyone news behind the scenes loosely because you're really out in the forefront but just transportation um food services all educators the custodians and builds and grounds uh that on top of the normal summer cleaning multitude of projects uh and trying to get everything ready to go. So, thank you to everyone that's involved in allowing us to kick off the the school year and a lot a lot of smiling faces. Um, and the student students are really happy to be back and happy and be in the presence of of our staff. So, um, we'll close it with that
011and there any questions specifically about the welcome back or anything that was accomplished >> members. Lots of smiles in our house. >> Yeah. Laidback, sliding through the ears, feeling good. Thanks to all the educators, everybody that you acknowledge that is just making this school year it just yeah feels like great energy. >> All right. So next as part of the superintendent report like to bring uh the new century and voter roary international uh principal and uh governance council members to the to the table uh for presentation to to the board of seek see seeking an addendum to the uh contracts for each of the sites for for new century and ron area international schools. So like to bring them to the to the table. >> Welcome. Yeah. Come on up. We need some more chairs.
012Yeah, slide some chairs over. Thank you for letting us join. I am Sally Parks, the uh principal director of both New Century School and the Brona Area International School. And I'll let our small and mighty team introduce themselves and their roles, too. >> Hi, I'm Kelly Pastor. I am the governance council president at New Century School. >> I'm James Cole. I'm the governance council president at Vinary International School. >> I'm Batty. I'm a governor's council member at long time. >> Yeah. Long time. >> All right. And we're uh coming with you today. Thank you. Okay. Ours is always out of batteries or something. So, um, so we're coming with you to you today to share, um, to ask about an addendum to our charter contracts. Um, and basically what we are asking for, this is
013a conversation that started with um, figuring out ways to help our staff find more time to dig deeper into each individual charter mission, vision, and educational program, which is very specific and different for each of the charter schools. However, both um communities were having some similar um experiences of needing more time uh especially with the implementation of uh status uh curriculum for English language arts and some of the other pieces that we're working on. It was a little less time to focus specifically on the chart. So, um, one of the things that both staff and the governance council have, um, are asking for and, um, are supportive of is adding an additional professional development day, um, to, uh, both the new Century School calendar and the BIS school calendar, similar to what CORE does. and
014core does two days a year where they um they do not have students and they spend that as professional learning focused specific to their mission and vision. Uh we are not asking for we are not planning to do two days. We're planning to do one this year if possible. However, when we um were comparing the contracts, we noticed that core knowledge does have two days. So, we are asking for two days and to be added um as an option to the contract, not that we're planning to use them are um we also um so that would bring us alignment all three of the charter schools and we're asking that that um amendment would last the remainder of the charter. Each school has different lengths to charter left. And then um we did consult with core
015knowledge a bit on how they have made this successful and how they thought about it. Um, one of the biggest things suggestions that they had was to make sure that we aligned the day with already a long weekend. They said that families really prefer that because they're already making some arrangements if they're, you know, if a caregiver or a grandparent is coming in in to help out. Oftentimes it's easier for them to come once and stay that full-time or if they're traveling, that type of thing. It makes it easier for them. Um, we also really wanted to focus on doing this the second semester. uh so we could really think about curriculum design for that semester. And we also thought doing in January and our proposed date is January 16th um would allow for additional
016time to communicate with families and make sure that we get that word out. Okay. So um I lead global learning and development for a tech company and I know how hard it is to have time to plan crossf functionally and so one of the big pain points that our staff have communicated is just that lack of time and we've noticed that some of the most impactful activities that we've done at New Century have been when we are able to integrate the bigs with the littles. So the bigs have an opportunity to teach and lead just as much as the littles have to learn and then they're learning from each other. Um, so it's really about inclusive teaching and learning and giving everyone an opportunity to play those roles while learning about the importance of STEM
017or STEAM with an E at the end for environment. Um, next slide. So specifically, we're really hoping that um the teachers can all get together um not just the two staffs that lead each level, but all of them across different levels to plan some really cool activities, maybe even do some planning with Earth Day, which is a big event for us that involves the community, staff, and school itself. And um >> me um I I I don't know how familiar you are with the model at uh Veron Bis. They're they're each grade level has two teachers. Uh and they're grouped together kindergarten first, second, third, and then fourth, fifth. Um one is an English teacher, one's a Chinese teacher. um they um particularly with the changes in curriculum over the past year um it's the
018the need has been there to just kind of align what they're doing um to match what the Mandarin curriculum is doing bring them up to the standards that we're seeking there as well as meeting the uh reading social stud social studies and science standards that are uh needed for all the students in English classes. Um the we would like the professional development time so the teachers can work together collaborate working on both the curriculum mapping for biiteracy issues as well as uh reflecting on what has been how things have worked over the fall semester to see where adjustments can be made to really work on hitting those targets going forward. Uh in terms of family communication, uh the governance councils um had conversations and approved this in spring of last year. So some of our
019families were um obviously aware of that included in that. I also shared a communication with families uh on August 8th that this is a tentative possible could happen. Want to make sure you're aware of this. Um I've only gotten positive feedback. Um I have not heard any concerns which actually is kind of surprising. So um we made sure we had a pretty vigorous um plan if we go forward. So uh depending I did let families know whatever the decision is this evening that I would share that out with them this week and then um if it is approved then we would add it. Um, and Mercy was great in helping me think through and see if there were any other ideas she had to add for communication. We'd add it to our school of calendars.
020I will say our families um are pretty used to checking our school calendars because we do have a lot of special events. We would share it in our family newsletter. Both NCS and BIS have Facebook pages. Um, we would also make sure that we would send reminders the week and day before January 16th. Uh both schools have a fall community gathering where lots of families attend. So we would make sure to share that out in that space and setting. Hang posters in our entrances and office throughout the fall. Especially if we have special events, we would look to mention that. And then um also look at doing a popup message on our websites uh starting on January 14th. Kind of like we've seen, you know, just a reminder, it's Labor Day, you know, just a
021reminder. um BAS or and or new century will not be having school on Friday. So, so that is our plan around communication. So, we're happy to answer any questions. >> So, in terms of the uh administration, you may be wondering what our our stance is. We um not just because they're here today, but we do believe that twofold that there should be continuity in one three charters. uh and to have similar language there. Second, uh we do know understand that we want to provide a a deep a deeper professional learning opportunity for staff given that there are uniquenesses to each of the curriculums that um are very special to the to the charter itself and to the the ways of working. So we think about a commitment to our literacy focus whether you through SAVS
022and our deep math focus as well. There are we still want to keep the science component deeply embedded and we also want to have the um language uh language acquisition still deeply part of and that takes just deeper time uh to be able to work in longer chunks or longer longer periods of time. We do have the uh PLC's which are uh in short snapshots you know of of working commitments. So they still have that but when you think about really going deep into curriculum sometimes you have to just go longer and deeper and through a half day or a full day to allow that to to fully fully happen. So um that is our thoughts on it. But again this is uh definitely be a a board decision as it was is part of
023a contract and would need to be addendum to to that contract. I just wanted to comment that I appreciate you reach out to families prior. Um that was my question for the slides. So good job of answering that one. Thank you for that. >> This is one of those situations where I think the board's here just as like the official blessing because we have parents and staff and administration all in alignment. And so thank you for you know coming and sharing just the update. I feel like it's kind of proforma for us like it's kind of your your thing and so we appreciate you coming in and you know I have no objections to it obviously. Just a clarifying question, especially given what we're being asked to formally approve as board members, right? In fact,
024the fact that this is an addendum to the contract. So, there is already language that allotss for one day >> there. No, >> there is not. Okay. So, that was okay. So, that was the piece that I had, for some reason, I had thought there was one and you were looking to have it be up to two. >> So, the language is going to change to be up to two. You're thinking this year the proposal will be the January 16th just perhaps just the one. >> Yes. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Um, and I want to reiterate too, I think right there is the semantics or the legal ease of us being the approving body for some of these changes. I appreciate kind of the uniqueness, the rarity of this being able to come
025to the table in a situation like this that it elevates work for staff which indirectly helps kids. Um, and that it does to your point, Dr. Clarity, align our charters, which feels like the right thing. So, but great to hear the updates and the intention behind the work. Yeah, I mean to me that's that's the important part of this is making sure our all three of our charters are aligned in how they handle things like professional development. That's why this makes total sense. I I I'm concerned not about the specific here. I'm totally fine with this. This is a good idea. But the idea of our contract, our charter contracts being kind of open for negotiation at all times. So I I'm I'm hoping we can kind of consider this a oneoff alignment. Let's get
026everybody together and not, you know, the start of lots of requests from charters. >> Administration simply completely agree. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any further questions for board members? We'll be taking a vote shortly. We want to open things for public comment before we do so. So, just ensuring there are no other questions we have for this amazing team. Thank you for your time by the way for coming to present. Okay, we look forward to taking our vote in a few moments. All right, so with that said, formally moving through the agenda, we are um to our public comment portion. I am not aware of any Lori, anything I've missed. Okay, so then with that said, we will then shift to our board action first of which is taking our formal vote. So board, we've
027been um able to hear about the proposal from our team here about the charter school contract amendment that will list up to two professional development days that will adjust and exist through the duration of both charter school current contracts. Um so I would accept a motion to approve the contract addendum proposal as proposed. >> Thank you, Meredith. Is there a second? Thank you, John. Uh, any further discussion or questions? All those in favor of approving the charter school contract addendum proposal signify with I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Addendum is approved. >> Thank you very much. >> I hope the staff can just it feels so good to know that that day is going to be there for your great, great, great. All right, board. Moving on then to our second piece
028of board action. So, we do have in front of us a more fancyful copy of our 2526 budget hearing and annual meeting. So, we heard details and an overview of this at our last meeting. We've had time to kind of live with this document. So, tonight there's no additional presentation. Um, but just a few reminders for you all and kind of the sake of the community. Um, you know, our budget proposal that's living here is certainly an investment again in staff. We've worked at length and thanks to our budget team to really try to elevate and take care of our staff financially given the budget that we're working within. Um, we have a balanced budget. We are monitoring staffing reductions and really trying to honor the FTE shifts within the district to work within our
029budget. um health care savings and also again to just highlight we're still trying to really work through mill rate and property taxes that are reflective of the multitude of variables including new construction including um higher property values all of the things. So the mill rate is still looking to be one of the lowest it's been in two decades. Um so just a couple of highlights to reiterate. Um after tonight's meeting, these books will be available at central office, a few copies for anyone in the community that'd like to have a tangible copy to look at. Um this will also be posted online after our vote this evening. And then we'll go through formal um approvements of all budgetary items coming up at our next meeting on the 22nd where we'll have our annual meeting and
030budget hearing. Um hopefully I captured a couple of the highle things. Anything else that anyone would want to just surface now before we take our vote? >> Yeah, just to clarify. So, right now we're the board is approving presenting this budget, bringing it forth to the, you know, annual budget meeting. We're voting again at the annual budget meeting, but we're not voting as the board. We're voting as citizens. So, we will be voting now as a board to advance it, but we will be voting on it again in two weeks as individuals >> as part of the committee. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yep. This looks really good. >> Yeah. Thank you again to Chad Pete, the entire finance team, all the leadership folks that are within this team helped make it pretty. >> Yeah.
031Yes. Yes. Thank you. on camera. >> It was not the charts and graphs crew and the color >> but in in all reality right visually but understandable as well right I think the combination of just language how it's written how it's presented just makes it very digestible incredibly informative um so for community members that really kind of appreciate that deeper dive and understanding this is such a great resource I know we try to do what we can at board meetings to elevate a level of understanding of school budgets, but it's a very complex entity. All right. So, as Meredith said, tonight as board members taking a vote to move this forward to the budget hearing and annual meeting. So, I would accept a motion to approve the um budget book as presented, the preliminary annual
032budget to move on to that meeting. >> So, moved. >> Thank you, Christopher. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Juan. Carlos, just by a hair. All those in favor of approving the 2526 preliminary annual budget signify with I. >> I. Any opposed? >> All right. Preliminary annual budget is approved. Look forward to the 22nd. And reminder to community it is open. Anyone here as Meredith said is equal citizen and equal parts voting as a um resident of the district. Moving on to our third piece of board action. And so board members, there is a document linked in board docs and there is one in your pile of goodies. Um, so looking at our GC6 policy where we review the annual work plan and also just for reference, a hard copy of our
033current working document of our annual work plan is also there for you to see. Um the language in GC6 under item number one had stated that the annual planning cycle will end each year in October. Um we've had a few of these kind of GC's as we've gone through when we originally wrote these policies that were maybe a little bit more defined than we might perhaps even need or realizing where our work really lives. So there is a proposal here to change that language as reflected in the change of color that it would say the annual planning cycle will be revisited each year to allow the superintendent to properly align internal operational systems and processes. So this is being brought to the table as a first read for conversation, dialogue, questions, wonderings, thoughts. >> Makes
034sense. >> It's pretty straightforward, right? It's nothing earthshattering, but certainly want to be able to live our GC's with um enough integrity. And if that isn't happening necessarily in October, you know, it's not that it's wrong, but it isn't reflected in our policy as perhaps we'd like to have. >> So given that this is a first read, we have time between meetings. Then if you do end up thinking of something, questions, concerns related to this change, but otherwise we'll bring this back at our next meeting to do as an official second read and then take an official vote to shift the policy language as presented. Okay, great. Uh, moving on. Board updates. What do we have? Board. The start of the school year is just kind of the thing to talk about. >> Um, I
035think we've shared previously there is the WSBY Regional Conference on Tuesday, September 30th. I believe you all get the WASBY emails that have that. So, please feel free to let me and or Lori know about that. Thank you. Um and I will be at the September 30th for sure to have representation for our district. Um we have Greater Dayne County. Next consortium meeting is on Thursday, October 9th for my Megan location. >> Mass Metropolitan. >> Oh, Holtzman. Holtzman Learning Center. And that I believe is on everyone's calendar. But again, just for the sake of um RSVPs and um noticing, feel free to let Florian and I know if you plan to attend. Uh what else? Was convention in January? Are we time to make sure you're communicating about possible attendance there? Anything else? Not for
036an update but >> but an update. >> Yes. >> Sure. >> Uh the wasda uh committees were um announced last uh Thursday and uh I was fortunate to be placed on the uh was legislative committee uh to be able to represent our area from the legislative. So I did we are able to submit where we think we have more most impact. We do that the spring before and then they provide the announcement of who's assigned where in the following fall. So there are position will be represented on the legislative committee as of last Thursday. >> Wonderful. Can you say more about who your position represents? Which geographical area? Or is it CISA? Okay. >> Great. Thanks for sharing that. Thanks for serving in that way. All right. Moving on to our superintendent consent agenda board.
037Just make sure you've looked over what's listed there. Are there any questions? Hearing none, the superintendent's consent agenda is approved as presented. Uh moving on to board consent agenda. Taking a peek, there are two items listed there. Any questions about the board consent agenda? Can we just clarify that the the hockey um part of that's just a again one of those requirements that we have to approve? >> We would not go to approve that but I think like it should be if you're seeing it in the agenda that's just is it annual is it every year? >> Two years. >> Yeah. So this would be a two year. Yeah. I mean I think there's interesting layers that you know exist within the world of discussing athletics especially in terms of um girls hockey and growth
038within programming but at this point from the vantage point of the board um obviously the expertise and analysis about that is I know beyond my scope and we have an amazing athletic director to help give us those insights. So, at this point, I agree that that's why it's in consent that it really isn't a board topic, but it is a board um decision to approve. >> We need an update. Can I go back one more to the board? I'm sorry. >> Oh, yeah. >> We haven't taken our vote, so I'll make sure. Or can we wrap up board consent? Okay, let's do that then. Um any additional questions about the board consent agenda? >> Okay. Hearing none, uh the board consent agenda is approved. And then we've got something that just really um I just
039wanted to get the timing because we got notice of this, but we're honored to be able to do this and uh if board members are interested in being present, I think that's okay. Uh we just were informed that the NEA Secretary Treasurer Noel Candeleria, am I saying that right? >> Uh will be at visiting Broner High School tomorrow afternoon. Um we'll be there joining other staff for a on a national back to school tour. We'll be joined by weak president uh Peggy Works also with a photographer and other members of Bruner School District staff. Um you know it's in collaboration with our our union representative is extremely important. So we're honored to um they would be joining us here but just wanted to get this out as we got noticed and short notice but it's
040good to good to be joining school district. >> Yeah that's great. Marcia, thanks for hitting me with this real quick. >> Wonderful. Thanks for letting us know. >> Yeah, wonderful. A celebration of the work and the collaboration of our union's leadership and the the hard work of our union representatives. Thank you. All right, moving on to future dates. So, board members, especially also reminder then that on the 22nd, our annual um meeting and budget hearing will be at 5:00 p.m. then immediately following for our regular board meeting. So, ensuring that your personal calendars reflect that we will be starting at 5:00 pm. Um, and again open to the public and then regular board meetings just listed to follow. And then we'll move into board workshop. Um, so hopefully at the top of your inbox, I
041know I saturated your inbox a little bit over the past 24 hours. Um, there is a working document. This is also printed and in the pile next to you. Um, if you recall when we did our analysis and revisited OE3 recently in terms of monitoring operational expectation three um that 3.1 due to a data breach that did happen, we kind of wrangled with this idea of having a particular indicator or portion of an OE being not in compliance by the language that is reflected in the policy. But then what does that mean for our overall um conclusion about the OE as a whole and especially that operational expectation having been communicating with the public and the nature of the OE versus the alignment of that particular indicator how that weighs and I think out of
042that discussion came this potential craving to maybe revisit just how we use language around monitoring. Um, so thank you for the the pieces that were shared even within that meeting. That was a catalyst to capture some notes. Um, and again, John, thank you so much for taking some time to kind of summarize and capture a few of the sentiments. So, I'll actually turn it over to you if you want to just give a few insights as to what we may be grappling with thanks to your kind of reflection work in the document that you all have with you. >> So, basically, this document just came out of notes from our last conversation. Um, and um, I tried to actually frame it in terms of like here's a direction we might want to move in. So,
043it's a little bit suggestive in that way. So, please take that with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to tell everyone what to do, but I did want to frame the conversation. And it seemed like in our last conversation, there were some some pretty good thoughts and ideas about what was missing and what we should do. And basically, so some of that background is laid out. Some of the specific thoughts that were brought up in the conversation in our last meeting are laid out. I tried to frame those into a guiding question that can lead this uh conversation. And then I also provided an example of where it seemed like some of our thoughts were going so we can take that or leave it. Um, and I color coded it because I like color
044coding things. Um, I don't want to speak for anybody. Um, but I know that I have shared some of Joe's concerns about how our language doesn't always fit our intent around these um, monitoring reports. And so um, in these examples, I tried to get language that aligns better with our intent um, and we can talk about it and figure out where we want to go from there. I think the two particular problems that have been brought to light that I would reframe for everybody is one the language of compliance or not compliance seems to be tripping us up because it doesn't align with the language of um operational expectations. Our expectations being met or not met. This is something that Joe brought up last time that I thought was fairly useful. Um and then within
045that we can look at you know how much are we approving individual indicators? Are we actually approving whether or not they meet or don't meet expectations or are we just working towards an overall um assessment of the overall OE? Um one of the things that I brought up in our last conversation is that we have to remember that we are staying focused on the overall OE language not the individual indicator language when we approve something. So then it becomes very important to think about how do we weight individual indicators in our thoughts about the whole um operational expectation. Okay. So that's enough of me talking. If anybody has any questions go ahead otherwise we can start going that's a workshop right? >> Yeah. Yeah. So questions initial thoughts discussion will be open for >> I
046can start. One of the things I did was looked at the actual monitoring report that we did at the last meeting and looked at the language on there and and I found several examples of things that were tying me up including like it actually says on the monitoring report free these indicators we know we will be compliant when these things happen like basically saying this is de facto how we have defined compliance and I I think that's one of the problems comes from is we we see all the time indicators that aren't met for a variety of reasons. That's it's not an indication of whether or not we're in compliance with that overarching OE or not. And that's why I like the idea of kind of taking that language out in some way of the
047monitoring report itself and then shifting the whole conversation like John said to a question about that top level operational expectation and then the question of I mean we're these are expectations were they met or not um and those indicators can be evidence that are submitted that we can consider in our evaluation of whether or not the expectation was met, but you could fail an indicator and still meet our expectation for how that uh OE was handled. And so, and I think the I think John's right on the money that the confusing part is the language we have chosen is what is tying us in to knots. So, the solution is to change the language. So, one of the words that I just add this that I kind of, you know, Joe has suggested in the
048past like they're either met or not met and I actually expanded it to like four criteria maybe to poke at Joe a little bit so that we can have like a healthier discussion around it. Um, but the language of expectations being met or not allows us to more logically have other criteria than just yes or no, which is maybe useful. >> I like the idea of having met and not met having a black and white the the indicators, but I like the idea of then having the indicators as evidence towards the overarching OE. Um, John, if I'm understanding this, if you're I think you were saying that having like the absolute criteria at the top level would make for hard conversations where some nuances can be lost. Am I can you I'm not sure I
049see it the same way, but I don't know if I'm understand. And I think we see it exactly the same way because I would say what you just said, what I said. Um that having the the black and white met or not met at the kind of indicator or at the bullet point level of each OE like 6.1, 6.2, whatever it is, is fine. But at the top level OE, >> if it's black and white, that might force us into categories where the conversation, we need to be able to parse out kind of what Joe was saying, like sometimes they're not meant for reasons and we want to highlight that. So that's why I said in the kind of sub example in there that maybe it's best to go with black and white at that
050indicator level. But then when we're talking about the overall OE then we're saying um you know it can be something like exceeds needs reasonable progress or not met something like that. And I tried to lay out like these might be all the options. And so what I was saying in that last bullet point that you brought up is kind of exactly what you said where like this would be great at the lower level but at the upper level it might box us in a little way where we can't you know I was thinking back to 03 >> you know then we're back having this did we not meet expectations here because this was a thing or did we meet expectations but then this other thing didn't or you know anyway do you see I think
051we're saying the same. Yeah, I think we are. But >> I'm not sure what I can say about that. >> I I think it the OE3 is a good example. >> I think if we switch to just expectations met or not met for each of the indicators, that'd be easy. We'd say not met for that one indicator. >> But I also think if we just had two options, met or not met for the overarching like our assessment of the entire OE, that'd be easy, too. we'd say met because it was like we even though there's a not met on one of those indicators if we've gotten rid of we'll we'll know we are compliant when we pass all of these then we can choose as a board to e to give as much weight or
052not to any single indicator >> that's kind of what I think too >> so I think somewhat what you think but I'm leaning towards that would be >> leaning toward keeping still a a to choice overall >> because I think that allows the board then to have the um the nuance discussion and also give individual weight to where different indicators fall in what we as a board collectively find to be the most important. But >> my worry with having more than two options, which I think is why John said he was needling me with that, is having meets expectations and exceeds expectations. I'm back to not knowing what the difference is between those and administration might be left thinking if they only get a meets it's like a minus or you know >> and I
053don't I don't want that. >> Well fail and that kind of relates to like standards based grading right? If you don't define what exceeds is >> then having it makes things complex if there's no actual attainable cate >> which I guess is a good point. I I'd be much more open to a conversation of more than two options if we actually did define, >> right? >> And then then maybe my criticism goes away. >> I mean, it could just be a distinction of what exactly happened meets all expectations or meets all expectations except 6.1. I mean, it could actually just be the not a checkbox, an actual description of what we agreed which is kind of what we've gotten toward leaning into is some sort of narrative that captures the dialogue which I think is
054going to be super valuable with any of this. >> Um, and I appreciate the piece of just that any one indicator doesn't have to be the determinate the determining factor of the overall and and it didn't feel that way when we had to do this with OE3 because of the compliance language. >> We even had this conversation, right? Did the responsive leadership meet what we would expect? 100%. So even just the change of acknowledging this as an expectations met versus a compliance I think really does reframe how it's approached um in a way that hopefully really captures the essence of the overall operational expectation thoughts from leadership as we're discussing this is a part of >> what impacts your work as well. >> Thank you. Um so there's two two ways I I guess I
055want to approach this is when we left the last meeting uh around 083 um and just listen to the conversation we from an administrative standpoint we we left the space not understanding what the benchmark of accountability was and and trying to understand that and so that that was a concern of not a as making sure that from a leadership point I we weren't leading trying to hit a moving target if that that makes sense. So just having really good solidarity around around that piece would be would be extremely helpful. Um, I'm not sure if I misheard the com or the one of the comments or I took one of the comments uh the wrong way when when there was discussion about you have to hit every indicator to meet compliance which is a I think
056a task that you know you think about O4 for example 04 by itself has 24 indicators foot and to to say >> we would if we're if we're not 24 to 24 then we're not compliant on it. It it would be hard for you know that that would be hard to say you know how how is that not compliant with the with the policy. Uh and then finally and I'm glad this came up in the conversation today. I don't know that we have always and we'll take accountability for it as well really taken us back to what the original policy statement is because we get so deep into the indicator work that we never bring that back to what we're trying to prove in that case of OE3 as an example because it's the most
057recent one that situation was superintendent shall maintain an organizational culture that treats parents and members of the community respectively and courtesy we rightfully so into a deep discussion around um a an area of confidential confidential information that was uh unfortunately uh dispersed for for staff and we never took it back to well what is this policy actually asking us which is actually not about staff information it's about parent information and community information um but we also wanted to recognize that our staff are also community members and that viol that violation of the of compliance was significant and needed to be talked about publicly and shared share with our staff and share share with the board because uh we don't want to have any secrets of that kind. So just a long way of of stating
058twofold. If we whatever we walk away with, if we understand that that as the benchmark and what we need to do as administration, uh being able to have that target solidified and understood so we can provide the best amount of evidence as possible. And just to kind of a plea uh if it's a situation where every single indicator has to be met uh I just don't see that as a reasonable task to be able to to get >> push back on that and wonder if we have so many indicators that it wouldn't be reasonable to meet them all. What we're saying is the these are our expectations like we will know the district is running well when these things are met. If these things aren't met, then there's a problem. If we have indicators that
059are kind of unnecessary, maybe we need to take a look at that. If like this one can be met or if there's so many that it's impossible to satisfy them all then there's some that are superfluous then or is there a possible or with that that if it's high achieving right putting these indicators forward to try to show a high level of functioning of the district but there's just >> things that happen that potentially impact it. So I don't know that at least in my my view of it that it may not be like let's use 3.1. Yeah, >> a data breach isn't superolous. I have a hard time saying that word. >> But I think if we're saying when there's like 24 indicators, do all 24 actually, >> you know, I'm just I'm curious
060if we're >> or do all 24 have to weigh the same in the discussion? >> No, I don't think I don't think that would be anything that would be required for any of our >> I see your point though as a separate point. I think that we probably less is more with indicators overall I think but I don't know if it's beyond the scope of this conversation. It's an interesting one that >> but I remember the keynote speaker from last year at the annual convention. Um in his book he was just talking to me about how you a lot of school districts have way too many indicators and we have to simplify and I agree with him. When I was looking at the first run of the OE that we put together, it just seemed
061really noisy, right? And I think that separate to that, it's probably worthwhile for us to revisit to make sure that we can simplify it where possible because it'll be a bit easier for Dr. Clary and administration. I don't have enough knowledge to tell you exactly what OE I can use an example as no, but I think overall we have a ton of indicators. Uh but but more specific to this conversation, I kind of like having the language of exceeds expectations, meets expectations, reasonable progress for the reason why because I'm thinking about, okay, we're talking a lot about makes the the work easy for the board, what makes the work easy for the administration. But I also want to think about what makes it easy and approachable to read for families and parents that are wondering,
062hey, what happened at this meeting with this OE that I really care about? And I just think I'm not married so much with having to use that, but if as long as we can ensure that it's easy for non board and administrators to know what's happening and something is met, but if there's important information to be deemed by the concerned parent or community member, that's clear that that's not uncertain. It shouldn't that these things should be written in a way that's only clear for us administration that we're considering the parents and family members that might be interested in reading through some of these themselves or or really quickly finding information. recently done addressed a concern and she was able to really effectively pinpoint in a meeting that we had a pretty thorough discussion about employment
063matter and I thought that was super helpful because I was able to go to Jim's uh email pinpointed the information and as a parent like wow this is great I see the conversation was having and I didn't realize it right because a lot of parents aren't joining these meetings right but I think that's where I'm coming from is I like this additional language because I think it might make it easier for label or administration. I think I'm left wondering a little bit if we I like the less is more. I know Joe, you kind of shared the idea too of of indicators. My worry a little bit. I appreciate the the organic way that letting us decide what indicators weigh into the overall OE. I think that is of high value, but does that make
064it unsure for you of what the target is? Do you get what I'm saying? like allowing ourselves the space to process, you know, yeah, this indicator had some troubles and maybe wasn't met, but overall according to the policy, this feels like we're meeting expectations. Is that greyness complex from the request that you just shared of knowing what the criteria is? Because in a lot of ways that makes the criteria a bit more organic in the moment based on what the data is that's being presented. Am I saying that in a way that makes sense? I think I tried to elevate a question in your direction with that, but >> yeah, they make sense. And if we understand the the target, whether the information is good or bad, at least we know what we're what we're
065what we're presenting. So, it's not about trying to make it look good for the purpose. The target is just understanding what the what the goal is and what the what the what the target is. >> Um, I think right right now it is really been been fluid. And so when it's fluid, we it's hard to say. But we prepared the report in this way and now the fluidity of how it's processed has has shifted and [Music] that that's part that part is difficult for for for leadership to to really understand how to how to get better targets. Um I would say when it comes to the report I think it's uh one thing for the I think superintendent and administration should indicate whether each indicator is compliant or not compliant but I think the overall
066OE is really just the board to decide like I don't think you you would weigh in on that >> then we don't we yeah we started shifting that >> yes but I wasn't sure if that's what you were saying is maybe I wasn't understanding what you were saying No, I was saying that our how how an OE was processed and and discussed and the final outcome was decided has been fluid whereas the talking points for one OB has not been consistent with the talking points for the for for another OE. So it's it's hard to say well if OE9 for I'm just throwing always out there if O9 passed >> right and then we have very similar situation with OE3 why are why are the talking points different between between the the the two OES
067and then again the discussion went back to well not every indicator was not every indicator or one indicator to respond and do not complain and that was the justification for the whole OE not being compliant whereas we started when we started years ago and I and no one wants to go back to we started years ago trust me I don't know we were almost just >> adding up you know if we had odd numbers was how many were you know how many were were positive how many were negative again going there which that wasn't I don't want to go back to that either because I don't think that really justifies but again I go back to my original statement is that I and how it's presented. We have to be accountable for that as well.
068We weren't bringing the conversation back to what is the intent of this policy. I want to know what is the OE asking and and keeping the conversation there. Once we got into indicator world, we stayed there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Agree. >> And never got out of it. >> Okay. Yeah. I think that that makes sense. I >> So, so what you're saying is that if we're going to say we want you to like do some sort of executive summary or something that bridges the gap from indicator world to the overarching OE world where we're going to make our estimation of whether or not things have been met or not. That represents a shift for you, right? That >> Yes. Because if you know in the executive summary I always put about such and such number
069of indicators. >> You can also say what like how you can say what you think the relative important is of the indicators. >> Um >> and maybe tell us why some should be weighed. For example, if we go back to the one we just did with the data breach, that could be in because not all indicators are going to be equal seriousness, but that could be one where it's we feel like we are while we are not in compliance with this particular indicator, we still feel like we are in compliance with the >> Yes, I do like that >> with the overarching OE because we did this, we did this, we did this, and we'll be updating the board at, you know, a later date something that like explain why one indicator would be should
070be uh considered >> it's not a make or break indicator. >> Yeah. Or that there's corrective action already, you know, in play that will remediate problem. I don't know. I mean >> I I understand because there are some there are some powerful indicators out there that >> like you miss it. issue issue issue >> like if we we fill our audit >> that would be we know that that's a problem >> right >> but I think that would simplify it for everyone you know anyone out there that's listening >> you us making sure we tie it back to the itself >> because I agree a lot of times you get lost in was a hard one. >> Yeah. I think also though, you know, I think we've tried to bridge that gap a little bit
071with the meets expectations or in compliance with exceptions, which I know Joe loves and he's going to miss this, but you know, but I think that that was trying to address that not every indicator is the same, you know, but I think that ended up moneying, >> you know. Mhm. So if we take that out though, then it it requires the board to have a bigger conversation about the specifics. But I think that can also be where you weigh in with your interpretation of the weight of that particular indicator that may not have been in line met expectations. When we first started all this, I remember having several conversations where we talked about the importance of having robust discussions at the board table and and the the role that those robust discussions have in bridging
072the gap between the minutia of what goes into running the schools effectively and public perception of what's going on, >> right? >> And that we needed to find ways to promote those more robust discussions at the board level. Um my feeling now after hearing some of this conversation and and actually my feeling beforehand even though I was poking at Joel that is that if we are going to keep the board's focus on the highle OE at the end of the day that's what we're voting on and all of the indicators and stuff is basically just evidence that the admin is team is using to inform us and inform the public of what's what's been going on, then it does work to have that you either meet it or you don't meet it. But like we
073do with our results, we're going to record that in like a brief quick narrative that then gets approved and consent agenda the next time that says the board says that oh operational expectation three is met even though you know blah blah blah blah blah blah blah because that's not a make or break indicator and that you know we all see that and you know consent agenda boom it gets put in the record that's put into the record. I think that is a more I understand how that's more of a gray area because it's not like I we're not in essence saying here's the goalpost for the overall OE. We're saying you tell us what your goal post was for all your indicators and you know then we'll have that discussion in public and you know
074we'll approve or not approve but also then theu the community has a chance to see through that public record you know oh this is why and this is what's going on. I >> I totally agree with John. I think going to that binary question, it definitely introduces some subjectivity into it, but that's that's what's going to allow us to have the robust discussion that John's talking about. If it's so wrote that it's just like indicator indicator indicator, there's no room for us to discuss and have maybe potentially even differences of opinion about things. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Um, and and my my overall goal is really to simplify the process. And that's because like the way my own like pedantic brain works, I get bogged down in the language and I can't get past
075it when it says like we know we will be compliant when, and then it lists 25 different things, some of which we didn't do. Um, uh, and I think that there's there's value in simplicity, and there's nothing more simplistic than here's our expectation. Did you meet it this year? yes or no, but it's very simple. >> I think that's one thing that I when we are looking at as we go through the process, if we're finding indicators that were like not in compliance, but it didn't change things, those are the indicators that we look at to find out are they actually necessary to keep, you know, I'm looking I just pulled up like 4.1 and there's three indicators under 4.1 about percentage of staff who complete surveys. I mean, and that's where Does that advance
076us? I mean, if we missed that, I wouldn't care. I mean, so that's where I kind of wonder, can we >> Yeah. >> Well, you're more you're more concerned with how that speaks to the overarching thing. >> Yeah. But at least 50% of staff that voluntarily resign or retire complete an exit survey. Interesting information, but like if you didn't have 50%, would I be like, "Yeah, you just totally didn't have a good >> O4." >> Yeah. Oh, we fail. >> This is a bad, you know, culture and climate for the staff. I mean, because that's the overall is operational expectations for personnel, administration, and just when you go back to the OE, I think some of the indicators get in the weeds for the board. I do think it's interesting information, but I don't think
077that 35, 65, 85 is that meaningfully different to me? The part that I think could be really interesting and partially I think this is because we've like lived in this now so many iterations and so many spaces to have these conversations to keep getting into a point where you know the system is doing what we wish it to do is you know the document that we're now kind of using as guidance for board and leadership on what we want to do with the data that's presented. feel like in theory that becomes the framework that allows the board to chew on whatever data you're going to show up with that we don't have these list of indicators that are locked in at all times. If it's OE4 day, what are you bringing to the table knowing
078these are the questions and the things that we're going to use to help guide the value of that evidence? I mean, I know it sounds really wide open, but just the less is more. Like, how do we really hone in? I think that's the board's responsibility to say, does the board find this indicator necessary to evaluate whether or not the superintendent has created a culture, >> you know, staff. But that's I I mean I think that's what we would at each point if we're coming up with indicators that we're like this one really doesn't lean us towards >> knowing. >> Yeah. I I mean that's I mean I'm being specific about this one just because it's you know pulled up but I think that they have three indicators about climate particip or survey participation again
079interesting information but if you missed that I wouldn't feel like this is now not in compliance which makes me think is the survey that big of a deal for us to be what do we I mean, go ahead. >> So, you'll appreciate this though, Meredith. So, I used to drive Meredith crazy. >> You're not you're not the president anymore. So, like um now I drive Jenny crazy. But um I used to drive her crazy because we you know enacted this sort of governance model and then we spent a year going through all these where we had to vote on whether or not we thought the definitions, >> the interpretations and the indicators were reasonable. So we were pre-doing the work that I laid out in that results. Like this is our score sheet for results.
080We're like asking questions about like is this is this evidence connected to the argument that's being made? We were pre-doing that work by saying as board this is reason we're not. Now every week we looked at these I would email in like questions about words or things I want to change or then after they would vote on the entire next year. So the second year after that, every time they would come up, I would email Meredith and be like, "Hey, I'm not sure I like this." Like this, I'm in essence reopening the conversation and saying, "Is this reasonable or not?" And she you got a little frustrated. Get frustrated. This is a lot because you'd be like, "We're not evaluating if this is reasonable now. Now we're connecting you this, you know, like calm down.
081Stop trying to change everything." That is moving the gold post when you're doing that. Um, so what I'm what I'm getting at is if we look at this process as a whole, then these questions about whether or not the indicators need to be simplified or whether or not it makes sense to have the survey data that equals those things, those are questions of reasonleness that we can challenge the admin team on if we want to reopen those things up. But they're the responsibility of the admin team to write the indicators, to write the the um interpretations of things. All we do is write the OE >> and and you frustratingly beat that back in my head one week at a time. And so now I'm in a place like, okay, those are all great questions,
082but they're not really our questions. So when we get to this point where we're trying to evaluate has this been met or not met based on all these indicators and maybe one indicator is more important or not, we might get to a hiccup whereas a board member, an individual board member might say, "Hey, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to use these bits of evidence to make this point." >> But that's not a question of approving the OE. >> That's a question of challenging the admin to come up with their own language, their own goalposts. So what I would say is those are great questions, >> but right now I think when we're laying out the criteria that we're using to judge our own policy language, that's a different question. >> And then we maybe
083have to say like, wait a minute, how often is it appropriate to reopen that question of reasonleness at that level? But I'm joining discussion. >> But I think that's what as we're talking about this, I think as we're saying, if all indicators don't need to be met to have the OE, the expectations of the OE met, that's the time for the board to maybe evaluate. Let's take a look at these indicators for reasonable once again. So it's not something we would be doing now. It'd be just something as because we've talked about when is the time for us to look at indicators like >> when it comes up we're like you know what that one wasn't in compliance and I don't think it mattered then that would be that would be a suggestion for us
084>> which we've kind of done right in the middle of evaluating or monitoring we've kind of had a let's revisit let's we'd like to see an indicator come back from from you or you've done that. So I think in in that process of monitoring we tend to make those decision >> I think we've done it informally. >> Yeah. But I mean I think as a board we did have to vote on whether indicators were reasonable. Yeah. >> And like from a process standpoint then we can someone can make a motion to say it's not reasonable anymore. >> Like and we could as a board decide that we we want and John's point's a good one which is that we shouldn't >> be doing that all the time >> because that makes it really difficult. That
085moves the goalposts. But from a process standpoint, we can um if we ever come across something that we think isn't reasonable anymore. But I mean I would say that's a pretty high bar. >> I would have a question though like for you know production clarity it would be harder if we're adding indicators as opposed to we're like we don't need two indicators we can take those off your plate for the next time. I mean is that a different level of >> it it is and I I think the one thing that we haven't put into the space now is that I would like to is that the broner district is a drastically different place than it was four years ago or five years ago >> you know and some of the things that we were
086bringing as because we were literally trying to figure out how to build a system to get get it up and running. So at that time very reasonable because that was the state of the organization that that that we were where we were at. >> Now I look at it and some of them are flat out just compliance because it's there and some of them we really do use because it helps us keep each other accountable as a as a ministry seem to have we we believe in this do this and we want to make sure that we're we're we're caring to it. So it's a it's a yes to your question. >> Yeah. that removing some of those that organizationally we just aren't in that same space anymore. >> Yeah. >> Um I I guess
087I I don't know where the time space for that conversation happens. >> Yeah, >> it would be a good question. So, I don't think that needs to be as big in formal a conversation as it has been in the past because I think what I hear you saying is that we were going from having like very little institutional framework as a district to now we've got a lot of the framework, maybe not as much as we want, but we've got a lot of it there. So, I think it's a lot easier for us to step back and say we don't need all of the formality that we used to have. I would suggest that you need a majority of the board me members to vote to to vote to like challenge you as our principal
088administrator on the reasonleness of one of your things and then you'd have to come back and report to us on that. But I would also suggest that you as our one point of contact with the district can bring suggested changes to us >> at will like willy-nilly. >> That could be a prior executive summary. >> Yeah. and just be like, I want to vote on I want to do this. I want to change this. >> I want to actually go back to what you said. I think that's really important, especially going new board members. We had nothing like this in place. I mean, literally nothing. So, everything that was built here was built in a vacuum. That really, it's important that that history is is recognized in the fact that some of these things may
089really have some, you know, minutia because we weren't monitoring any of it. And so it served a purpose. It served a really important purpose at the time and we may have grown out of that that purpose. So >> um and and I think there's also a getting you know familiar with how we use this but I think we can recognize we have maybe the adolescent ears of our governing processes. I I think it would be useful if when we do monitoring of OE reports for us as a board and with Dr. clarity at the end to have a conversation about the indicators >> and maybe not every time in perpetuity when we do it but at least for the next monitoring cycle >> to go through all the OES and say okay let's talk about
090these indicators do we really are do we feel like these are reasonable and we think they're returning on value >> and then I think we're going to I think it'll be very rare for us to find one where we want new indicators I think more likely than not we're going to be axing half of them that we have and that's going to make that's going to again simplify everything. I would suggest though that like this process if we're going to do this over the next year say which you know I'd say a year starts with the annual meeting coming up over the next year if we go through and monitor it according to this board plan um and we add that to the end where every time we're going to ask are these indicators still
091reasonable that can be like an audit procedure at the board level that happens every few years or every so often it's not a regular thing I would differentiate that from admin being able to and suggest changes >> 100% >> whenever. >> Yep. >> Unbelievable because I wouldn't want future boards to be doing that all the time and as they go. >> Yeah. >> And and I think it would be best practice to be like every three years, every five years, whatever we line them up to. >> Yeah. >> And and just put in communication just so it's you know for the integrity of the team. just because it's a hard indicator to me is not a reason to turn it not the reason to bring to you because we can't necessarily >> right >> but
092I just wanted to put that publicly for any was like I'm not trying to erase the indicators because they you know we didn't hit it that year >> I think that comes back to the whole reason we're having this discussion if you have things that aren't met great those have to be in there part of the discussion but then how we utilize that information with an overall vote I think the language and the way we've talked about how that process can look can shift immensely to reflect the holistic view of the data that's been presented. >> Yeah. I mean and quite honestly the way that and I appreciate the way that we are looking at results policies now are making so many of >> OE10 obsolete because all those they now live in the way
093that we're looking at the results >> I think anybody who's ever like adopted or like had to organize themselves from scratch right you start by overdoing it you put everything in that daytimer you know every note your to-do list like I've got to remember to go to the bathroom. I'm going to put that on there. Everything, every little thing. And then you do that for a year and you're like, "Oh, I can leave this stuff out. It's it's, you know, habitual life." Anybody that's ever done that process, which is probably almost all of us, you recognize by like year three or four, you're doing way less to organize yourself because you built those habits and institutional in your lifestyle. And that's in essence what's happened here is we did all the things. We've done that
094for three years now. It's built into the culture. It's there in other ways that are actually harder to much harder to like effect or affect now. So yeah, let's focus more on let's spend our time more on the things that matter. >> So yeah, can we try to summarize where we are? >> Can I take a stab at it please? >> Please. I've taken some notes. like there is broad support to say that we're going to shift our language to meets or does not meet expectations >> that we're just going to keep that binary and that while admin might indicate for us where indicators have been met or not met the overarching OE is where we make our decision. Um, and that's not going to be suggested for us other than like here's the summary,
095here's what we think. Then it's going to be up for the board to discuss and summarize, um, vote on, um, canonize it in language and go that way. Is that where we're feeling like we're at? And that as a part of that, we will be doing a board audit of indicators this upcoming year. and that that audit is going to be a once in a few years thing otherwise my own little >> I like that. >> So my own again from a semantic standpoint nothing well maybe in some ways I also am hearing that within each subp part of a policy we potentially eliminate the we are in compliant when statement. Yeah, that's what I that's what I >> especially if we're not going to use compliance language anymore. I don't know that that statement
096is helpful. >> Like we also call indicators superintendent indicators of compliance and I don't think they right and I don't even think that needs a subheading, right? All it is is so I just pulled up OE to have just an example in front of me. So what I'm wondering and maybe this is either another board member that can help me or Nate. We're not rewriting the policy. So, by changing the potential verbiage we're using for vote, does this require a board vote that we're agreeing to make this language change in terms of saying meets expectations or does not meet expectations? >> I is it something we can just agree on because it's not part of the policy? Am I phrasing that question correctly? Does this require a vote vote to change what we're suggesting is
097changed in these OES? I think it would require Oh, but I don't think it requires like a second reading like a policy because that language isn't >> right. So, that's kind of what I'm saying. Like if we kind of got an agreement here, can we >> It's not included in our GC's. >> Yeah, it's not included in our GC's or in our >> It's not as real. Yeah. Or what about for superintendent policies? I just wanted to make sure. >> Thank you for checking that. Because then my I guess my follow-up question is we have OE2 which is a fairly straightforward OE to monitor coming up. >> That's a bad indicator. >> Great. What is this? >> It does. >> That's great. >> And it get 2.2 because I don't know why I propose it
098this way. It says two staff members located in district office reception area have copies of the OE2 report. Well, we have two central offices now. >> And there's more than two people there. But see what you you didn't know what you didn't know by saying >> no. >> And now we get to decide how heavily we weigh that piece of evidence. I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you're you're asking whether you need a vote to change a process but not a policy. >> No, we're not changing the substance of the policy. Correct. There is verbiage on the monitoring report. >> Right. At the top of the change >> at the top of the monitoring report right now it says compliance compliance with accept right not compliant. We're talking about rewriting that language.
099So it's not change, but I mean it's like lives in the policy document. Do you kind of get what I'm saying? >> I feel like I want to take a vote on how we're >> Yeah. should vote on how we >> Yeah. Anything just to have a record. >> Yes. Yeah. >> But it's not a >> So we don't do a second reading. we can just do this now >> because then I'm wondering with OE2 then if we just move forward and make those adjustments when that OE comes to us so we can start to live with it right away with >> for the most part an OE that's fairly straightforward. >> Okay. >> So if we're capturing for the sake of a vote >> do we have action that >> so proposing that the
100we know we are compliant when will get taken out of every I just want to summarize what I think I'm hearing we're doing to change the document just to make sure we're all on the same page. So that's something that I've heard is that that piece will be gone. We know we are in compliant when and at the top each indicator will say met or not met which will be filled out by administration. And the top of the document, the overarching OE will also say meets expectations or expectations not met, but that will be left for the board to vote on along with our summary document which will capture the nature of the conversation. Since we don't have action on that on the agenda tonight, I think we just can do consensus at the board
101informal. But I do think we need to vote on it because it's completely approved by vote. >> You can take a motion to modify the agenda. >> The agenda already has like this sufficient. >> Okay. >> So we could take action within this topic of >> without amending them. Okay. >> Did I summarize what I think I've said? >> We can do that. >> Yeah. Thank you for I mean right because this when we're doing this so organically it helps me to make sure I know what we're doing >> and this is a little bit semantic but let's just call them indicators not indicators of compliance any reference to compliance we can get out of the report. >> Yes. >> And just from a a visual standpoint I I think since we're talking so much
102about tying that binary decision to what the overarching OE says let's put that at the top of the report. So like that's the first thing you see when you open up. >> This is the OE. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think that we really have gotten away from >> the I absolutely feel guilty of that as a personal perspective, especially reflecting on OE3. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Yeah, I think OE3 was perfect. It was on fire. >> Yeah. >> That Okay. anything I've missed. So all the pieces, every word of compliant is eliminated, met or not met within every indicator coming to us from administration in terms of a suggested checkbox there. The very top of the report has the OE listed very explicitly the overarching OE and the top is going
103to say meets expectations or expectations not met which will be left blank when the report comes to us. Is there a motion to approve all of those changes to our OB monitoring reports? >> Some move. >> Thank you, Joe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Carlos by hair. >> All those in favor of approving the changes to our OE monitoring reports as suggested. Signify with I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Fabulous. Great discussion. Thank you everyone. I feel like to your point, Dr. there. We've just we've been living in the work, these changes make sense. I don't feel like it's a reflection of any incompetency by any member of this team. It's having done the work and figuring out >> what makes sense. >> I think this will make it a lot more transparent
104to the general public as well. >> I agree. The way we get to talk about data, I think will be much more impactful. All right. Uh so with that, we're going to adjourn to close session under Wisconsin statute 19.85 85 sub1 subc to consider employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility specifically to discuss the contract of the superintendent. Um we'll move to a roll call vote to shift into close session. >> Hi. >> Uh Christopher, >> hi. >> Meredith, >> hi. >> John, >> yes. >> Corby, >> yes. >> Joe, >> hi. >> I am an I as well. We'll adjourn to close session. We will take a short recess then so we can kind of just organize around internally and
105then we'll regroup for close session.