VASD Board of Education Meeting - virtual access for BOE members

001All right, good evening everyone. We will call this meeting to order on this Monday, July 7th. U let's establish please that we have a quorum beginning with a roll call vote. Joe here, Corby here. Meredith here. Christopher here. Juan Carlos here. John here. And I am here as well. We do have a quorum. Corby, has this meeting been properly noticed? Yes, it has. Thank you. To help ensure that we're centering our board work around our shared values and serving our students, we begin each of our board meetings by reading our district's equity framework and the Hochunk land acknowledgement which can be found at the top of the agenda. Um, and actually it is my turn to do the reading this evening. So, I will do so on behalf of the board. Our educational equity framework

002reads, "In the Verona Area School District, our mission is that each student will 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 value and affirmed in their unique identities and experiences. 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, the Verona Area School District is committed to disrupting these systems of inequity. And our Ho Chunk land acknowledgement reads, "There are currently 12 tribal nations who call Wisconsin home. With

003the 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. Moving on to tonight's agenda. Board, as you continue to take a look at tonight's agenda, please feel free to surface any questions, suggestions, or I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as presented. I'll take Christopher as a motion and a second from Joe. All those in favor of approving tonight's agenda signify with I. I. Any opposed? Who's John? There's a I there. Any opposed? The agenda has been approved. Moving on to student and staff recognition. We do have another honore and recognition this evening. So I'm going to flip the spots with

004our guest left. Yes. Right. We will flip spots if it's okay with the chair to move to human growth of development and come back to staff recognition. Absolutely. Let's do that. No, Adam, you're up. Thank you. Thanks for being responsive to a little switcheroo here. So, moving into superintendent's report where we have our human growth and development update. Greetings. You want the clicker? Please. Sure. [Music] All right. So, we are here to update you um at after basically the conclusion of our year together with a human growth and development kind of our board uh designated uh committee that took a look at our current state of this curricular resource. So um in summary, the team uh that we convened together um included a mix of students uh current staff in our district, admin staff, community

005members. Um we had five meetings over the course of the year. We met by monthly. Um the goal of the team was to review the current state of this instruction in our district. Not necessarily to make curricular recommen recommendations, but just to advise on where the team was feeling this instruction was currently at. So over the course of our five meetings together um we took a look at the statute all relevant laws policies um looked at some youth risk data from main county um and then from there we had an opportunity to observe lessons from the elementary, middle and high school level taught by those that do this instruction over the course of the year. Um and over the course of that time the committee was taking notes on some of the things they were

006noticing that they appreciated and the way we currently operate and things that they felt could be improved. Um, in some of our later meetings, um, at the request of the committee, we reviewed some of the curricular resources from other area districts, um, in alignment with some of the questions they had, again, not to do any sort of curricular adoption process, but just to have something to compare to because all they had was what we were currently using. Um and then uh took some instruction from the board at our very last meeting looking specifically at some uh language and about inclusivity, language about trauma informed um practices and just some of the visuals. So things that the team felt were strengths of our current way of operating whether growth development instruction. One was very felt that

007the instruction was very accurate particularly in terms of instruction around consent uh medically accurate language around anatomy and contraception. Felt that some of the lessons included very inclusive language. Appreciated the different tools that were used. a mix of pencil and paperwork from videos to multimedia modalities and then alignment with state law and many of the content areas. Areas that the committee felt were in need of of some review growth were uh some concerns about the inconsistent delivery across buildings and grade levels when compared to districts or the more coherent kind of K12 model. uh felt that there was quite limited uh LGBTQ um to SI plus inclusion um as well as at some of the grade levels just the short lesson durations and outdated materials were of concern. Um and then lastly felt there's minimal

008student voice and just minimal and limited access to kind of a full continuum of the the curriculum and what was instructed when compared to some of the other resources out there and some of the districts that had a much more coherent model. And so, uh, in summary to some of the board questions that were asked at the last meeting that we had together, um, the team took a look at those questions and in response felt that some of the the topics around LGBTQ inclusion was very minimally addressed. Um, it was inconsistent by level. Um, didn't feel that there was necessarily a coherent district-wide approach to inclusion or mental health support. um felt that some of the preview opportunities for families to to see this varied by school and level, particularly across levels. Um and uh

009had some concern with just on the committee. There was one student who attended for I believe it was two two meetings and so had some concerns about just that student representation in the review that the committee engaged in. And then lastly felt that while the equity framework guided some of our discussion didn't feel that was fully embedded um in the team's work and our current way of operating this instruction. So um in reflection some of the the closing themes uh from all of our meetings together uh the committee felt that there would be value in considering adopting a consistent structured curricular model. Um, one particularly that uh had opportunities for improving access for families and just transparency to the instruction and what was taught and when. Uh, a call for increased student voice and inclusion

010um in the process for consideration moving forward and uh also just a recognition of the importance of in instruction like this just developmentally appropriate and inclusive content. So with that uh we kind of hand it back to the board um for discussion because we're kind of at the point where um the committee has has convened for the year and kind of there are three options. One would be um the committee has achieved its purpose in giving advice back and reviewing that curriculum and sharing their thoughts. The committee could be formally dissolved. Another option would be the committee can continue with a new and updated charge or any other board directed follow-up actions for us as a district in and I'm here to confirm that the the board has met its legal obligation by appointing this

011committee and the committee has met its directive to the board by putting these periodic updates report and that the ball is really in the board's court here in terms of deciding what next steps are. Thank you for the summary. Thank you for the clarification as well. Just in recapping how this came to be with the state statute in terms of how the board proceeds with reviewing curriculum for HDND, HGND that we've taken that work, we've heard these reports, we've given some insights. Um so I think yeah the next steps in terms of board recommendations knowing that one um emerging theme is this idea of creating perhaps or coming to adopting a consistent and structured curriculum. Um thoughts that the board may have about where our next slide I have some sentiments so I'm going to

012put it all into to your hands first. I'm concerned. I mean, we asked them to um gather. I mean, there was a a legal component that we needed to definitely check, but I also don't think that that's the purpose just for busy work. I mean, there is a a value in having this reviewed. And it sounds like the conclusions that they reached are are fairly significant um with regard to the things that we as a district value. Um so, I would like to I would like Can someone remind me how old is the current curriculum that we're using? When was the last time we had curriculum um adoption in this area? Believe it was uh it would have been planned around the time of the pandemic and so likely it get new curriculum is not

013a small undertaking so I don't want to just be throwing that out at the board table. Um I would be curious to see if any of these concerns can be um remedied in other ways, but it sounds like there's I mean the the lack of access and transparency to families I think is a concern. I mean among many but that's yeah I think um there's some topics that were brought up by the by the committee itself that I think need to be addressed and I I just wonder what the steps forward of that are. equity piece. Um the inconsistency around LGBTQ topics is one that that I have deep concerns with. Um so I just I don't I I wonder if there are from the resources that were provided if there were recommendations that the

014committee would like to move forward. I guess that would be my question versus creating new curriculum. Um that would just be my question and I don't know how to address that. I think part of the piece if you don't mind with the committee the committee we assigned the review of the curriculum not necessarily to then give us recommendations about how we adjust the curriculum. So I think that's kind of the turning point that we are at. If we're to a point now of saying what does it look like to adjust our curriculum? Is it simply to augment? Is it to revamp entirely? that feels like a next phase of this that in my opinion is beyond the scope of what this committee is because we have curricular adoption working in our district. Um so I

015agree that all of those seem like the next steps I think to find closure with this. My opinion is that the committee has done its work and then we as a board perhaps discuss how that charge forward to review and change curriculum lands back within leadership in the administration. That's kind of where I'm at because I agree wholeheartedly and I don't think that lands then with the committee in terms of what legally the committee was asked to do, what needs to happen and what has happened in terms of my understanding. I'd be interested in just some administrative recommendations about how you know how to move forward um based on the results from the committee. Yeah, thanks for asking. The recommendation that I would bring to the table is uh as was stated the committee in

016regards to the legislative component has completed this task and has given very clear recommendations of what we should look for. Um and it I fully believe in our process for curriculum um uh renewal and or repurchasing in the terms when we have areas of deficiency which um the committee has identified as as some significant areas that we want to explore. So taking that into account and also that does not mean that we dissolve committee type work because part of our curriculum curriculum renewal or new purchase process is the development of a committee itself is by it just would not be this committee and so um the recommendation at hand would be to take the feedback that we've gotten uh developed a committee for specific purpose of renewal and or uh purchase for development of a

017committee that that matches the our equity framework and has the voice and move in that direction if that is will of the board sense it seems a little circulative I was going to say so that committee is over so let's start a new committee but the idea of right having still representation voice student voice we obviously heard from this review so elevating that as a part of what actually happens on curricular adjustments potentially So in terms of conclusions, do we need to take a vote to say that the committee is officially complete with their work? If that's something that we You could just vote to move forward with Dr. Clar's recommendation, which would be to dissolve the committee and have the district administration move forward the curriculum adoption or kind of search process. Does anyone

018else have any thoughts in terms of that possible next step forward? Okay. So, let's see if I can phrase that out. So, I would accept a motion to um vote to dissolve or give gratitude to the committee that has served its purpose for curriculum review and then to send the next charge to Dr. Clarity and leadership team to begin the process of deep analysis of our curriculum. Is there a motion? Thank you, Meredith. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Juan Carlos. Any further discussion? Just as part of this, I would love to have the committee just updated on what we're doing, why we're doing, and the gratitude of the board for the work that they put in because that's, you know, that was a pretty significant amount of time. And super appreciative for just the

019insights that came out of that group. Yeah, thank you for the all the insights and and the work that was done. I know that was we had asked a lot. So, I appreciate incorporating that feedback and and reworking some of the concerns. Um, I would just earmark that. Um I would hope that the results that came out of the committee that that's what we're using as a priority for how we look for the next members of the board moves forward. So representation from either student voice or LGBTQ perspective etc. Absolutely. And those are yeah things that we can ask of admin. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. All those in favor of approving the motion to close with gratitude the current committee work and send the curricular review to admin signify with I. I a little

020lag pause. Okay, there we go. All those opposed. The motion has been approved. Thanks so much for the time. Thank you for the clarifications being told. back to some celebrations. Adjust the agenda back and u coming in. I was kind of joking to Corby were probably serious that we were going to have a permanency for Erica because each week or each uh meeting um the uh community, our state and and beyond continue to see what we are delighted to see every single day and which is the amazing work of Erica Gallagher. and we want to make sure that we continue to acknowledge her and most recently through Madison 365. um she was uh both nominated and secured the position of most influential Asian-American leaders uh as as representation uh from our our students, our our

021parents. Um when you look at our social media responses to the to the posting, you can see, you know, how um you know, how valuable she is and just the meaningful work that that that happens here on a daily basis. So, congratulations on this on a significant achievement. Um, and it goes far beyond S65, who I think does an amazing job of recognizing leaders across representation across our across our state. And again, just reiterating what the experiences are within the classroom for each of our students. That is what counts the most is that that amazing experience, not just understanding content, but having those deep connections in alignment with our equity framework and our strategic framework. That's what comes to life uh every single day. and we're honored to have her as a as a as

022a staff member. So, thank you so much for your for your time and I don't want I don't dare ask if you want to say anything. I actually didn't want to say something. Um, so I'm not going to get too comfortable coming here for these, but um I I just do want to say so Madison 365 interviewed me about this and um the first thing one of the biggest things I said was just like being in Verona is an incredible experience and I'm proud to be Filipino American and I'm proud to represent this school district. Um, so hopefully the interview shows that. But, um, yeah, one of one of the things that I said was just that you can feel the love here. Like students know that they're loved. I do it because I want

023students to be loved. Um, and so just thank you for giving me the space to do my thing and help other teachers do their thing and be ancient and all the things I do. Congratulations, Erica. And please do, as maybe we shared last time, let us know if we're ever getting in your way because I really believe this board, if I can speak somewhat on behalf of us, really want to create space from at least where we're situated where you all can do exactly the things that you do so well and share your expertise without um policy or clunkiness hindering any of that. So, we appreciate so much what you do and thanks for coming to another board meeting in the summer. Yeah. What else do I have? Go score some goals. That's what Oh

024yeah. Yeah. Wonderful. Do that later. There you go. Perfect. Thank you. Congratulations. Sorry, we just That's wonderful. Yes, we we are used to those types of things. Thank you for coming. All right, moving through to academic standards and our superintendent report. Excellent. Thank you. We'll move to item B in the superintendent report. Uh and that will be the presentation of and our annual uh annual vote by the board of education for the 2526 academic standards. Here to do that is our executive director of academic services Amy to talk about the standards that will be in place for this year. Great too much tonight only one slide but we've linked a document here that acknowledges the important standards that we've chosen from the state of Wisconsin to really guide each subject area. When we went back

025to this document, as we renew this process every single year and going through it this year, we recognized that some subject areas were not represented. Music, CTE, social emotional learning were absent from the document. And while those content areas have been following the Wisconsin state standards, our recommendation this year was to actually add them to this document and formalize that process. We know that we are a standardsbased district in all that we do in regards to teaching and learning and measuring our impact. And so helping those educators see their subject areas of their standards really represented within a board approved and adopted document was important for us knowing how critical those standards are to the work of their PLC's to how they're assessing students and as we're moving forward with our work of standards based

026teaching learning guiding rubrics common assessments etc moving forward. So, we did make sure that those content areas were represented this year within this document. Um, and all of the links go directly to the state website. So, you can see where we're aligned to the rest of the state. The only um one that is not just the state of Wisconsin is our common core translation project standards for tweet were built in the common. Everything else aligns to the state of Wisconsin standards. So, any questions about the standards that we're recommending for adoption for the 2526 school year in our various content areas tonight? an exciting segue to into later with results as we're trying to really kind of interweave, you know, from the board policy table of really kind of elevating the work that does happen

027and the standards we use in practice and how that then turns into what we monitor here at the table. So, nice time to kind of bridge those together. really appreciate the board's efforts to align our results policies with these standards as we're asking our teachers to so firmly root themselves, their instruction, their assessment, their progress monitoring, right? All to these standards and helping students to understand their progress towards these standards as we lean into student agency and student voice as well. Standards are what allows amazing educators like Miss Gallagher to do the work that is happening in classrooms to guide the rigor of that student experience. So very important to our work even if it's a simple onepage document. All right. Yeah. No further questions. I don't know if you want to linger as we

028shift then shortly into board vote. But any further questions board before we let Amy slip away. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um so moving through our agenda before we head into board action. Just reserving space for any public comment. Marcy, I'm not aware of any if you are aware of any that I'm not. Okay. Thank you for confirming. So, we we'll move into board action. So, we are going to take an official vote. That's what Amy just shared in terms of our um adopted or soontobe potentially approved adopted academic standards. So, I would accept a motion to approve the 2526 list of academic standards as presented by admin. Motion to approve. Thank you, Christopher. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Joe. Any further questions or discussion? All those in favor of approving the 2526

029academic standards as presented signify with I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Academic standards are approved. Thank you. So, we'll move into OE3. Um, our analysis of operation expect operational expectation retreatment of community stakeholders monitoring report. So I'll turn that back over to you Dr. Clary. Thank you. Um so I am happy to present OE3 which is treatment of our community stakeholders as named by uh our board president. Um there's a couple nuances to this report that I want to bring to light that the board has been uh privy to. one is a uh an area where I would like to present uh based off our conversation at the last monitoring report the opportunity for a a new indicator which was written in and is listed as a potential second vote within this document and knowing that

030uh indicator 3.2 two uh as was previous written and acknowledged that our at our last monitoring report is not a feasible indicator for us to be able to actually uh monitor report and was replaced with a with a proposal for conversation today. Secondly, as noted in the executive SE summary on the 27th of June, which was uh right when we were uh set to present uh OE3, uh we did re have a issue in alignment with OE3.1 uh one that um I think would impact how we either see this report coming to life this year in terms of compliance and or next year. So having a boards uh u just kind of understand where we would like to place that information knowing that the information that the board received in terms of the investigation that's

031in place uh into the possible unauthorized release of of information um for Bron School District. Uh well we are uh very close to the end of investigation. I'm not comfortable saying that we are at the end of the investigation at this point to give a final standing of of where of where we are. Um, but given that this was still on the calendar and it was not asked to be removed from from the calendar, I wanted to continue to move forward with the other aspects of it and then come to the board discussion of where that that potential uh violation may live in terms of 3.11 itself. [Music] Any questions about that multiple? Well, I'm glad you mentioned that. That's an area that I'm a little concerned about. How do we how do we handle

032that then? So, thank you for surfacing it. Absolutely. All right. So, I do want to highlight if I can on the second page of the summary of the of O3.3 which was our pretty significant leadership moves for in alignment with OE3 one. Um, and I did want to acknowledge that it was the board's expectations which was listed in the in executive summary. um and is a requirement of legislative. But uh we just heard the final presentation of the human growth and development committee uh and the recommendations that came as such that is a crucial part of of of OE3 in itself and so we wanted to highlight that piece of it. Um it was weird because that was a support directive but it was recommended by leadership. it was more of a statement than uh

033in honors that we didn't do anything special and we follow followed our followed our our expectations. What I do think was um initiated directly by admin administration and I wanted to uh surface both in quantitative and qualitative uh feedback was the power of the special education work groups from 2425 which is in alignment with policy 3.2 two and alignment with policy 3.3, we are in a space where we were able to learn from our educators some some needs to continue to enhance our programming um and just kind of some coherent understanding of expectations for what special education look like in the Bron Air School District. And there's no better way to do that than to bring the voices of our staff together to have deep conversations around what programming can look like, feel like, and

034most represent our the values with within our within our district. Uh so those are broken into five different areas which were our behavior response procedures, communication and collaboration. Uh special coverage and role clarity, internal communication systems and behavior intervention spaces themselves, not the behavior but how do we have respectful spaces with students that are in need for additional for additional support. uh those groups um were able to guide a lot of the work and honestly we were able to use some of the insight to think about uh the hiring process for our new director of of special education who's here officially in our first meeting uh at post July one. So again want to welcome welcome to the space. Um and so I do want to also put in space this is I I I

035want to be very respectful and acknowledge the work of the previous uh special education team and not to be dismissive of some great work that was done in the spaces but as we looked at some potential for uh some some shifts and some some uh opportunities for growth. This work group really allowed that to come to life, but it it it was directly alignment with OE3 because it spoke to the voices of our careers in his spaces and those communication of that two-way communication. I can't think of a better way of making communication to come to life in those work workshop workshop processes. Additional uh considerations um for in terms of 3.3.2 two um was the uh excuse me was the indicator that I originally brought brought to light in my opening remarks as a

036previous indicator was written um and I when we went back and looked at the video I did acknowledge but also want to renounce that myself and the team did present this original indicator. So this was a hopefully a correction of an indicator that we originally wrote that I call at the time was low but then actually implementation we learned was not the appropriate indicator in space and that was originally that 70% of respondents that filed a formal complaint respond that the complaint was handled effectively. So where we continue to get mired down beyond the number itself is what is a formal complaint and what is handled effectively really really mean and that being having that being so uh uh subjective that uh we really weren't able to calculate it give true meaning to that. So

037the proposal to the board um would be that I would like to submit that the board does not receive communication of the superintendent not being responsive to complaints. So that's not whether I said yes or no to a complaint or the person agrees with the count. But I think I know I think that there's expectation from this board as well as should be that if their complaint comes to the space of the superintendent or to a delegate of the superintendent that we address the complaint in appropriate, timely and respectful manner. And so that is the place that the board would receive uh in communication that that I was not uh meeting that recommendation and would like to propose that as a potential indicator to replace um 3.2.2. All right. So that leaves us to two

038spaces. one I if it's okay with our president I would like to pause and just get feedback on on the indicator and hopefully maybe move to a vote there and then I I guess have a board discussion on giving the unknown circumstances completion of the investigation around 3.1.1 where the where we like to go in terms of finishing the report this year or adding to that report or just a general pause until the investigation is complete so number three option okay thank you so yeah So, first reviewing the proposed indicator, the revised indicator that we just heard about um for OE3.2. Questions, sentiments from the board. Where does it where did the 70% come from? Lack of knowledge. Okay. I really really I just we were trying to figure out this whole process of indicators

039and and it was just u you almost I began at that time I was almost thinking about like what is a passing percentage or sexual percentage but it's it the number was one piece of it but it really that wasn't the issue at hand it was the subjectiveness of the two other points of the of the indicator around what is the what does the complaint and what does effective mean when you talk about how is it how is they have. Yeah. Yeah. I remember at the time when we were doing all of this work and initially going through indicator writing, review, approval, there was this real focus on quantitative aspects of this and I think at least that's how I felt at the time about everything in an indicator ought to be measurable with data

040and I don't I don't necessarily feel that way anymore. Um so that's one reason why I know I'm in support of and will vote to approve the new indicator. just don't necessarily think that some of these things have to have a number attached because I think it kind of leads to pitfalls and directions that really either aren't really measuring what we want or really kind of steer away from the point of what the OE is saying. I like it. How do what's what would be um so let's say does the board president receive a complaint like how how do we as a board measure like no this because I mean first of all this doesn't happen you are responsive to all complaints. However, let's just say how how would we as a board monitor that

041part like it would be I mean I think that's something where with all of these reports that's where we get to share in the space and discuss. So, you know, often we would potentially get a VA SD board email potentially or maybe it would come to an individual, but I think those are ways that we communicate with one another in terms of what we may be hearing or noticing. Um, because I don't know to try to create a protocol for that, which I kind of wondered anyway, right? How do we sort of engage in a shared understanding of what we're all sort of hearing out in the community? Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. We're always hearing good things about the complaint. So, that's not the concern. This is like the what if. Yeah, right. What

042if like Yeah, I do think the old indicator doesn't make as much sense as we had hoped naively back in. Yeah, this is definitely an improvement. So, I guess they would get a a survey to answer was your was your complaint. Effectively, they say yes or no. Is that kind of the my thoughts? I I think our our community I feel like when my job's not addressed the community will address the board and and make them aware that those situations my and the board has already always done this so I it's not I'm asking for something that the board has already done but if a situation comes to mind comes to mind that it this just to give me the hands up I received a report that you know there was a complete complaint submitted

043to you didn't address it. So I have an opportunity to correct the man. It doesn't mean that it fixes the indicator. It doesn't mean it fixes the OE itself. But more importantly, I want to be in compliance with this just for the ethical piece of piece of piece piece of as well. So just asking the board that they wouldn't hold it till a year later and I learned a year after the fact that there was a So this is just a baseline. Yeah. just to kind of get a feel for which then I think that serves as a good reminder to the board if we learn of things that we know lives in administration that we send those forward so that can be the place where you get to be right that we're not also

044interfering with our ability to evaluate this OE by getting into scenarios that right ought not to be because of the administration right in nature and I think the key to this is the idea of responsiveness again versus agreeing right there are a few scenarios where I think someone has maybe wished you would have said something differently, but the responsiveness piece, the timeliness, um the genuine approach that you have in engaging with community members, you know, that piece is important. There's going to be times where there just maybe not an agree to disagree or just how things move forward, but the responsiveness, I think, is the key of what this is, right? Out of curiosity, how do we currently track responsiveness or complaints being effectively handled? We're we that's where that's why that's why we that's

045why we were trying to figure out. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we weren't doing. This has been anecdotal just it's vibes. Correct. Okay. checking and again the board the board I don't feel has ever had an issue like telling me something that's not in alignment with our with our with our policy so and it's not always at the board table or just the email it's like I had this conversation uh I got an email I was in grocery store and hey I emailed the superintendent weeks ago and never heard that that would be a concern for me uh that type of scenario that helps you wrapping my head around where we were and what we're trying to do. And then these are the pieces that we get as a board of what data do we want

046to see in order to show that this indicator to this revised indicator would be something that we could say is compliant. Got it. Thank you. Any additional questions or discussion about this proposed indicator because we can then move forward with a vote officially to wrap up that piece of our OE3 work. I'm just I'm just thinking out loud whether responsiveness to the complaint is the only thing we care about in this result. Because I get that when we're pushing it outside to the complaintants to give their opinion as to whether or not it's effectively handled within the policy itself, we actually define effectively handle. And it's more than just responsiveness. It's responsiveness in a timely manner. and involves all actively involves all participants in the resolution process. doesn't say anything about the outcome, which is

047right. Mhm. But I'm wondering if by limiting the indicator to just we don't receive anything that the superintendent wasn't responsive. Even if what if what if the feedback we get is well, he was responsive, but he didn't include me in the complaint resolution process or I don't feel he took it seriously. Would that be captured by the syndicator? And do we want it to be captured? Um, that's a good point because I think it should all be kind of aligned. Yeah. I mean, the one thing I definitely agree with is the the format of the indicator, right? That it kind of puts the burden on us that we need to surface anything that comes to us and if we don't hear it, indicators approved. But what is it that we want to be sharing that

048we hear? So to your point and I don't want to minimalize it for me maybe it's because it's a mindset responsiveness is timeliness like response weeks and weeks after the fact to me is not responsiveness. That's true. I forgot then I then the piece we don't capture to Joe's point is that we might respond quickly but you know if we don't involve all the parties that should be involved in the resolution they might not feel that it was effectively resolved they might not feel satisfied even if the answer is no or we can't do this if it's just a response quickly to say no we can't do this with no other information or context that's a satisfying answer. I rather get a positive note that maybe I'm interpreting it wrong. I think but I'm just

049trying to understand what you're saying. Does 3.3 kind of address that or am I just diving too deep in the language that's written in 3.3? I think it could. I think what I'm saying and I'm I trying to get myself back in the indicator framework, right, which is is this reasonable? I think it's reasonable. Uh I don't think anything I'm saying makes it not reasonable, but whenever I'm looking at an indicator, I like to go back to what the actual result policy is and is this actually measuring that? And this says the superintendent will effectively handle complaints and effectively handle complaints as defined. Can I I'd like to just look at this from maybe the the flip side. I think when we're talking about this, it's monitoring to catch problems, but this is also um

050an area that you like excel at. It'd be nice to be able to capture that too. Um instead, so this is where something that you do so well can be highlighted and elevated and recognized. And if we aren't capturing some of the things that really are a hallmark of of your leadership style, are we because we want to catch problems. I mean, we also want to recognize the greatness part. And I think I think I'm kind of leaning to what Joe says, the the part about, you know, the inclusive uh active participants. I mean, I think that's something that you do well. I if we're not including that in the I'm not sure I'm putting my thoughts together as well, but I feel like we're looking at this from like a problems, you know, based

051standpoint, but actually this is it's also a a a recognition standpoint, too. And this is something that we don't want to I don't want to simplify the good in order to look for the bad. Does that I Yeah, I appreciate that as well. If we if we added the word effective back to the indicator as a definition, give the board enough information to be able to without quantifying numbers be able to give responsibility. Yeah, the numbers feel kind of silly. I I would agree with that. I I think since effective is part of the definition there is you know I I think that's something that um it gives us also the place to say okay we heard back that you really did a great job even though the outcome wasn't what they hoped they were

052appreciative. I think that's a place too where we have some celebrations that we can be pulling in and I don't want to, you know, negate those. To me, if the proposed indicator just said the board does not receive communication of the superintendent not effectively handling complaints would resolve completely what I'm Yeah, I'm good with that. And I think responsiveness is then already baked into that definition, but so is all the other stuff that we put because there I mean there's indicators and other OES too that basically say the board did not learn of anything. Yeah. Right. That sometimes the absence of is the proof of compliance. I think your point is interesting which um John and I were talking about too the other day in terms of just these reports in general about capturing sort

053of a summary of the board discussion. So when we come to monitor, do we get to write a little paragraph that says, "Hey, we want to also celebrate the greatness of this area." I think that's a way that maybe we can also capture some of that. Um because that's something we haven't done and something I'm interested in trying to add to these monitorings is right just a almost an executive summary like you do in terms of what happened at the board table. So we're able to kind of give voice to some of the things that you just shared there too that's beyond the scope of the indicators. Yeah, I do like adding the effective part, but I mean I like I like all of that. Um, so kind of to what Jen and Joe both

054said. Yes, I agree. So, it's okay to use a modified uh proposal bin just to be beneficial and I don't want to say modified to make Jose. Christopher, do you want to add something before we get to that point? I just saw a hand over there. Yeah, sorry. Um so um having worked in government for a long time one way that we think about inserting an equity lens around complaintbased systems which we are naturally part of. So that that meaning if you have time and resources to come to a board meeting or to you have access to the superintendent or the system of complaint whatever that is um you're more to use it. But understanding that often times if you look at our equity statement recognizing where there are barriers of access, right? So that

055could be time, it could be place, it could be whatever that I would really like to make sure that we are elevating those voices that may not be present because those are also important. So I think in centering our framework, our agree framework that we add language there um that that connects to that. So I don't know how to convey that but I think it's an important piece because naturally these systems our systems of boards and governance tend to be accessible to uh those folks who have usually a lot of resources time and other things is that captured by 3.3 yeah that's where I think the one piece that Maybe there's a addition to understanding where barriers might be that there's some work done uh to deeper understand what that might what those might be.

056I don't know if we've captured all of them here. So, but also 3.2 Two is complaint specific. Correct. Statement three is more general of we're creating, you know, that environment, right? That's open, responsive, welcoming. So, one way that we looked at it, the city of Seattle, we thought, you know, our normal time of business, we want to bring our business to the community. The uh child care, food, etc. are brought to um transportation. There might be in some cases we provide a stipen to get folks to come to our meetings and give us voice because other things multiple jobs you know single parent all these other things were the barriers that limited access to giving feedback that was important. So that's kind of where I'm getting to but I don't know how to capture it.

057Yeah and thank you for lifting up. So in 3.3 under the evidence Chris which you were lifting up was articulated the evidence components of it uh where the either the team created spaces where access had been limited or went to um additional communities where transpar transportation could be barriers to to get those perspectives in alignment with 3.3. So while that is not specifically listed as an indicator, it is listed in the evidence components of it. And so as the board is looking at the monitor report in totality, I think looking at that from under those evidence pieces, you'll see you'll see those places come to life. So thank you for the uh for the continued input there. But the uh it's okay. like to revise the proposed uh indicator too that the board does not

058receive communication of the superintendent not effectively handling complaints uh to be the replacement indicator for 083 2.2 and remove my original request of as submitted in the U report. We're on to motions. Okay, I know. Let it land. See where we're at. That's We certainly can be there. So, is there a motion to approve the new indicator as presented by Dr. Clarity? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Christopher. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the new proposed indicator for 3.2 I'm losing all my numbers and scrolling too much. Indicator two signify with I I Thank you, John. Any opposed? Right. Indicator 2 for 3.2 has been approved. So that can be added for evidence for next go around. Chris Ferg, I appreciate what you're sharing and I'm contemplating then

059more of is this again the ownership of the board to ensure that the data is shared that we are getting because we're getting it and or is there a place where then policy is a bit more you know so I'm kind of sitting with what what you've shared and just you know where that lands in terms of our responsibility too of asking for things and there's a consistency piece on how that's applied we can have the language in the OE but then making sure that we're being very specific like these considerations are. Yeah, these are data points that we want and that may be something as we look back at our kind of monitoring checklist to ensure that maybe that's a piece right where we have an aspect to help us ensure that the data

060we're getting really lands around the equity framework every time. Thank you. So secondly, um again I would like to get the board's perspective on uh this process at this time given the unique circumstances of of 3.1 and going back to that space. Uh is it desired the board that we complete the investigation then come back to the table with OE3 move forward 03 as presented and place it on next year's compliance or or not or not compliance. I don't know what my third one was, but I think it's those two options are mainly what I'm asking. Yeah. And I'm glad you're asking about this because this one I feel there's a couple pieces here. I think the indicator is there is no unauthorized release. Okay. There has been I think to not acknowledge that feels

061I I'm uncomfortable. I think that un like undermines our our monitoring integrity. Um the other piece is how is it handled? that's not part of the the monitoring report. It's obviously though if this is a no, we want to hear how it's handled. And my what I've seen it's been handled extremely well, but I still think the compliance piece is it's it is not compliant for this this area. Um, and I don't think we should shy away from that because this is a learning opportunity that again I'm very impressed with how the, you know, the response has been. And that's something I'd like to hear an update to once that's completed. But when it comes to the monitoring report, I mean, the indicator is written as no release. That's how I'm looking at it. Yeah,

062I completely agree. And so that's I I should reframe the question. you did a much better job than I did as well is there's no doubt in my mind that we however submitted whether it's on this year's report or next year's report it's non-compliance to on one of that that specific indicator is non-compliant in one of those areas to know if you want the full investigation in place um before a vote and then moving to to next year's because we also moved into a calendar situation where technically it happened four days before or three days before the end of the year. The investigation won't be complete until the new calendar year. So trying to figure out that visa, but I'm most concerned about the event. Yeah. So the and let's because in a year I

063don't want to rehash something that has already been remedied and learned from and all of that. So in my opinion, it happened. So let's just mark it non-compliant for this time. But then we hear the update and then we can hear the you know the progress and then that can also be discussed next year as we're looking at you know this is improved from this last year and to put it as a non-compliant for next year feels unnecessary then you know because like just get it get it over with. I'm gonna start out by saying I I don't have strong opinions about this, but I'm going to share it. Um I I think I disagree. And the reason is like the nature of annual reporting is there's always going to be the risk that something

064gets almost an entire year out of date. But like we got to draw the line somewhere. And I do worry I I worry about a couple things. I worry about putting administration in the position that they've already done all the work to prepare their monitoring report and then like the day before a board meeting something happens are we really expecting them to go and completely revise the monitoring report and second and probably more importantly is whenever there's non-compliance on a report I expect there to be information in the report about what leadership moves what mitigating factors any of that stuff has been done in response so I can know what to do with the non-compliance and I think it's unfair to ask that that be presented in the middle of an investigation. So I guess

065my question then would be when is the end of the 2425 school year? So I'd say July 1 and the event happened before that and this could also be then a we mark it not compliant but we can hold on additional details until they're available. I mean, because I agree, we want to know. Um, and that there can als But I think to to put something that happened in like June of 2025 on a monitoring report in July of 2026 feels outdated and unnecessary. Can I put a suggestion that may not be that if we would it be I think we're so close to being able to do what Joe just said in terms of information. Can we pause the report? Uh, put it recal it for even a couple weeks out and then we

066were able to put in the summary the actual steps because the investigation will be complete at that time. Most comfortable and then that would still have it on this year's report and have the terms in which and I agree there's information of how it was fully addressed. Yeah, I have a motion to table this report then. All right. Further discussion, other board members. I'll second the motion. Okay. So, we have a motion premiered, second from Joe. Um, I'll just add I think hopefully with the scope of the discussion that we're having, obviously the community understands the importance of this monitoring and recognizing that we are sitting in a moment of non-compliance with 3.1 that we have a scenario where there was a breach of confidential information and that is being worked on and obviously the

067board is involved with updates is happening but that this is exactly the work right of being able to elevate and know when things are happening operationally. Uh, we have a motion, a second. All those in favor of tableabling tonight's vote on compliance for OE3 signify with I. Any opposed. Okay. So, I'm sorry. For clarification, so I can begin to prep data for next year's indicator with a new indicator though. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. We'll maybe put a hold this July 21st, but just keep us posted as we talk about agendas for when things get complete to revisit. Okay. All right. Moving on then to board updates. Any board updates related to communications or otherwise from any board members? Corby. Yes. Put on your calendars. August 2nd, 900 a.m. at the Madison Trux campus. 100

068black men of Madison back to school event. Oh, nice. School supplies, backpacks, books, everything. All right. Yes. Great. Thanks. health. Well, Dr. C asked if there's going to be vaccines available. We'll work in that that part of detail out. So, maybe in the next board we can provide more information on that. Great. Thank you for letting us know. We can share that hopefully on our socials in district as well and personal socials. Let us know other updates board as the rain begins to fall. I know thought about that umbrella, left it in the car. All right, then we will move on to superintendent consent agenda or make sure that you've looked over superintendent's consent agenda. Any questions? Hearing none, the superintendent's consent agenda is approved as presented and then our board consent agenda. Just noting

069that there are the special minutes from the graduation from conferring the diplomas and in there as well. Any questions? Okay. Board's consent agenda is approved as presented. future dates, just regular board meetings listed, but I believe we'll soon have maybe convocation added on there and other important dates as we think back to school. Target has a section already, so you know, then it's official to be thinking about that. I know unless you're looking for a DNA chair. Okay. All right. Um, let's shift into board workshops. I know we have John virtually. Um and are we kind of what are we doing with admin? Everyone want to hang around for results discussion? Okay. Look. Yeah. Right. Love to say okay in terms of workshop. So we have John virtually um there is a link in the

070agenda to the current state of kind of results policy language that's been a culmination of our previous discussions. So if you recall, we've talked about trying to add journey of a lifelong learner, the strategic framework into our results policies, how we kind of want to clearly identify the different academic areas. Um John took some time and John, please jump in as I try to paraphrase and capture the work that you did of trying to use, as we heard earlier when Amy was up about using standardsbased language within our policies. So there just feels like there's common alignment between how our results policies are phrased in, you know, concert with what standards language is. Um, and then John also sent via email just some other considerations that I hope you were able to look over in

071terms of frames for this draft of our results policies. John, if there's anything else you want to add as a preface before we kind of open the space for board members. And that's just a no period, not a no comma. No, I'm assuming everybody read it and I appreciate your summary. So, I'll just sit here for the discussion. So I'm curious just any maybe even initial reactions that anyone has um especially the fact that I think the question asking is really different. Yeah. Um than what we've had before of instead of declaring a statement or using I can that it's now a question basically being asked of leadership and that question is then driving data. So that's I know one just logistical shift. First John, thank you for the work that you did and thank

072you Jen too for the you know the work that you two did putting this together. Um I really like how it's been laid out. I know you've really thoughtful and uh how you structured that. I can start with I like how these categories are broken up. Um I feel like it's more comprehensive than what we had before, which is one of the concerns that it surfaced was we feel like there were areas that weren't covered. So I do like that. And I really like the titles of the sections. I know that is maybe something seemingly small when we're talking about the actual policy language, but I just I appreciate the um kind of parallel use of language and how the different pieces are identified. And I think this really sets up a structure going forward

073for any changes potentially to a strategic framework. I think it really lays the groundwork for board policy results to stay in line with things that may shift within the district as well. I like the question format because it encourages a dialogue and conversation. So, it's much more open-ended which allows us to all express our own uniqueness that we bring to the board that we really care about and want to make sure are present. So, thanks John. Um, I just think that the more open-ended it can be, the better the conversation we're having amongst each other, but also that the community can see that we're having these deeper conversations and bringing up things openly that they feel represent all the things they care about. Mhm. And that's something you may kind of notice, and this was

074something I know was echoed at one of our previous workshops about this, that the JLL piece and strategic framework, there's a little bit more detail and just more words, but the the brevity, am I saying that word correctly? With the academic areas is somewhat intentional to perhaps not funnel too deeply anything related to academics, but to maybe keep that broad for that purpose. Um so that also was a bit of intentional work um on John's part in some of the discussion that he and I had um with our work reviewer V session around this of trying to be broad enough but yet you know name what we're naming when we're looking at the um the exploration academics which I really like um I feel like these will help us get away from participation numbers and

075get to the the meat of what we've been trying to evaluate, you know, like the career teched, you know, real world experiences. I mean, this is just, I think, something that will help elevate the um the things that we as a board value. Yeah. I am curious what types of indicators will come out of like the journey of a lifelong learner. Um, but that doesn't rest the board, right? So I will happily not tackle those. But I uh I I do like how this um breaks out the things that we've been you know discussing for the past you know formally for past year but I think ever since we put our original indicators policy together. John I see your hand raised virtually. Yeah. No I think on a roll tonight. Um, I appreciate what she

076said because I do think the indicators will come out later. That's not something that the board does. Um, but I would also suggest that this questioning format lends itself to letting admin kind of do more indicators on the fly because all we're concerned about do you answer the question and do you answer it in a way that is reasonable as defined through the uh checklist that we've been using. So just caught the last question as I was coming in and as we were given feedback on the document and thank you John for sending that team for in advance. We were also looking at it through the lens of a previous conversation where indicators were no longer going to be the priority on the results component of it. So I wasn't really providing responses in a

077way that would be as concern about the indicator approach to it. If that is the shift and I think it's no different than the responses I gave back until my my insights into it. Yeah, I think we'd be mindful with specifically with the journey of a lifelong one as you're naming there. There's a lot of really um exciting work to happen here. I'm cautious to avoid the scenario we just talked about with 3.2.2 that we don't then set a goal that says students are going to do a survey and 70% are going to respond positively about personal growth and all of these questions just become survey responses because I think that's where we fell um into a little bit of a trap with R3 and R4. So I'm really thinking about how would each of

078these elements of journey of a lifelong learner what would it look like to authentically tell that story and where's the overlap amongst many of these different um results policies and what the interplays right obviously the journey of a lifelong learner is to support students um in their learning which should also show up in the different content areas and the different exploratory academic areas in the reduction in behavior um as well. So I think that will be an important place for us to tease this out so it doesn't become redundant because there will be a lot of overlap. the stories I'm telling about how the language arts curriculum is supporting I don't know the number now are 2.1 may also be some of the same stories that we're talking about with student agency that also talk

079about student collaboration and yeah and that's I think where John and I in our side discussions started to be curious about then the monitoring even from a calendar and scheduling because these don't feel distinct and so I think there's a level and that was surface in the email that John sent to all of you and I see your hand up again, John, about how we do that in a way that really is authentic to telling the story and not delineating this in a way that then becomes really just arbitrary and odd because of the interplay within these John. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure, you know, if everybody saw the email that I sent out, you'll see that I spent, I think, a couple of paragraphs talking about how like, you know, while discussions

080about the schedule and the way that these reports are kind of clumped together are discussions maybe for a later date, um the the format of these results kind of suggests that the results would be clumped together in a way that um we would have allow how like you know as you're doing the journey of a lifelong learn learner like 5.1 and 5.4 and 5.5 to me would seem to have a lot of overlap. So that all of R5 is really going to be kind of one big overlapping report that says how we're doing all of these things that were split out through the strategic planning process. Um and then similarly with R six the strategic framework like some of those things have significant enough overlap so as to not increase um work streams to the

081point where it's impossible to give good answers because we're just doing the quantity of reports that's too high. I would I would say that you know we're going to this the way of breaking these down and and putting headers on them kind of suggests that we're going to clump together some of these reports um to honor those overlaps a little bit. If um what I'm looking at, I think the core academics, the exploration academics, and the special academics that seems like that's going to be consistent with maybe our um past methods of monitoring, but then it's the the journey of a lifelong learner and our strategic uh framework sections that really allow the stories to come out. Is that was that kind of your intent, John, or am I like simplifying it too much. Um

082I mean you know it's been a long process so everything feels simplified at this point. Um but I think that's definitely my intent. I mean you have the core academics and the um what we call exploration academics that align with our older results policies a little bit. Um I think the questioning really brings them to life in a in a more actionable way this way. Um, I think the special academics is um, a little bit more thorough way of teasing out some of the reporting that we already do and are legally required to do and some of the stuff that we really haven't been asking about that we should be asking about. So, I think that one's a little bit different. And then other than that though, you're you're very much right in in in

083how you're saying it that it matches it aligns with what we used to do and then incorporates the stuff from the strategic framework that really we should be in the habit as a board of incorporating when the strategic framework is done every so often. Dr. Perry, you had something to and I apologize that this came out when I stood for for quick restroom break. Uh just I want to wrap my my brain around especially thinking of the appropriate uh work streams in terms of a really good presentation to the board of education in our community. We're looking at five sort of mega reports. So because if we were looking at them separately that it would be 24 which is and I think that's for sure what we don't want to have happen because that's really

084basically every board meeting right um so I think that in lies at least in in my thought not to kick that discussion down the road but I want to make sure are we feeling like this is a great place to go knowing that some of that how we want to monitor is then up for discussion. um how does it feel to delineate the results policies in this way knowing that as the surface as John is kind of sharing that we are really looking to create that synthesis where it lies to not have these be even five mega reports because you know to your point Amy 5.2 to lives in language arts or what you know how how does that become just a really interesting space to dialogue where journey of a light bulb mirror strategic

085framework sort of feed underneath so many of the other academic areas John did you have something to or do you want to finish a thought yeah and as we think about that thanks for lifting up because there was a little sure but I think just kind of seeing that in terms of a if we're looking at that mega report mindset I I also still as we think all the calendaring aspects of it want to make it uh meaningful presentation so where it's simultaneously with the work that we are doing and continuous improvement at the same time so we look as like a full coherent system all the way through the board table looking at looking at results but and I see it as a separate component of of the work and I think we've tried

086to sort of do that right of moving results monitoring in line with when you all have the data when you're you know analyzing things as a team that it doesn't become disconnected. So, yes. Yeah, I very much appreciated that and um um that John had shared just with the the shifts in number one the monitoring criteria, but then also the connection to the scorecard, which is how we're really focusing our continuous improvement process at the school level. And so seeing that translated here, I think will be really important alignment as we've tried to call out within the continuous improvement plan. This is our metric because it aligns with 2.1.1 and building that awareness of these results policies at the school level while also then bringing the work of the school to to the board table

087when we talk about what those results. John, did you still have something? No, I think you covered it. I mean, a lot of what a lot of this part of the discussion was covered, at least from my perspective, in the email that I sent out that, you know, these are issues that we're going to want to consider maybe down the road. Um, I do think though that we should have open eyes about like if we're approving and we like these results, it lends itself towards that sort of, you know, we're going to have five or so mega reports that are going to be tied to scorecards um that are more directly linked to the the natural workflow of the admin team in the course of managing the district. Joe Corby is there something? Yeah, I

088mean just kind of going back to the content here. Um the strategic framework section does read to me a little bit like operational expectations and and in fact it seems like there's some redundancy with like OE10. Um and I'm wondering I I don't want to be redundant, right? I don't want it measured in two different places in two different ways and so I don't know what everybody else thinks about that you know I was my thought with that because there there is some overlap there but I do think it would be important that we have a strategic framework that at some point we actually report on the strategic framework and some of those places where there is you know redundancies that can be highlighted we've evaluated this in operation in OE you know and I

089can't come up with any of the numbers up top of my head, but we so we're kind of putting it all in the in one place um for ease of discussion um and and again in celebration too, but it doesn't mean it's a new um a new measurement. I mean, I think referencing the OES that that are, you know, part of that are 10 and 11. Yeah, 10 is Yeah, 11. 11 is instructional programming. Yeah. using their coursework and I think that can be where we tie in you know like we evaluated this in OE101 and this is how it's threaded through and results you know and just I mean it's it's we have the framework that this was something that was put together by our community we should be highlighting that annually that's the

090piece I like about it too is it just makes it really clear and obvious for the sake of our community that this lives you know at at the board table as it stands, even if it's just re-sharing previous information or connecting those dots for the sake of the community rather than them having to do that disjointedly throughout the year. That's what I think it's important. It's the connecting the dots and it doesn't necessarily mean that this is monitored maybe in the same 6.1 6.2 way. I mean maybe it's more of a cohesive I don't you know again how we monitor I think maybe can be bigger discussions after you know if admin has some thoughts too I like the idea of having it though I think similarly Meredith my question would be under special academics

091to that to your idea of calling out redundancies so I'm thinking about special education programming we've always called out students with IEDs as part of our focus group data within all the four academics and all the exploratory academics is our purpose in calling that out here as a separate results policy more specifically to help the board understand the programming and then to link back as you're naming connect the dots link back to the results policies where we still would be calling out focus groups or was there a different intent with how we're naming special education advanced learning within special ed was up again you probably heard the question from Amy Yeah. So, I've got a couple things. Um, first of all, I think Meredith hit exactly on the head why, like, you know, I was

092hesitant to say like, okay, we're going to have these pumps that are kind of going to be mega reports or mega reports because I know that that can be a little bit scary. But the fact of the matter is is that a lot of the work in these reports is already being done. Um and so as you highlight some of these redundancies, I think that's what you're seeing is that yes, exactly what Meredith said will happen with um the OES being a part of these reports as they're being reported out. That's what's going to happen and that's what should happen in in my perspective at least. Um similarly like the district I'm sure collects a lot of its data for its continued improvement process keeps its scorecards that data is going to be more aligned

093with the reporting through the core academics at least and maybe the the other um academic reports so that that work is already being done we're just trying to find ways to leverage that already done work into our reporting so that it is a better work stream and I think this questioning here in particular around special education is the quintessential point. Yes, that has been reported out as a focus group and um I don't think that um having this special academic section is an effort to like single it out and highlight that data more, but it's more of an effort to include that data as part of a more holistic results report around all the different um special academic pathways in the district, whether that's um students with IEPs and and what we see as the

094overarching philosophy and mission of the district regarding um special education. Uh but also then advanced learning. Um how are those needs being met? Um as well as you know how are we innovating as a district through our charters and our programs. Um and then also how are we capturing you know um our multi-tered systems of support um and some of the behavioral stuff that we're required by law to report out. like all of that stuff, the the stuff that we're required by law to report out, the stuff that's reported out in focus groups, like that stuff's already there. This is just kind of recategorizing it and packaging it in a way that can get at some of the more um clear results and stories that we want to be able to communicate to our community

095so it's not scattered throughout the year in more meaningless ways. So like 4.2 too. Like for example, yes, we're going to have all of the, you know, focus group information that we've talked about in the other um in the twos and the three section, but this would be where something like the pathways presentation that we had a couple weeks ago, like this is programming that is kind of an operational program, but then how is it, you know, the growth and the belonging that we heard about the story behind, you know, that I think would that would be a how I would envision 4.2 coming to life. And again, it's not going to maybe be lend itself to a direct indicator. I don't know. But like where where else do we capture those stories that we

096heard that were so meaningful about this specific program? Yeah, that's the piece. I feel like the pathways reporting gets codified in results. Yeah. Right. So nice of you to share that. But there's Right. There's really nothing in our results policies or operational policies specifically that kind of expect something like that, but this really does elevate the fact that no, we want to continue to push in and understand operationally how we're serving all of our students. Um, so I don't think it changes what I see the district have, you know, what has been common practice, but just really elevates it to live in policy to say, "Yeah, those reports continue to have them continue to bring that information to the board." Like this is going to be the qualitative. Yeah. It's the qualitative information that we

097aren't capturing currently and this is so much of what the community talks about too, right? So yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Thanks. Um so specifically and again the document that uh uh board member proco uh put into space was is really helpful to think about it but I think the biggest mental shift and I don't want to call it a hurdle because it's a shift uh that we are that I think the team is trying to get used to and ultimately like with starting anything new I think we will get better and better every year is specifically under number four in the in written documentation where we are as written that collection will be divorced from the timing of a report which is opposite of what we've done for for and I understand why um

098but just us coming together as a team thinking about how are we maybe archiving data in the right spaces so if it's if they're prepared and we're not specifically doing the day-to-day because the board report says it's due on that day, how are we intentionally using it in our leadership meetings? How are we using it in our PC's? And then having it prepared when that time and space space comes with that. I think that's what the piece I was just really internally grappling with that new leadership style of how how to do and not saying it's it's I agree. I just just trying to figure out what does that mean in terms of way ways of working. I think it may have us rethink some of the I think we've been thinking about the checklist

099really holistically. Are we covering every single thing on that checklist with every single results policy? And I think what what I hear us naming here is that if the if the timing of the data is not aligned, we might not actually have that check mark, right? Or if for 4.2 to for special education programming we are leaning more into the qualitative stories because we've covered the quantitative maybe we're not covering that section of the checklist as well so I think those are different ways of working the checklist still supports us but can't be seen in the same all or nothing sort of way it has to be a bit more authentic to the process perhaps so if I can just add I I was unsure if everybody got that document Um, but if I can

100add to it, I think the word divorced is very strong there. The point I was trying to make that I think is right to to continue to grapple with is that we can't report data as it happens. So, for example, like we're going to get academic data maybe throughout the year and um at some point we have to say okay this is the year end we've got this data archived and that's going to form the basis of the report for this year. um rather than like, okay, well, we can't really report that out until we get the school report cards back from the state or whatever, whatever, whatever. And I think that applies to all the different things. I'm just picking on the state report card because it's easy. So, my point there wasn't to

101say, hey, we're intentionally like separating the collection of data from the reporting on data. It's to acknowledge that in the past, we've struggled to get our reports organized when we go to talk about scheduling and monitoring reports. which is a separate conversation again from this. We struggle to get those schedules together because the data comes in at all different times. And so we kind of need to mentally shift to say okay we're always you know always collecting data but the report is going to cover from this date to this date. And you know, we we had this discussion again with um OE3 tonight where it's like, okay, we had this event that straddles our report date, so we're going to um table this report. If we had a more clearly defined understanding of the report

102date is our academic year or the budget year or whatever we want to say it is, then we would know where this event would fall in that reporting cycle and there would be an automatic expectation about whether it's included or not included. But again, this is a discussion for a different time. So yeah, with that going back to then just the results policies as currently written. Um there are no other at this point major changes or oppositions. Perhaps we consider then this a first read to then be able to go forward a second read with a vote to adopt. Um that isn't to say then that if you think of anything after the fact or just word smith changes here and there, but I'm curious how folks feel if there's again any I know Joe

103you surfaced kind of places of concern. So just curious if any of those sentiments are still out there. Yeah, I mean I I think I'm still just not seeing how it works with the the strategic framework and the overlap with the OES like OE10 and OE1. I see I I think I hear what's said, but I'm I'm just not conceptualizing how that's going to work except to just create red like we're doing it twice. Um we're we're reviewing the same information a second time. were saying the same thing but in slightly different words in two different places. And we used to have this divide that like results were for results and OES were for those operational issues and it seems like that divide is going away which I'm not entirely opposed to. Um I'm just

104having trouble seeing how it's going to work. Um that's I mean I'm open to it but I'm just I'm having trouble picturing it. If I can speak to that real quick. Sorry, I hate being away from you guys. Um, I hear what Joe said. you know there's an OE around you know the superintendent maintaining a positive work culture or I forgot the exact word but for example you know for looking at value and belonging or inclusive teaching and learning under the strategic framework I would expect that that OE and probably a couple of other OES that relate to those sorts of outcomes are important pieces of the puzzle. So we would while we would certify that yes, okay, we've met those OE, this is still a place where our community has given us the strategic

105framework and asked us to tell a story about this the strategic framework and those OES are part of it um but not the complete story necessarily. Why you choose this? I I would Okay, we have the results. I think two, three, and four all fall into our our traditional results. I would keep those in a results policy. I think what you know kind of the divide that we've had I I actually do think is important. We have the operations and the results. Then we could also have the standalone journey of the lifelong learner which is not monitored maybe in the same way as our results are. it can be a very unique um piece. Same within our strategic framework. It's it's storytelling, you know, referencing, you know, we've evaluated this in OE10. This is how

106just it's more of a uh a natural story, but highlighting just again putting this in one place for our community for the board. So, we're not trying to draw, you know, these uh conclusions from October to January to March. It's all in one place even though it's it's not even necessarily redundant information. It's just less uh rigid monitoring, more celebration of our our district. And I I would not call them results. I would have them as standalone um pieces, which I I think in my opinion, I think they're important, though. I wouldn't want to get rid of them. Um and I like how they're they're set out. Anyway, that helps. And I I agree with that. I I like I like how this is written. If anything, where my brain is right now is does

107this mean we can get rid of some of the stuff that's in OE10, 01, some of those indicators that are redundant? Is that your segment? Yes, that was honestly I since again as we were all learning together, I've always felt OE1 was an operations exploitation and under the guise of results. Mhm. We talked about that at the time because that was recent. Yeah. And with the exception of specifically 11.6 six which is very technical into are we uh uh supporting students with with access and and things of those nature and and se and seven but OE's 11 1 through five actually the language itself says as aligned to the results policy within the policy it's itself there there in essence the results policies operationally just change the language on it Um, so that would not

108be a look at getting rid of OE1 because I think those last two pieces of O11 are very important for us to continue to monitor and on the technical side of it. But um I'm very open to looking at the first five components of O1 which only done it but I will policies just in process language. Mhm. So, I'm kind of hearing two things that BL taking things that are in OE that maybe lend better within the JLL or strategic framework pieces in particular and or maybe not naming JLL as results five and strategic framework as results six but just keeping them as their own. Is that is that creating like a third category? We have results policies, we have OE, and then we have this other just from a semantic standpoint. I'm just what

109I'm kind of hearing with that last previous piece. Where did that put us logistically? For me, that makes a lot of sense because we are reporting and monitoring components and then these two pieces are putting all those components into the whole. So we're feeding in all these components that make the journey of a lifelong learner work telling the whole story cohesively holistically rather than just pieces every two weeks. So I love that because I think that's what's missing. And I think if you're a regular person trying to follow these board meetings at home, you're lost, right? But if we're able to connect those dots by using the dream lifelong learner institution framework, that's just going to make a lot of sense for our community and for me. But I just feel like that's going to

110be more plain English for our community. Like, oh, I see all the great work we're doing and how it's really impacting my student holistically and our family and our community. I think it's been missing. me being I guess I can't call myself new but haven't been here as long as Jen and Meredith and Joe but I think that's missing to have something that really connects all the dots in a very clear manner that if you're not a board member or administrator or a teacher that's really board meetings can understand what's going on in a really beautiful way I can see this being instead sort of like dur journey a lifelong learner instead of it being 5.1 one it's JLL point you know JLL one but they mean just have results they're they're standalone because they

111are like capturing and we kind of talked about this like those would be potentially dynamic right and in theory R1 through R4 would not change if a strategic framework changed but R six would change if a strategic change so you know do we just kind of name them yeah right if it's you know in terms of just forward ongoing futuristic kind of planning for these types of things. The responsiveness that those things need to have based on things that would change based on community input. Maybe that helps screw that up a little bit as well. Can I just jump in again? Yeah. So, I appreciate this idea about like, you know, are these results or are these something else? Um, I think from the perspective of someone that's working on trying to get board work

112organized. If you create a third category, what you're also do doing is setting up a potential third process for how you do things as a board. I don't care if you call these results. It actually is really helpful if you take the word results out of this whole thing and just say, "Okay, we're monitoring our core academics. We're monitoring our explorations academics. We're monitoring our special academics. We're monitoring our journey of a lifelong learner. And we're monitoring our strategic framework. If you just took the word results out of that and describing what you're doing, then everything everybody's saying makes perfect sense where they're all bound together. Then is this a similar process of now I understand that we're going to be relying on dramatically different data and dramatically different like types of reporting but is

113the process for setting up these things like what the board does the same and I think it is you know we're going to put those stuff on a schedule we're going to want to ask questions the only time the word results comes up in a meaningful way is when we set the criteria for like are we achieving results when We look at our core academics. Are we achieving or not achieving results? Are we capacity building? When we look at our explorations academics or we look at the story that we tell around the journey of the lifelong learner that may include some of our oes, are we achieving the results that we find reasonable as a board? That's really the only time the word results pops up in a meaningful way. So, I'm fine with however

114we do it. What I'd be real cautious about is as we move into potentially setting up an onboarding process where we're going to teach new board members like, okay, here's the process for monitoring an operational expectation. Here's the process for monitoring a result. Here's the process for monitoring this third category of things. Here's the process for, you know, handling expulsion hearings. All the stuff that we have to put into onboarding to educate new board members. I think we're just creating a meaningless category by saying there's this third way. If you want to just take the word results out of all the headers, that's fine. Um, but yeah, that's just my thought. That's a question, John. You you referenced earlier a document you weren't sure if everybody got what what were you referring to? Because I

115I I might have missed something, too. Or was that referring to your checklist you did a while back? that was referring to I spit out a document um last week and I didn't see as part of the um board docs but it was kind of an outline of like hey here are the big shifts that we have to consider and we've already talked about them all. One was like these are questions instead of students will statements. You know, that was one big shift that I kind of preframed the board that we should keep an eye on as we talk about this. We want to keep an eye on the workflows because there's 24 instead of, you know, however we category these things. That was in the email I sent out today. The thing that wasn't

116in the email today that was in that document was this idea about divorcing the data. Um, that fourth bullet point. Um because again that's kind of a discussion for another day when we start talking about scheduling. Um but the idea that we don't necessarily have to do a report as the data becomes available. Um that we can collect data year round as long as we have a clear understanding of this report covers this time to this time. That's our reporting year. That was the only thing that maybe wasn't in the email that I sent out earlier today that I didn't see on board docs. um but that Dr. Clarity would have seen as I was kind of working back and forth through our committee work. Um so I wanted to be clear about that, Joe.

117So that's what I was saying there. Thanks. I'm not seeing that. I might have missed it. Yeah, I don't think that was something that went to the whole board. Admittedly, I John and I were in more email threads with Dr. Clarity is something with our subord group. So I'm not sure if that document did it to all of you because it was I don't Yeah. whereas I want to make sure I wasn't for sure. Yeah. And I don't I don't think that that point that point number four about divorcing the data is a crucial point at this juncture. Um we can certainly revisit it when we talk about scheduling. I think um you know I think Meredith raises a good point because the journey of a lifelong learner and the strategic framework are going to

118look you know different and that they're going to be more qualitative than quantitative. um when you compare them to core academics and we can talk you know at infin item all night long about what constitutes a result or not. As you guys may be able to tell I take a much wider view of what could potentially be a result to a school district and not just student results per se. Um and part of what's come up in our discussions previously is that hey we've got this strategic framework that outlines this journey of lifelong learner. We need to do some sort of monitoring to see how that's going. I think that that best fits in this quote unquote results category as a story that's combining a lot of these OES to speak to what the community

119gave us in that strategic framework. If we're just like evaluating where we're at, I mean, I think the this as a whole is really captures, you know, what I would like to see. I I think keeping them as results I have no issue with what we I think we definitely need to have results policies. I think John's concern about having several different tiers of monitoring is you know is is valid. I but I think the idea of that we should be monitoring as a board each of these six areas as the results of our district is something that you know absolutely I agree. I have no changes that I would make to these at all. How they may be implemented and how the monitoring looks and what that I mean that could be I'd like

120to again will be yeah more information from admin but from the board perspective we decide on the the results policies and these really resonate with me. So that's where I'm at. Well, at this point, I'm going to leave I'll leave this officially then as a first read. If something dramatic happens for any one of you, please share your feedback because that can change. But we'll tentatively put for a second reading of these on July 21st at our next meeting. So, take some time to continue to contemplate, but I think you summarize really well, right? The point is is this language we're okay with. And then the discussion becomes how do we want to work with admin to create a monitoring schedule that makes sense. How do we create that interplay? But I think at this

121point how we feel about this being language we want to move forward on in terms of guiding our results policies. Would it be helpful for John and to send that share that document or is that not going to add anything to our It's mostly captured in the email that was sent. I think there's just little reworkings and phrasings that maybe were different in translation along the way, but we can certainly look and make sure that there isn't anything else to add. I think most Yeah, go ahead, John. I was going to say I think in the interest of just making sure everyone's got all the information they need um what I'll probably do is reframe that document into the ter and like with acknowledgement that we've kind of been through a first read here of

122the result and then we can kind of sharpen the focus a little bit more on okay here are the next issues and maybe we'll bounce some ideas off of uh Dr. for clarity about like, you know, here's where we see the issues that admins got to deal with specifically and here are the issues that the board then has to grapple with and provide it its input on. And then we can maybe send out a document um to board members that summarizes what was on that document that not everybody got um and leads us into the next discussions in a way that I was trying to do with that document. But it was all hypothetical because it was like that the goal of that document was to say here are the boundaries of the discussion we

123are going to have on Monday. And now we've had that discussion. We've covered a lot of those things. And so the document I would send out is looking forward here are the next steps. I do think it's important just for us to keep in mind what we're actually doing. I mean our job is to approve the language, right? and then maybe give direction to admin. The second point, but I I think our first hurdle is to Yeah. make sure the language works. Yeah. In theory, we could be having this whole discussion as just board members. No offense, right? Because I mean, these are the right because he's right. These are the policies we own. Please do. Please have it. Just do it. Tell us. I'm so sorry. Yeah. Okay, thanks. All right, thanks D. Yeah,

124thank you. It was great discussion and thanks again, John, for your work. I mean, just the word smithing and the analysis and the collaboration. It's been super helpful to have all of this to work from. So, thank you. Thanks. All right. Um, we will prepare to adjourn to close session under Wisconsin statute 19.85 85 sub1 subg to confer with legal counsel concerning strategy to be adopted by the board with respect to litigation in which it is currently involved, specifically a breach of contract matter. Um, we'll also remain in close session under Wisconsin statute 19.85 sub1 sube to discuss the district's approach to base wage bargaining with employee representatives. At this stage, the discussion will involve considerations that may shape the district's position going into negotiation. Discussing this strategy in open session could reveal our posture

125and negotiation parameters which may limit our flexibility or result in competitive disadvantage. Before we move to vote to go to close session, are there any general values or perspectives that any board members believe or wish to share in open session before we continue? Then we'll move forward with a roll call vote to head into close session. In favor of moving to close session, Joe, hi. Corby, hi. Meredith, hi. Christopher, hi. Well, Carlos, hi. John, you still there? And I am an I as well. We are adjourned from open session. We'll take just a moment to work technology shift personnel and we'll be in close session. What's up?