#DPSCommunity | DPS Board of Education Monthly Work Session | 6/9/26

001Good evening everyone. I saw myself pop up on the screen. The Durham Public Schools Board of Education work session is now in session. At this time, we wish to extend a warm welcome to everyone who is joining us this evening. The purpose of this meeting is to inform our parents, staff, and constituents about the work aligned with our mission to embrace, educate, and empower every student to innovate, serve, and lead. The interpreters for tonight are Karen Reyes and Ivette Perez. Thank you for taking the time to join us. This meeting is being in being interpreted live into Spanish with a delay of a few seconds. We kindly ask that you please pace yourself, pause between ideas, and speak clearly so that everyone can follow along. And now at this time, first on the agenda is

002an invitation to a moment of silence. In Durham public schools, we understand that every child has limitless potential and deserves to be seen, valued, and supported. And we understand that public schools change lives, that education matters, and that the choices we make doing this work have consequences far beyond this room. May we fully acknowledge the impact of our work on others, especially those historically marginalized and disenfranchised, and remain guided by our shared responsibility to create the conditions for every child to learn, grow, and thrive. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you board members. Next on the agenda is the board work session minutes dated May 14th, 2026. >> Move approval of the minutes dated May 14th, 2026. Second. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Miss Buyers and seconded by Mr. Tab

003that we approve the board meeting minutes dated May 14th, 2026. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? >> I I opposed use the same. It passes 6. Um, chair uh, board chair Bumstead will be joining us momentarily. Um, she's on her way. All right. Next item on the agenda is the agenda review and approval. Um, I would like to move that we pull S policy 4326 rules for seclusion and restraint for second read. Um and [clears throat] from consent and put it under five policy committee um and make it uh let's see a >> second. It's been moved by Miss Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair Rogers, that we pull item 2S from consent, policy 4326, rules for seclusion and restraint from consent and place it as item A under section five of policy committee.

004Is there any discussion? >> All those in favor? I >> I Any oppose? Use the same sign. It passes 60. >> Move approval of the agenda as amended. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Miss Buyers to approve the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Tab. Um any discussion? >> Miss Carter. >> Um I have a question for the attorney this evening. We have a couple of preces that are that we need to update. Do we need to do that at the time of the approval or at the time that agenda item comes up on the agenda? So, I had thought those were getting updated before the meeting, but if they have not been updated, um they can be when we get to that item. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other discussion? All right. All those in

005favor I >> I. >> All those opposed use the same sign. >> I vote I. So it 6. All right. And next we have general public comment. A quick review of the rules. First, please state your name. If speaking for an organization, please state your name and the name of the organization. Second, speakers are asked to present their comments in let me see in 3 minutes. When the yellow light comes on, you'll have 30 seconds to start winding up your remarks. When the red light comes on, it'll beep, which will indicate that your time is up. Complaints about named staff, students, or parents should not be voiced in open session. However, we are very interested in hearing your concerns with regard to public education, safety of students, or to the operation of the school system.

006Finally, the board members will listen carefully and consider the comments, but do not engage in in in discussion with speakers. All right. So, our first speaker, um I will see I'll give the first three. Um Jennifer Gish >> Girish, Jennifer Girish, um will be first, followed by Eliza Strickland and Ron Fields. Rob, of course, Rob Fields. Hi, Jennifer Garish. Derm, Advocates for Exceptional Children. I seed my time to Eliza Strickland. Good evening. My name is Eliza Strickland and I'm the parent of a DPS student with a disability and I'm here speaking tonight on behalf of the Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children as co-chair of the committee on discipline. Um, you all have a lot on your plate tonight. I don't have to tell you that. I do want to thank you for taking it all

007on and for doing so in the spirit of all true public schools, but especially DPS. Get emotional about this, y'all. Where students with disabilities are not only admitted, they are welcome and they are valued. Okay, there are [clears throat] three policies on the agenda tonight that DAEC has provided comments on. You should have those in your inboxes as of about 30 minutes ago. Um, I think the last one came in. So, um, the seclusion and restraint policy first. We appreciate that being pulled from the consent agenda. I know everyone wants to just get it done and it's very close. There are actually so many ways that this policy has been improved that I literally don't have time to list them all. But um we have suggested a few small tweaks to make sure that that

008policy is consistent within itself and with the board's intent for student code of conduct. Here again we see the boards and Dr. Lewis's commitment to reducing out of school suspensions. We know that suspension leads to worse outcome for students for years to come. We also know that in DPS students with disabilities are one of the most at risk groups for being suspended. It's something that many of our members have personal and painful experience with. Tonight, we are asking for a couple of additional changes to this improved policy that we believe would make a difference for students with disabilities. In particular, I want to highlight our proposal that principal supervisor oversight be applied not just to prek through 2 grade students, but also to students with disabilities in third through fifth grade. We believe this additional

009oversight is warranted for two reasons. First, while students with with disabilities are disproportionately suspended historically and in the current policy, very little attention has been focused specifically towards how to reduce those suspensions. We think those suspensions need additional attention to understand how, why, and when they are happening. Secondly, and this is where I ran out of time to write my remarks. So, um, secondly, for many students with disabilities, their disability impacts their development, which means that many of them are two, three, maybe even four years behind their age. So the same reasons that apply to additional oversight for preK to 2 would apply developmentally for many of these students who are um students with disabilities in grades 3 to 5. Finally, suspension of students with disabilities or sorry discipline of students with disabilities um policy

010is also on the agenda tonight. We are asking that you not take this opportunity to change the long-term suspension policy as has been suggested. Um we would like to see the procedural safeguard information that's in the long-term suspension policy be added to the discipline of students with disabilities policy so that parents and staff all have access to that information in DPS policy in a place that makes sense. we would ask that that be done now and not as suggested after review and in the future at some point. Um, however, I will say that that policy is also an improvement as it is um tonight in front of you. But please don't change the long-term suspension policy while you're at it because that would take away any of that language. Um, and thank you very much

011for your time and we appreciate your consideration. Good evening. How you doing tonight? So good to see you. My name is Rob Fields and I'm a DPS grandparent. Last night, the Durham County Commissioners decided to raise taxes 2.5 cents and DPS is getting 1.65 cents of that increase approximately. That is $165 on a million-doll home. That leaves over 2,000 classified workers to shoulder the deficit between your budget for labor and a living wage. And let's be clear that that's what this is. It is a deficit budgeting on the backs of our lowest paid workers. It's a deficit budgeting technique. It's a hidden deficit that costs each of these workers thousands of dollars per year so that a million-doll homeowner can save $150 in taxes on top of income tax breaks they have already received from

012the feds and from the state. And the travesty is that the best economic policy to deal with affordability and wealth inequality problems in this county is to increase wages any way we can at the low end of the spectrum. And you all have the ability to make a difference there for the good of not only our students but the entire economic well-being of this county. Tonight you have a budget presentation for information based upon the materials provided with the agenda. The updated budget proposal will give lower dollar raises to the 1,600 or so DPS classified workers who do not make a living wage. This continues the great American tradition of having the bottom subsidized the top. In the current proposal, the top most highly compensated 100 classified workers will get more than 10% of the

013new money, leaving the other 2,000 behind. We have to find a better way. 1822 is not acceptable. 1922 is not acceptable. $22 is not acceptable. We have to find a way to fix this and to and to get the county commissioners to raise taxes. You first, which is what we have to do to fix it, you first need to convince them that you are not wasting county money this year. They were not convinced. The work to convince them for next year must begin now. And business as usual is not going to get us there. We have to catch up to the city. If the city can do it, DPS and the county must, too. We have to figure out a way to pay a living wage. Thank you. >> Thank you, [clears throat] Heidi. No,

014no, Karen. Um, I can't read that last part. Um, is that Will Tarte, Karen Tarte, Heidi Hitland, and then Christy Clint. >> Thank you. My name is Karen Tartik. Um, I'm a physical therapist. I've been a physical therapist for over 40 years. Um, I have a lot of experience in schools. Um, I enjoy what I do very much, working with the children. And I wrote some remarks down because I wanted to think about what I want to say to you that's going to make a difference today because I know you know what we're going to talk about. I'm going to ask for and urge you to look at the funding for the occupational physical therapists and and certified occupational therapy assistants to be competitive with other counties. We have lost several therapists. I think you're

015well aware of that. and we continue to lose more because we are not competitive with the other counties who are offering more lucrative salaries at this point. So, I'm here to advocate for that. As a PT, I know how much of a difference therapists can make when a child with a disability enters the public school system. We are the bridge builders. We address the barriers, both physical and social, to help our children with disabilities feel fully included in their school communities. I'm also the parent of a son with autism, profoundly affected by autism. I am eternally grateful for the therapist who helped guide him through his school career, which can be an intimidating and daunting journey filled with bylaws, acronyms, etc., etc. That's another acronym. Families with children with needs often face feelings of isolation

016and stigmatization simply because their child acts, thinks, looks, feels differently than other children that are considered typical. My son Eric had occupational therapy services throughout his school career. Coming to the IEP table, I didn't feel so lonely knowing that I had a therapist with expertise in an area that some general education teachers, administrators, and even special educator teachers might not be versed in. So, they actually become what we call the IEP team. And I, as the parent needed that support from them, it made me and my family feel valued knowing we had occupational therapists to look out for him. It gave us an immense sense of comfort knowing he had experts adv advocating for his access to the same opportunities every child deserves. School occupational and physical therapists and kodas are an invaluable resource for

017families. I urge the board to look at the funding to be able to be competitive with other counties so we don't lose our quality occupational physical therapists and quotas at this time. they can help build those bridges to access and inclusion for our most precious resource, our children in the Durham public schools. And I want to thank you very much for your time. >> Hi everyone. How are you tonight? I just wrote a bunch of things and accidentally deleted them, so I'm just going to fly off the my cuff here. Um, want to thank you again for all you do on this budget. I'm sure has been a nightmare. And um I myself and Christy Clem were at the board um county commissioners meeting last night which was very lively um more than I expected.

018Um but we did you know hear um you know they just like DPS they have a lot of agencies and departments that have a lot of needs just like DPS has capital funds and computers and and people that need to have some attention and some financial means to do better. And I'm asking again, as I have every time I stood up here, to invest in the people, especially invest in the people of DPS that do not make a living wage. And let's instead of like saying, hey, everybody's going to get a 5%. Does everybody at the top and the bottom with the scale compression need, you know, is 5% the right thing to do? And just across the board, it definitely is the easiest thing to do. But when people making six figures then get

0195% raises and people who are making way under the minimum wage get that or less it it does not help them make a living wage. It does not help them stay in Durham to work or to live. And I know I love working here. Um and I love the community we've built over the past two years from all this pay stuff. But every classified staff member I spend time working with the bus drivers a custodian. and it easily comes out and and speaks Spanish and helps me with some of my students in the hallway and they just get so excited and she's a big part of that school and and I consider her part of my team and I'm just asking you to get creative with the budget look at what really needs to be

020done and our top resource is our people and we're losing them as has been mentioned and I emailed I think everybody um in the past year we've lost six physical therapists on a team of nine so Karen who just spoke actually was retired and we asked her to come back and help us and she did. So that's why we actually have 4.4 physical therapists out of nine right now. Um and we just cannot serve kids with that and lawsuits are expensive and parents know what their kids' rights are and they're not going to be met from the PT department at least. Um if we cannot hire more staff and with these salary schedules we have now and the compression, we are not attractive to bring in anybody here. There are people in Durham who want

021to work here and not keep commuting far away to other counties, but they cannot afford to make that change and come work for DPS and they want to. So, I'm asking you to give big consideration, which I know you've been doing for months and months, but just what can we do and with other resources you've been given by the county commissioners to support the lowest paid workers, classified staff. They are the people that support our students and they we really need them and we need them to stay long and not just like pop in and out because of the salary. We become a team all of us not just therapy team um but everybody. So um thank you for your time um and all the difficult decisions you've had to make. >> Nicole, I see

022you over there. Hey, I'm Christy Clim, lead physical therapist. Um, thank y'all for letting us speak. Um, I come [clears throat] to work for Karen and for Heidi Joe and for all the students like I'm factual and numbers and let's look at this on paper and they're my feel-good emotional people side. They say all the things that I can't figure out how to put into words. Um, so thank you. They're they're the people DPS needs and wants. They're the people that have the experience and do research because they're interested in it to go learn more about a unique diagnosis to come back to make school better for that specific student. Um, those are the people we need. Those are the people we've been losing. Two PT resignations in the past few weeks. We're going into

023the summer 55% staffed. That just makes me not feel good and lose sleep. Um, we were between 65 and 80% staffed this whole school year. That made me lose sleep because of the extra hours I was doing and that others were doing during those past few months. Um, I appreciate the county commissioners and DPS coming up and finding this additional money to put toward classified pay. And I I understand it's being said we can't do the whole big fix this year, but please commit to a plan to how can it continue to work to getting really fixed. Um our lowest paid workers need a living wage. That is for sure. I understand OTPT. We're not in the lowest of the classified staff pay. I recognize that. Um, OTP needs a competitive wage to be able

024to provide the federally mandated services that our students are are legally obligated to have to receive. We need that to make sure staff stay safe and don't hurt their backs. That adaptive equipment isn't being used inappropriately. Um, all of the staff training and the student safety that goes on with it, not just the direct services, but all of the other things that PT does. We're somewhat like the riskmanagement piece of related services in EC. And it's not just students over here can't get served if we have a PT, but now all of those students and all of those staff are going without back lift training and back safety and adaptive equipment use. So now the district's opened up to all kinds of legal issues. So please consider consider that piece as well. and and OTP

025is on the higher end of classified pay. I do think there's folks for sure above us, higher administrators and folks higher up who are who were paid more and still on the higher end of classified. But a difference is I don't see those positions being vacant year after year after year after year. Like we have people coming to do those positions. Do those people need more raises for things that are being filled? OTP is on the higher end but we cannot fill them then something has to be done. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. That concludes our general public comment. Thank you everyone for taking the time to come and to share with us today. Um next on the agenda board are the consent items. Move approval of the consent agenda items A through

026S. >> Second. Second. >> It's been moved by Miss B or seconded by Miss Chavez that we approve agenda items A through S. Is there any discussion? Didn't we move S off of the incant agenda and put it under policy committee? >> We did. >> Yeah, but it's already >> P then becomes S. Is that correct? >> P became S. >> I hit refresh as instruction. >> Oh, I didn't hit refresh. >> I recommend everyone enjoy the refresh. >> Yes, it is. I did double check. You're all >> Thank you. >> Yep. So, it's been moved by Miss Byer, seconded by Miss Chavez to approve consent items A, B, C, D. Well, all of the consent items. That's been refreshed. So, I guess we don't have to notice that does not include policy 4326, just

027for clarity. Um, any other discussion? All All in favor, please say I. I. I. All opposed, please use the same sign. It approved unanimous. Right. So, next on our agenda is now our administration budget update. Um, Mr. Jeremy Teter. >> Evening board members, members of the community. As we move into our um budget update, I want to first acknowledge the work that has gotten us to this point. Um as you know, development of budget is more than, you know, just looking at numbers. It's it's certainly about aligning our values and priorities um with the needs of the district student needs um the needs as relates to supporting our our staff uh which ultimately will all help um strengthen our our school. So, tonight you hear an update as it relates to information uh that we

028have as as a result of um any state updates, local updates. Some action was taken last night at our Durham County Commissioner meeting. We certainly appreciate our county manager um her staff and our uh Durham County Commissioners for the work that they've done last night in the investment uh in Durham um public schools. So, tonight you'll hear um the impact of those decisions. Um, you know, while we'll share some information tonight, there is some information that remains um fluid and so our goal is to still continue to make thoughtful u responsible decisions that reflect um our values and our priorities as we continue to move this district forward. This time I'll turn it over to our CFO, Mr. Jeremy Teter. >> Thank you, Board Member Goff. Um other board members, Dr. Lewis. Um just [clears

029throat] echo what Dr. Lewis said very fluid uh finance team moving very quickly um to to process uh parameters around state and local framework. Um so we've used framework more this year than we have in a long time. Um as things un unfold. Um and so in the next um we can advance a couple of slides and just um revisit um the state framework. Um we we still don't know much more beyond that. Um we've we've heard uh conversation about the prospect of of a full budget bill the week of June 15th. Other people say no pro probably not. Right. We've we've heard um kind of different accounts of that out of Raleigh for sure. Uh depending upon what side of the budget conversation you're on. And so uh these parameters that we talked about

030previously in the framework remain um with the um certified raises on average of eight and classified raises on average of three uh coming from the state dollars. Um [snorts] and this will be very important for us um to to know that that's locked in. Um and and and if it's going to be different, we need to know what that difference going to be. um because that that affects the work that we're doing on the local side of the operation um to to fold that in. So, for now, um you'll hear a lot of um you'll hear about a lot of things and see a lot of things tonight um that have this information as as a primary underlying assumption uh for the construction um of of the work that we've done so far. and and

031we're um we've got the framework in place on our end um to react quickly if something does change um with with what the state ultimately decides to do with that foundation. Uh and so we'll um so we're ready and and we're ready for them to do their part um any day now. So um on the on the next slide is just revisiting that salary schedule um that was put out for teachers from the general assembly um office of fiscal research. um they've got a couple of of errors in that chart just in terms of the the staff alignment and and one of the years of raises, but um we've been able to work with that and and and apply those pressures um to our local construct. And so uh just a reminder um and and

032we touch on this on the next slide, which it's fine to move forward from there. Um our average uh locally funded teacher is on step six of that salary schedule. Um and and as we've shared um at previous updates, it varies uh largely across communities, 115 school systems, and the the makeup of our locally funded employees differs um significantly. Uh and so we're um looking at the math and and and the construct of our locally funded employees with 80% of those uh being classified uh 20% of those being certified. Um a state average 3% raise for classified um in our case it would be a 9.4% average for certified and we we do that weighted blend um you know we we average out to a 4.28 to eight um with with the nature of how

033our employees are funded and we statistically looked at that um with every kind of tool in our toolbox to make sure we felt confident uh about that assumption uh for our local funds. um we can now move on to the local framework. And so at the time that we built this presentation, that was very much a framework. Uh and and as of last evening, um you know, I watched u the the conversation virtually uh with the commissioners and and then their ultimate sort of adoption um of their um funding levels for the school system. And um so on the next slide um you know just this is ultimately what did occur um right so the they funded the 10 million899 uh989 uh for continuation costs that we had been working with and and that was

034an element that carried forward uh from county manager Hager's original proposal um that the commissioners uh worked to um push forward the additional increase um to the property tax rate to to provide an additional 2,650 um with with a strong desire for DPS to find a way to match that um and and sort of look within our resources in the same way uh that they did in their budget development process to free up funds. [snorts] Um and then also um an addition by way of the county commissioner contribution to the development of the budget u is a million dollars in resources through capital outlay uh to support our our technological investment with the refreshes um that we have had conversations about through uh various board meetings. Um so to the fun part um that um

035everyone's obviously very interested in um on we if we could move forward a couple of slides um we've uh lifted up um sort of some models um or or a or a particular model um that we've evaluated in the finance department um as a perspective classified pay table um that reflects um the the resources u with the state raise um that are part of the continuation request, uh the additional expansion investment from the county, um along with um a a potential match from the school system to to line up um with that additional county investment. Um keeping in mind too, um that that additional investment from the county of the 2,650, there's 689,000 potentially, right, that will migrate its way to what we have to contribute to charter schools, unfortunately. But just always lift up

036that reminder about the the way that we have to share those those resources. Um we did um just sort of through the course of stakeholders um and and in the conversation with the county right here the the desire for us to to pull these resources to find a way to at least reach the 1822 per hour uh minimum wage and the classified pay structure. Um and [clears throat] and then we've also right heard some feedback of of looking at a way to invest um sort of in the um the lower grades um on the salary schedule so to speak. And so you can uh see kind of some um in this iteration uh some higher numbers um for the um the early grades, right? So 9.43% for a number of our early grades. um and

037then those start to decline um and putting in place um sort of a structure um where where those other NC scales at the higher end are at five. Um from there um so just an interesting point um you know that I wanted to sort of lift up through this um is um sort of the the conversation right with the coordinators and up in terms of our salary schedule. Um so we know that if the state framework comes to fruition right we'll be required to at least provide that 3% minimum um that that is discussed in the state framework um and so um just to kind [clears throat] of fill the board in right on what the difference would be. So if we were to um do 3% for that population in lie of five um

038it would put $263,000 of resources in back sort of into that mix of resources that we're looking at. Um and so we did do some stress testing with that um to see sort of what those implications would be and how could that sort of insert um into the schedule to tackle some other things. Um so just wanted you to kind of be aware of sort of what that difference is. If u we ended up following a minimum of three uh for administrators in lie of the five that you'll see kind of in an upcoming slide. Um we had um sort of in flushing this out we um sort of pushed and pulled in a number of places um with the scales um and um sort of had the costs uh updating real time um as

039we work through that to understand um the impact of our pressures. Uh so one one thing of um particular interest so our our NC5 scale um that that's in our classified salary schedule um [clears throat] largely you will see um our instructional assistants uh that are in gened classrooms that are that are paid on that scale in particular uh you see a number of child nutrition staff that are paid on that scale um and so with this um iteration that we've got on the screen um we do improve sort of that progression from an NC4 to an NC5 compared to what it was previously. So um in the current um model in Durham, it's a 1.56% um progression if someone migrates from an NC4 to an NC5. Um this current version has that at a

0402% um to to try to start kind of getting some momentum there where our instructional assistants are concerned. Um the three after that, right? to NC6, seven and eight respectively. Um [clears throat] we do um with sort of this push and pull or a butterfly effect if you will. Um you do see kind of some of that progression or compression that used to live at five sort of make its way down to those in particular. Um and in doing some comparisons um so specifically looking at our neighbors in Wake and and looking at comparable pay grades, right? They don't quite use the same um numbering system that we do, but we look at the types of positions that are on their scales to sort of infer um what are comparable uh classified scales. U we

041still have better um differentials there uh with with that progression. Um and those employees in this model still benefit um from a decent raise um in that construct. So, just wanted to spend some time talking about that. Um, and sort of the the trade-offs in in this particular model. Um, this is one that also helped us kind of land with the most sort of clean looking numbers um as we work through things um that that people could follow. Um, so wanted to make sure we spent some time there and talk about that. Um on the next slide I just want to sort of talk about um an issue with the scales that were adopted in Durham in September of 2024. Um there's there are a number of of computations right that exist in those um

042just in terms of um an an annual wage that's inferred for NC1 uh a monthly wage that's reported on that schedule. Uh and so when we do um when we're determining what an hourly rate is, you can go about that a couple of different ways when you look at that schedule. Um so the the annual scale that was adopted at that time was um 35,671 sort of on that bottom floor. Um and and just sort of in our conventional payroll math, you divide that by 280 hours. Um and and when you do that, you infer a 1715 rate. um we pay uh our employees that are on this pay scale are are paid a monthly salary in Durham um and not necessarily um an hourly wage. And so that 2886 monthly salary um is what

043was adopted in in the manner in which employees have been paid. Uh but when you go through sort of that same process of trying to infer what does an hourly rate look like, right? you multiply that by 12 and then divide by those that same 280 hours and you arrive at a 1665 number, right? And so um this is something um you know in in the 2425 or 2526 year rather, right? There was no uh increase in pay from the state or or no locally funded increase. And so things just persisted as they were uh with our salary schedules. And so this is our opportunity um to sort of lift that up um and make sure um that if someone is doing arithmetic uh from the annual level of view or the monthly level of

044view, they infer um a consistent um hourly wage um as they work through that. But again, just want to stress that we pay our classified employees uh with the exception of a couple of of miscellaneous groups. Um they're paid on a monthly scale um and and the district adhered to that adopted monthly scale. Um so just wanted to spend some time on that um and bring clarity around that. Um the next section um you know so we discussed sort of the coordinators and up earlier um and sort of talk through that and um and I won't belabor that one. Uh couple others um I know the bus drivers and and and safety assistance uh would be um sort of interest um for the group. And so I think it's important to know that above and

045beyond um the wage um that we pay those employees for the hours they work um the bus drivers in particular, we adopted a monthly supplement for them at $200 per month uh for the current year that we're in now. Um for the average bus driver, that monthly supplement of $200 has a value of $2.78 per hour. Uh, and so that can have that sort of has um an effective rate for for the proposal we're looking at um where that hourly wage for them when you factor in the supplement uh can feel like $23 an hour. And so just wanted to provide some context around sort of that that balance u in determining um how we how we distribute the resources and factoring in the investments we've made with the supplement. um safety assistance um do

046they do not currently receive a supplement and that was um certainly a change that was heavily advocated for um through the meet and confer process and through budget feedback that we received um the superintendent's recommended budget ultimately lifted that up um and and looking at a $100 per month model. Um so the um the wage there um for the average safety assistant a supplement of that nature uh would have sort of a value of $1.39 per hour uh when you look at the average safety assistant u and pairing that with the 1822 that's proposed there's sort of this effective u feeling of 1961 an hour where that's concerned. Um so those those efforts collectively uh when we when we combine that supplement uh model in addition to the hourly wage proposed um it gets them

047just shy of a 12% sort of increase um in in that space. And so I think that's uh some important context that we wanted to lift up uh with those two um very important employee groups. On the next slide, um we um took some time to sort of break out the information uh just in terms of uh the number of employees um and and by these various scales um average raise, average um or it's really sort of the the investment in total for that group and then the percentage of the resources um that would be going towards that. And so, um, won't go through each one, but that, uh, I know that that's been there and and folks have had an opportunity to to address that. Um, and we have a very analytical community that

048I'm sure has been analyzing. Um, and so we're, um, wanted to make sure we lifted that up, uh, so folks could see, um, sort of that flow, if you will, um, of where those resources would go, um, in terms of the of the construct. Uh on the next slide um we just sort of um want to share um right so the original recommended budget was in in pursuit of the 1922 um you know the the model that we're looking at um is is an 1822. Um we do um we do have the resources available in that makeup um to to pursue um salary schedules for our health providers like our occupational therapy assistants, occupational therapist proper uh and their colleagues in physical therapy. Um that alleviates the compression uh that they've been concerned about with

049their salary schedules and makes us competitive with our neighbors in the way that we've talked about uh throughout the budget process. So, u we're able to [clears throat] accomplish that um with with the resources in the way that we're looking at them now. And so, just um celebrate that. I I've lost count of the number of times that we've gotten that feedback um publicly and privately where that's concerned and and um it's wellreceived and and and we did our homework in in concert with that feedback to to validate that concern and and uh want to dedicate those resources. um the $100 monthly supplement um that we lifted up earlier for uh safety assistance was uh part of our request. Uh and so really right these were three of the core tenants um in in the

050superintendent's recommended budget. um the minimum wage does come up um you know shy by a dollar per hour um with this model um but makes progress and and we're able to check off two of the other sort of classified pay items um that were of interest and were a priority in the budget um separate from these items right the technology investment was another space uh that was lifted up in the recommended budget um and and as we alluded to earlier um ultimately you know a million dollars uh allocated uh for capital outlay to go towards technology uh to um to work towards those refreshes uh that we lifted up. So, not quite the amount that we've asked for um in the recommendation, but um a million dollars that um per personally was surprised to see

051be appropriated. Uh, and I I was planning for different realities um to try to map out what we might do um to to take care of some of that technological infrastructure in the school system uh in the absence of any kind of additional investment um from the county. Um from there um on the next slide um you know we have some conversation about um things that we're doing um to come up with a potential match u where that's concerned and um I know that's an area of interest and and as we as we continue to um you know build transparency and we'll share right in the u in this process the commissioners requested of us uh some additional information and and and um you know We wanted to see how um and and and sort

052of validate how we were using the local dollars um that they're giving us in the current year and and we were uh able to relay that to them in the process and we received positive feedback uh from them and um they were able to sort of follow um that information. Um and then um and here u went back to the drawing board and and thought about a number of things that fall in a couple of categories, right? So, some things that are um one-time investments, right, that that we had to go through in the district um as we work to improve sort of our our business operations um u thinking about um and so I think I will just touch on each of these um and and provide context around each of them because I

053know this is an area of particular interest. And so just one um we we do have um other streams of of revenue um that are sort of miscellaneous in nature uh that come into that that can support uh our capital outlay operations. And so just um looking to to be able to shift some of our local investment to line up with those miscellaneous revenues to support that effort. Um interest income, right? So this is no reduction. Uh right, so not reducing anyone's budget, not moving anything around. Um but we are now every month this district becomes increasingly stable financially. Uh and we are um able to really sort of do some stuff that Durham hasn't been able to think about in some time. Uh and so um just additional funds that we added to fund

054balance in the previous cycle. Um dollars that we have recouped that were due to the local fund uh over the past year. uh we'll we'll be able to invest um additional dollars in our our short-term investment fund with the state treasurer um to to generate additional revenue for the district. Um we we budgeted interest income also in the current year a little more on the conservative side. Uh and so we're able to um sort of take our foot off of that break a little bit. Um and so so proposing right that we we direct $400,000 of interest income um to help sort of support um our effort uh to provide a match. Um we um obviously right as we think about ways uh in which we can tighten our spending we sort of looked at

055our local spend um sort of on food um and this um is a space where we say if that's the nature in which you spend it this is a a man this is a degree to which we may pull back resources um to to redirect uh towards these efforts um department budget sweeps. Um so this uh 311,285 for that context. Um so we're in the month of June. Uh and so as we're um spending deadline was spring break, right? We so before folks went away for spring break, we expected funds to be encumbered. Um we obviously um provide leniency here and there for things that occur um to make sure that the district can operate. We know that things happen. Um but uh entering the month of June um you know we we had 311,285

056sort of in budgets that were unencumbered. Um and and that's an opportunity to sweep and redirect uh towards things that are important to us. Um legal um that's sort of a conservative estimate on my part. Um you know just and an abundance of caution. um don't want to overexert there in in in ways that um I feel like that can normalize or or sort of level off for the district but opportunity there um that we feel good about just based on how things are trending over the last couple of months. Um as the board's aware um that the district uh went through uh in ERP conversion, right? So the the software that we use to manage our finances, our payroll, uh it's been a quite some time since we went through a conversion of that

057nature. Um it's common practice as you're going through that um that you keep your outgoing system live um for a period of overlap um to to make sure if things don't go as planned, you've still got your old system that you can you can lean on and and make sure that payroll gets out the door, make sure that bills are paid. Um make sure that you have time to ensure things are sufficiently backed up uh from the old software. Uh and so moving into this new school year, that's not a need. and and we will only be running the one software. Uh and so that represents $23,000 um redirected right to resources. And I think it's an interesting um perspective, right? You'll see a couple of other one-time costs, implementation fees, um outsource project management

058to help um sort of make sure things go smoothly. Um, we've got districts in North Carolina that have spent 15 to $30 million to convert software and they're still not using their new software, right? And so I just sort of want to lift up sort of that framework, right? So as think as folks kind of process some of those numbers that are on the screen, right? We we did this um major change in a in a very nimble way um for for the district. uh and so I my colleagues who are still making conversions I wish them luck and I hope they don't have to spend any more money but um so just I think is important you know so that there's not um an incredible sticker shock there right with the the costs that

059are incurred when you make that kind of change um there are some other software that we um will no longer be using um that's sort of duplicative in nature and that we're able to handle um with with what we now have um after our changes so that 75,000 um that we'll reroute um towards other opportunities. Um we've had to make some other, you know, sort of one-time commitments to to sort through various situations, right? So, additional contracted services, um you know, for the business side of the house, one-time studies. Um you know, we've uh we had a sort of one-time evaluation done of our 403b programming. more to come on that with with the results of that. We've recently got a completed report on that um to to share as as we strive to improve

060um things of that nature and and um you know in the last one right sort of that 10,000 to round it out right we um when I came on board um right we um saw the need to sort of amp up sort of investment um in in professional development and finance um you know we're now sort of deescalating that back to sort of normal levels right we're we're feeling good about um the the ability level on the team now and uh bringing folks uh where they ought to be and and um not needing that sort of accelerated level of professional development uh to support the team. So um all that to say, right, this is a pathway um for 2,650 as as as a perspective match um to to the county's uh additional investment. Um

061on the next slide, we just sort of uh obviously we expect lots of feedback this evening. Uh and uh we will um just immediately sit with that after this meeting and um and do any additional sort of reflection and evaluation that the board um sees as pertinent. Um we'll continue to monitor what's occurring in Raleigh with the state budget. Uh we we will be back in front of you June 25th with an additional update um as these pieces move. Um we may need to send out communications through weekly updates in between um as this moves fast. Um and then and then ultimately we would need the board to authorize any adjustments that we make um to our classified salary schedules or any sort of big um adjustments to underlying assumptions right um with with our

062budget. So um from there I think the next slide uh calls for questions and um >> thank you Mr. Teter and if board members do you have questions and comments? >> Vice Chair Rogers. >> Thank you for the presentation. Um on the very clear list of things that you're going to places where you can reallocate funding um to find the money to match the county. I think in fall of 2024 when you came on board, Mr. Teter, Dr. Lewis, um the same board was sitting with salary schedules and trying to decide what to do with those things. And I would like to get a better understanding of what happened between when we sent the budget request to the county and now to help find this money for this increase because the board has been clear

063that we wanted this increase from the beginning. And if you can find this, how much more money can you find to get our lowest paid employees to the 1922 an hour? And how many employees are we talking about that earn between 1665 and 1922? >> Um, so I think great u great question, right? And I think there's um it it's about priorities, right? as the board, you know, fully understands. And I think we um we received sort of a challenge right from our partners to go back to the drawing board uh and see what else you can do. And I think we're um parting ways with what I think Dr. Lewis and I often describe as nice to haves um and um investing that uh where it matters most. would have been great, right, for

064the the full request to have been funded and and we just move through life like normal with some of those nice to haves. Um and and think about other things we might have been investing in um right in concert with that classified pay. But um but we're we're here right and and we're um rep prioritizing sort of based on what we're in receipt of and um and we'll continue to kind of build from there. So, in the future, how can the board be clear about our desire for you all to rep prioritize based on the board's priorities as opposed to being trying to match what the county is doing? Does that make sense? >> Yeah. And I think the I think the board was was clear. I think this this was an opportunity for us

065to um go back, dig a little deeper. um you know considering um the work that the county has done and the um desire to assist our employees I think it was just um our obligation as good partners to you know continue to I think Ruben and um Mr. Teter sat at the table really digging to see where they could um potentially come up with that with that match. So, it was also about us, you know, again, just being good good partners, understanding um that the county was interested in um increasing taxes for everyone in this in Durham County um cutting their budgets and you know, their employees getting what 2% um raise. So, we wanted to just do our due diligence and be good partners. So, I think the board was clear um on on

066the front end. Again, this just was another opportunity for us to just kind of dig a little deeper. And when can we expect the number of employees that are making right now between 1665 and 1922? >> So we've got that we've got that information not in the presentation but um after the presentation I'll pull my work papers um and and work with Dr. Lewis to communicate that to the board. >> Okay. And then my last question for now is you mentioned the interest income of $400,000. Is that interest income that came in this year or is that what you're projecting will come in next year? >> That's my it's a blend, right? So, we did a little bit better this year um and then we're um sort of reconfiguring our short-term investments for next year

067um to to help that number grow um where we feel uh comfortable um that we'll have that additional amount to work with. Um, okay. I The thing that's causing me the most trepidation right now is that these all feel like one-time expenses that we're offloading and how will we find the same 2.65 next year or we'll be asking the county for that? I [clears throat] am not confident, right, that we could do another 265 without uh having much more difficult conversations, right, as a district, right? And so I think we would um just need to be and I think we have right so we've gotten sort of some individual conversation sort of outside of this space of like could you find more right and and and I think right and our answer has been that

068we would need to um it would be really uncomfortable right we would we would start to be um pushing operating budgets to a point um that are not ideal um and and potentially looking at positions at that point um if we had to push much deeper Thank you, >> Miss Byer. >> So, I want to um start with appreciating the commissioners and the difficult um budget cycle that uh county manager Hagar led. you know, we sit with a lot of communities that are not having their continuation budgets met. And so for um Durham County to dig deeper is after the two historic years of of uh generous funding to Durham public schools and over a million dollars additional investment over the last five years is no small thing. is a deep investment in our students

069and in our um staff at a time when we sit in tension where the state is not stepping up, is not doing their part. Um and we heard it in the comments tonight. There is both tension to raise the starting wage, the living wage for um folks that desperately need support in in their ability just to to fund the ability to take care of their families. And the tension to stay competitive with um job categories where we have fallen behind that are higher paid job categories where we have fallen behind. And so I appreciate your efforts. um to dig deep. I don't think I think some of these proposed adjustments um are aggressive. I don't believe that we will generate $300,000 in savings in legal. I just don't I know this district and I know

070how complicated we are. Um maybe there's others. I kind of missed the description of what the child nutrition spending is and that 175,000. Um, most of all, I appreciate the transparency that you've put out as our community can help us join in how to maximize how we hold tension to do everything that this budget needs to do without having full funding last year, without having full funding this year, and without knowing what the state will do. Um, I'm hesitant and I want people that write news stories to be hesitant to say we're moving to 1822 if all the things happen because this is an if and an if and an if and an if and we're trying because we don't know what the state's going to do. We have no idea if they will even

071pass a budget. We don't know if the governor is going to veto any budget. Um, and so to have a fixed dollar amount makes me nervous that that people um, and I hope that we can do more than that, right? That would be the other hope is that maybe the cards will align, there will be some generosity that we didn't see and that we could lift further. Um, when you did these calculations, the hourly rates do not include the potential for bonus pay. Is that true? that. And I know I'm not talking about our local $100 and $200 transportation and safety assistant and bus driver bonuses, but I'm talking more the rumored state bonuses. Those are not factored into this. >> Correct. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And have y'all I I appreciate y'all

072doing modeling particularly on those big groups of employees in safety. And um can you remind me where our child nutrition folks fall as as they start? So they are largely concentrated on NC4 and NC5 uh on the salary schedule. >> Okay. So they hopefully would see significant growth. Where are we if we did scales that still have mins and maxes that we never understand why we have maxes because we can't pay them. When would we be able to come up with a new scale that would actually reflect where folks are? And if they've been at a step 10 and move to an 11, right? What would they expect under do do we are is it too soon to even ask those types of questions? >> So we do Right. So for um for our ability

073to sort of produce the materials this evening, right? sort of the the underlying work um that we have there. Um it's um sort of in the background, right? Sort of fleshed out potential schedules. Um and I sort of made the the judgment call to not um load those with the materials this evening just because there is a lot that we needed to get reaction to with just this um type of information before we pushed any further with that. uh but we do um you know have that level of detail constructed that helped us to cost that out um and so broadly speaking I think sort of an underlying sort of question I'm inferring right is um if some just as an example if someone's on an NC1 right and you see that sort of that

074starting point move at the 9.43 43. Um, we carry that throughout, right? Sort of the scale, right? So that that costing um we're saying that if you're on that scale, you move that much um sort of regardless of of the step, right? So that's um part of part of that um sort of layout. And we we did also for the costing uh apply that to the the legacy differential component, right? So for our folks that were here sort of pre triple crown salary studies, right? Um they um th those legacy differentials um have those amounts applied on top um for the purposes of our costing. So um so we're we're at a point where we could sort of lift that out um as we work through other items where we need to achieve comfort. So

075the legacy differential, how many folks in that are still in that? >> So it's um it's it's still, you know, well over 1300 folks that that fall in that. >> And then this isn't really 2.65. It's 1 point with the with the 600 taken out for charters, right? Right. >> Goes to one nine or something. And do you think the commissioners understand that portion? Do did you hear I didn't hear their full discussion or >> I don't I right just from what I have listened to right from the last couple of meetings um I don't I did not hear conversation among them of that's a factor right I I think we put that in front of them quite a bit um as a school system that any additional money we receive there's a percentage we

076share and u we've sort of conveyed how that's trended over time but um that that was not an area that they um sort of touched on in their conversations. >> I I appreciate the the tremendous amount of work that y'all did since this was rumored last week and and their meeting last week and and bringing this forward with the detail that I know is is behind it. Um and look forward to ways that in the future boards can be clear with those scales that are published or not published. right where we because we had significant debate about whether um we should just do percentages rather than publishing schedules, you know, those kind of things that are still to come. But um it does feel like we still are cleaning up from years and years of

077of challenges in Durham. Um and and people just want us to be clear about what they're going to get paid. Um, the other piece that I I really think that HR needs more support. I don't understand taking a cut from HR. That that's one thing that alarms me. Um, but I welcome feedback from others and and conversation going forward. But thank you all for helping us build a model that >> and I think to be clear, right, that's um that that's a dollar value of a one-time investment um that we've made um during the periods of transition um and and that it's not funded from the base operating budget for HR. >> Again, I share Vice Chair Rogers concern that a lot of these are one-time costs that we can realize this year, but they're

078not necessarily sustainable. And I also worry, and this is just me worrying in the history of Durham, that we've cut a lot of a lotments to schools. People are probably still arguing with Dr. King about some of that. Is that am I Yeah. Yeah. And so we're in that pushpull enrollment aotment window and that's going to have y'all having to hold firm on on really impossible decisions. Um, but thank you all so much. board members. Any other comments or questions? Miss Gar Uten. >> Um I'll echo some of what my colleagues have said and just gratitude to the county commissioners who've had to make very difficult decisions this year. Glad I'm not in their position. I'm very grateful. Thank you so much to to you and your team u Mr. Teter um for all this

079work to straighten out our finances and to help rebuild trust in the financial management here at in DPS. I think that is has been incredible and um thanks for getting creative about these cuts and making progress on PTO scales and then paying extra attention to those at the bottom of the scales. I'm I am a little bit concerned. I'm glad that we are making cuts to the nice to haves and I also am wondering like if we're if we are paying people $16 and $17 an hour, we shouldn't have the nice to haves. And so I wish that had come earlier. And I'm wondering again if there's more room for that to be done. If someone is making $60 to $7 an hour, they probably can't afford nice to haves. So, it feels like we

080need to be doing all that we can to make sure that they can make what they need to live here in Durma. I know that that's not easy. I just I know you're tired of hearing please cut more, but um I also am intrigued. I really appreciate that you ran the numbers on the like what it would what it would look like to um give the coordinators a 3% increase coordinators and up a 3% increase instead of 5%. Um, and that's something I would be in favor of in this in these challenging times. Um, in order to reallocate those resources to those who are getting paid less. Not that those folks are not important and don't do really incredible work for our district, but I want to be able to dedicate resources to those who

081maybe not can't pay their bills right now. Um, and I think that is all I have for right now. Thank you again. Um, thank you all. A lot of what I wanted to share has been stated already. So, gratitude to the county commissioners for their continued investment in um, education here in Durham and Durham public schools. So, I really appreciate that. Um, and again highlighting concerns around some of the things we're looking um, to cut and shift that seem sometimes like one. And so I'm also hearing that whoever's department the RTI study came out of like that money now is gone as well. Right. So there's other you know what other one time whether it be studies or RFPs that we have out there that we might not um end up addressing based on some

082of these changes. Um, and it's, you know, I'm always thinking about what's going to be the impact on our schools and impact on students and I, it's not clear to me, uh, what may or may not be felt from some of these changes. So, um I would like a little more more information on that and wanting to get a sense of how we're going to navigate these different items based on a lot of things that are still shifting still shifting when it comes to state budget and other items within the district. So, um yeah, a lot of what I was put down to share has already been shared, but those are some of my concerns about where we are today. Um, and I do hope Spire took again a lot of the words that I

083was thinking about or thoughts around correcting these salary schedules. Like we got to do that sooner than later. I feel like we've been preaching about men's and maxes since 2024. Um, so that's almost two years now and it's just confusing. People should just know what they're going to be paid. And if you're looking to come to DPS, it is confusing. had that conversations with folks who were like, I can't figure out where I would be. And I would want to make sure that we can correct that. And I think the same way that error was found um in the math that you shared, how do we just make sure that the schedules reflect where we should be? Um was sitting here thinking like I thought we already were at 17 in some areas. So to

084hear 16, it's like how did that happen? And so I just think we need some cleaning and reviewing of those different items. Um but thank you Mr. Teter and M Dr. Lewis for your leadership. I um I want to know as we're doing these matching for 2.6 what we're leaving out, but also are there other opportunities to be putting additional social worker at a school to be putting somewhere uh a person helping with recruitment or retention of students or um enrollment of students. Like what are opportunities that we can be looking to tighten? And if we can tighten 2.6 mill, what other areas do we need to tighten to fill some of the needs that we have? Um chronic absenteeism, should we have been looking for some money to help address that, too? like what

085are the other ways that we need to be um looking for money to address some of the challenges within our district. So, thank you all. >> Thank you board members of Mich. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for um applying my um many people's um desire, but certainly mine to um to put more money onto the lower end of the scales. Um and and just for all of this um so let me lift up my points and concerns. Um so one a specific concern um am I am I correct that we are paying interpreters on maybe you don't know this off the top of your head but NC5 050709 I believe is what I just read >> I think I think um so NC8 is the sort of typical grade that I see attached

086to them. >> Okay. I want to lift up a specific concern about how we pay our interpreters. Um I um I've you know was struck sometimes I bring this up but I was struck by um how much when during the salary crisis our interpreters were raised up and then dropped back down um two years ago when we were the whole project was to put people at market rate. Um and and so um let me just say that I I would like I don't think we've kind of reconsidered their positions um this year, but I want to offer maybe other colleagues have thoughts um that there's specific consideration gone to to interpreters um about their placement on salary schedules. Um, I realize that might not be, you know, what we can do right now, but I

087just want to put that out there. Um, because I think their pay is, um, is fairly low for the the work that they do. So, I don't know if there's any comment or if you all have talked about that at all or anything like that. I think along with um any other feedback right from the from the board this evening, you know, we'll take that back with us and >> okay, >> see what that looks like. >> Okay, sounds good. Um and then um I also um I also wanted to say I understand why you haven't, you know, provided the full um salary schedules. I am I am also interested to see those. I'm interested to see the OTP. I'm concerned about the vacancies we heard about tonight and the ones we've heard about in

088the past. Um, and somehow rectifying that problem and is certainly a problem um uh that needs attention uh for um you know the services for um some of our most vulnerable children um and or and who need have specialized needs. Um and then um a specific ask is as we as we think about those things being cut back um the legal service services all of that brings me to the board's budget which I periodically asked to see but I would love to see the board's budget actuals for this year um because I would you know what are we spending on legal services and everything else what do we spend on those things um the board isn't in a cadence of of approving our own budget or um or reviewing what we have spent, but I

089think that would be a good practice. Um, so, you know, would love to see where we're at with that. Um, and then since u legal services do fall under the board's budget, just um you know, they're they are not anywhere else in in the budget currently. So, um and then I want to say thank you for um sharing about the 3% for coordinators. um it what that would equate to coordinators and up. Um that was really in you know looking at over this um this weekend that was what came up for me. Is there an opportunity to um to um pull back the raise on the higher end? Not that I don't want people to make more, but um because we have um a number of of lower paid um workers and we're not going

090to have the funds we need to do the raise that we really wanted to. Um so what would that look like to put that $263,000 back into um different places on the scale, the lower end of the scale? Um and just um and Dr. Louis and I were talking a little bit about this. I do understand the need to retain staff at all levels. Um I would be interested to know a little bit more about vacancies at those levels. Um I I was just looking at like what positions are open right now at those levels. Um because you know when I compare what we're hearing about OTPT and then coordinator and up it seems like a very big difference where we're if that's correct that we're going you know into the summer 55% staffed with

091our OTPTs or our PTs if you know um don't quote me on that but um you know then that's a we're looking at different situations so I wanna I would love to know more information about that. And as I'm looking, I was just looking at other neighboring districts, um, like Chapel Hill, Carbo, they actually start their directors at about $75,000 with a mast's. We start ours at 85,000. So, um, I think um, and and Wake their midpoint was like a little higher than ours, maybe 90. Um, I have it pulled up in one of these millions of tabs, but anyway. Um, yeah. So, I'd be um just I would be interested to know if we did that 3%, which to me is more of a like standard cost of living increase, um that 3% raise

092at the higher end, um what that would look like. Um and I think that's all my comments and questions. Thank you very much for your work on this, >> Mr. T. Thank you very much, Meta, for your presentation and also uh my gratitude to the county commissioners as well for a job well done and helping us navigate such a difficult time. Um my direct question is more about things that are happening in our community and in Durham um with gun violence and things that we know are happening. Are we prepared to make other adjustments in terms of maybe getting more mental health professionals in the schools? Um because there's a lot going on and are we prepared to also make a different adjustment of things that we need based on what's happening in our community.

093>> I think my kind of shorter direct answer is I'm prepared to evaluate whatever Dr. Lewis would like me to to do, right? So, whatever um whatever I need to do for him, right, we'll we'll certainly take a look at that. >> Okay. Just wanted to uplift it. >> Board members, is there any more discussion? >> So, um thank you for this robust conversation, for lifting up all of the the questions and concerns. Um, I'm hearing some things that, you know, things that kept being lifted up over and over, like, you know, really, um, being interested in what it would look like for the 3% raise for the coordinators instead of, you know, the 5% and how that could be used to reallocate back to um, prioritize those who have lower rate wages. Um, I

094heard over and over about the considerations for um, um, really thinking about our salary schedules. Um, and I heard a lot of considerations for things that we would like for administration to look at like what would it look like. The suggestions that I heard about were about interpreter, considering the interpreter, considering um adjustments for like um extra needs of the students for social supports because of gun violence in the community. Um and um a request for the board to see what our um budget actuals would look like. Um, and then there was another overarching thing of if if we found the money that we currently found in the budget because we were challenged to by the county commissioners. Um, do we want to shake the tree one more time and see if there's anything else

095that would be that we consider a nice to have that we could sacrifice um in order to do more. Um, those are just a few of the things that I I heard listening to everyone. Um, if there's no other Okay, Miss Byer. Yeah. No, I appreciate that um, summary and I think there were several other things brought up that y'all will continue to address as you move forward and plan in anticipation of our weekend, our meeting in two weeks, two days. Who knows if there'll be a state budget then or not. I think it would be helpful to me to to have some more understanding of the aotment cuts that y'all have made already this year. I know I'm we're all hearing anecdotally from different schools and different you know I think I think to

096be transparent that about that would be helpful. And you know, I I appreciate um you know, looking at the at the um coordinator and above folks and also acknowledge it's $260,000. That is not going to go as far with the numbers of employees that you're looking to address. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to I think it's going to be pennies more than quarters like for folks on an hourly basis, but I look forward to seeing kind of what y'all would model um with that going forward. And just be clear to our folks as we continue to to fight together in Durham um for what our folks need. We're going to fight in Raleigh um together for a state budget that actually will lift this and and enable us to do more for folks um

097and that all of this is proposed. All of this is proposed and very draft at this point. Thank you, >> Vice Chair Rogers. >> Yep. I was just going to um I'll do two things. I'll piggy back on what Miss uh buyer shared. Um maybe a week or so ago, I sent a question about um arts cuts. I think in April we committed that we wouldn't cut arts. um would like some more clarification around that and how that's impacting um the district across the district especially in feeder schools um and how we're making sure that that's not happening um and then to uplift the request for the number of folks between 1665 and 1922 that I didn't hear Miss Herog mention >> we do um So we have that number for you now. Um so

098there's um below the 1922 threshold um there's 862 >> um and then below the 1715 mark that's 122 of those 862 folks >> and I'll repeat absolutely right. So below the 1922 threshold, it's 862. Um and then the subset of those folks, right, that are that are below 1715, that's 122 of those um same employees. >> You know how many of those are part-time? How many of them are full-time? >> I don't, but we will um we'll follow up on that for you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you, board members. Is there anything else that um we didn't mention in the summary or anything else that you want to lift up before we move on to our next item on the agenda? In that case, thank you so much, Peter. We appreciate this um and

099look forward to what will come back. Thank you so much for all your hard work. Next on our agenda, we have our CIP update. Miss Mitchell [clears throat] gets gets ready. I feel like should say this is a moment we've all been waiting for because we've um been waiting on this for a couple of meeting meetings and certainly realize that um family always comes first. So we're super happy to have Miss Mitchell with us tonight. I kind of highlighted in my superintendent remark at the last board meeting what this um report will will um encapture. So with that, I'll turn it over to Miss Mitchell. >> Thank you. Good evening board members, Dr. Lewis, Dr. King. Thank you for your time. Uh tonight I'm here to talk about uh some bond updates related to our

1002022 bond and to also share with you um current status of our capital improvement plan uh and how that is impacted uh by decisions made by the county commissioners um and where we currently stand. So with that, if we move to the next slide, um I'd like to take the first few moments um uh to speak about takeaways from recent conversations with the board of county commissioners and where they stand related to upcoming bonds. Um I also would like to take some time just to to give you an update on where we stand financially with the 2022 bond. Um, and then I would like to spend some time um, just doing a process check with our 2026 capital improvement plan uh, as that relates to a 2028 uh, bond proposal. Next slide, please. So, just

101taking a step back for a moment um, from our prior conversations this year with the board of county commissioners um, uh, and what we've heard from them. We've heard that um due to slowing revenue and quick quickening expenditure growth, the county will not pursue a 2026 bond uh as we had hoped. Um we also heard that the county is currently giving early consideration to a bond in 2028 and we uh don't yet know what that might be or what it might look like. Um, and the county has not yet identified what funding uh for Durham public schools might be included in part of that uh bond proposal for 2028. Um, we're currently awaiting um continued funding discussions from the county and further input from them uh so that we can further tailor our capital improvement

102plan according to um what we think might be anticipated funding um should we should we go towards a bond in 2028. Um what the county has indicated to us is that um early prioritization uh of projects for the 2022 bond uh is possible. Um they've also indicated that priority 1 funds may be available to us um to begin getting a shovel ready process in place so that uh if a 2028 bond passes, we're ready to immediately begin to implement our capital improvement plan and go straight to construction. Next slide, please. If we take a look at our 2022 bond, um I'd like to just start uh with what we know and take a moment to celebrate um some of our recent bond achievements. Um so, as you know, Murray Massenberg opened in fall of 2024.

103Um this is 134 square foot, excuse me, 134,000 square foot facility. It meets our model school criteria. Um this was $90.6 million um a brand new groundup construction uh school um providing new seats in the southwest region, one of the regions that's growing in our district. Um that school is will be fully attended this fall. Um so uh wonderful to see that school flourishing. Um Glenn Elementary School. So this school will be opening reopening in fall of 2026 um for the SC start of the school year. Um it's currently under construction and the scope for this school is 45,000 square ft um of expansion and existing facility modernization. Um it's being brought up to meet our model school criteria and our learning environment guidelines. Um this project is 68.9 million. Uh and it's currently about

10485% complete. Um the learning environments are largely complete and ready to go. Um they're currently doing some work in the cafeteria, in the library, and the multi-purpose space to get that ready. Um and to uh to prepare for fall. And then finally, the Durham School of the Arts project, the groundup new replacement facility. Um currently under construction. This is a 336,000 square ft uh facility that meets our model school criteria as well. Um currently it is approximately 263.3 million. It's uh 43% complete. Um and we're expecting substantial completion for this school in fall of 2027 with movein beginning in uh quarter 2 and of 2028. Um full occupancy for the school will be in fall of 2028 uh when it's planned for a full opening. If we go to the next slide. So to talk

105about where we are with um the current spending on the 2022 bond. um Murray Massenberg um was complete at $90.6 million. Um that uh aligns the project allocation and the budget for that project. Um currently Glenn Elementary School um was originally allocated at 68.3 million. Um and currently the actual spend on that school is at 68.9 million. Um, so we have a shortfall currently um on the budget for Glenn Elementary School of about 500 million, excuse me, $500,000. And for Durham School of the Arts, um, that school was originally allocated at uh million. The actual where we stand is uh $263.3 million project with a shortfall of 22.2 million. Um, now if you look on the far right column where those numbers are indicated, um, you can see that our total shortfall is $22.8 million.

106Um, but we do have remaining bond allocation funds of 17.9 million. We're also expecting uh some deductive change orders at around 3.4 million. Um, and that leaves us with a total budget shortfall of 1.4 4 million for the 2022 bond. However, um the what you see in blue at the bottom um mentions construction contingencies and we have construction contingencies for Glenn and DSA at $13 million. Um those contingencies are held while a project is under construction to uh accommodate design changes, change orders, unforeseen conditions at the sites. Um and those those funds are accessed um continually during the uh construction process. There is 11 million of the 13 million that is earmarked for DSA and we still have over a year of construction. Um this is a very healthy budget but we will anticipate that

107we will spend the majority of that. Um and any remaining funds from the contingencies, Glenn, um you know, as we're completing that, we will spend down most of the contingency related to that project. Um so, uh we are anticipating that we should have enough funds left over in our contingencies to accommodate the $1.4 million budget shortfall. Um however, we don't anticipate a large amount of money remaining after we do that. it would be somewhere likely to be under a million dollars. So when we look at what's available at the completion of those projects, um we will likely it will be a wash or it will be a small win for us. Um but currently the projects are running on time um and uh with uh with minimal interruptions. So um very good on those projects.

108Um, I'd also just like to point out related to this, um, that we have consistently seen construction costs increase in our area. Um, recently the Department of Public Instruction, um, provided some numbers that said that the cost per square foot for school construction has risen 40 to 50% since 2021 in our area. So it is uh uh when we look at these numbers and we see um construction overruns uh much of that could be accommodated in um you know unforeseen uh planned uh growth in our area that has impacted the construction marketplace. Next slide. Um looking ahead uh and preparing for the 2028 bond. And I won't linger too long on this slide, but I just want to reframe for you the road map and all the steps that we have taken thus far um

109to arrive at a capital improvement plan. As you know, um we're uh we've been very thorough, exhaustive. Um it's been a thoughtful process to arrive at the right decisions for upcoming projects and to get those prioritized in the right order. And I wanted to just remind the team of all the foundational work that we have done to arrive at intentional, actionable, and realistic uh decision-making as part of this process. Um, as you know, we started with a facility condition assessment that was completed in mid 2025, analyzing the health uh of all of our facilities within the district. um arriving at a total of approximately $965 million um that is required just to address um infrastructure and system improvements that are necessary in in our schools. That number does not include um things like um uh

110instructional changes and improving our facilities for learning. That is really touching the basics in our district. Um, we also launched our uh educational adequacy and learning environment guidelines process and completed that the first ever in our district to include middle schools and high schools with design goals uh and guidelines for design teams in the future. Um, and uh that was a 10-month process. I want to just remind the team that we engaged over 300 or excuse me over 3,000 members of our community, staff, students um in that process. um as we look to defining the future of our learning environments um and establishing model schools for the future um there was a tremendous amount of thoughtful engagement in that process to move us forward into the future. Um from there we started the capital improvement

111plan process in late 2025. Um taking all of that information into account uh as we launched our task force um which consisted of around 20 members um that included instructional and administrative leadership as well as community leaders and board members um going to task to drill down and make the hard decisions about our facilities uh and what we should do with them. Um we also conducted in addition to that 12 additional engagement sessions um that overlaid the information we received from the task force with planning enrollment uh our maintenance team nutrition services and all of the other individuals that are engaged in making our buildings successful. Um the re the result of this process has been to create uh a thorough list of renovation and construction projects um that have been developed for each and

112every facility um within the district that includes cost estimates and scope of work for every single school in the district based on all of the information that we gathered. Um the process was objective. We developed an objective criteria to define how a facility lands on the list and where it lands on the list. Um in May of this year, we reached uh 90% completion of our capital improvement plan. And since that time, we have been holding for clarifications from the county regarding funding so that we can finalize the plan. And I'll talk about that in a moment. Um so if we go to the next slide, I'd like to just talk about the objective criteria that was used um for uh determining how projects land on the list. Next slide. Okay. So there has been

113a strong intentionality around the development of the capital improvement plan, including this objective criteria to determine how a how a project makes it onto the list. Um in the March board session, I shared a draft list of increment one, the first 10 projects that could roll out as part of our capital improvement plan. Um that uh included uh some projects related to right sizing um which has been an ongoing conversation. Um and it also included projects for new construction and for modernization. um those projects were based on the goals and the criteria that was set forth by our task force. Um so where so where our highest priorities and uh and where schools and support facilities make it to the top of the list in the 2028 bond this is the criteria that we have

114used. One is addressing failing systems and infrastructure. The majority of our facilities have significant needs. buildings that were built in the last 30 years have significant needs because they were built and then monies were spent on older schools. So, um what would be a relatively new facility um in the public sector uh it's a these are projects for us that um have have significant needs. They have failing roofs. They have failing mechanical systems. So, it's not just our older facilities that are struggling. Um when we build, we want our facilities to also align with the objectives of our learning environments and how we plan for the future. Um the new guidelines were carefully crafted um and included over 22 rounds of engagement with our departmental leadership um as well as our community, students, and parent

115input um which included over 3,000 3,000 individuals uh participating in that process. Um this included the development of our model schools which you see here. Um which is designed to bring parity across all regions of the district. Um giving a clear set of instructions and objectives for when we design and build a school, what should be included uh and how it should be uh how all of the spaces should be accommodated. Um so when we talk about model schools and the importance of those um those are those are schools that have been designed to provide maximum resources um and support systems where we wouldn't see necessarily in small schools um the ability for full-time staff for some of our specialized positions. Um it also assures that all schools are similarly equipped and designed and it

116and the model school design also is intended to provide better collaboration for both our teachers as well as our students by designing schools that are sized for um optimal teaming and providing the environments that are going to allow for the kinds of collaboration that happen today in learning. Next slide. In addition to that, um we have other there are additional core goals that we um included as part of the criteria and I've listed them here for you. Um one is prioritizing safety and resilience. So schools were analyzed for that. Um rebuilding significantly aging facilities. We have many facilities in our district that are over 50 years old with very little upgrades or changes over time. um and uh with significant need for repair. Um we also want to make sure that we're preparing for changes

117in enrollment. So we do have areas of the district that are growing um as well as areas that are underserved. And so um thinking about where growth is occurring in the future and planning for that in the capital improvement plan was important. Um right sizing the district. Um so we did go through the process of talking about all of the different um possibilities for right sizing. Um however this is one area where we think uh we could certainly have some more engagement as we um finalize our plan and I'll speak to that in a moment. Um we also want to make sure that we were ensuring equity-minded investments. Right? So we want to be bringing up all of our schools at the same time as best we can as many as we can at a

118time. Um resolving closed sites. we have a number of closed sites in the district that we would like to come to resolution for. Um and then uh the concept of the 20-year investment. So as the team looked at every single facility um there was a determination made about if there were 20 if there were 20 years of life in a building left and if we are going to invest money into a facility the county has asked specifically that that investment last for 20 years. So if we place an investment in a facility that doesn't have 20 years of life in it um or uh the cost to repair versus the cost to replace doesn't make good sense then um we need to factor in what new decisions we would consider for that facility. All right

119next next slide. So I want to talk about district right sizing and where we think we have some potential to uh investigate this over the next few months as we wait for further clarifications from the county. So, um, with that, I'd like to just read to you, um, what, uh, definition of right sizing is. It is a strategic process of aligning a school district's physical facilities, staffing, and resources with current and projected student enrollment, often in response to decline. It involves closing, consolidating, or repurposing undersized, excuse me, underutilized buildings to improve operational efficiency, optimize financial resources, and create sustainable learning environments. And then I've added some bullets here to further describe that. Um, so right sizing can include moving from too big, over capacity to right-sized, ensuring that buildings are fully utilized and effective for

120educational needs. It can be used as a tool to manage underutilized aging facilities. It can reduce maintenance costs to free up funding for academic programs and staff salaries. And it could include closing schools, consolidating campuses, redrawing attendance boundaries, changing grade configurations, and converting underused space for other community purposes. So, as you know, in past presentations, we've we've shown examples of what right sizing could look like in our district. Um, where the tool of right sizing was applied. Um, and this is not a new concept. Districts across the United States have been actively having conversations and implementing plans around right sizing for some time. Um, and one action that we would like to take, um, as we wait for the county to clarify a 2028 bond is to take the time to adequately vet our portfolio

121for areas where right sizing makes good sense for our district. Um, and there are there may be opportunities where right sizing could occur over the next year um, where we do not require extensive construction funds to make adjustments um, that meet a right sizing criteria. And then there are likely longer term synergies that are possible um with other types of right sizing solutions. And we'd like to at least take the opportunity at this time to have a thoughtful set of conversations with leadership, curriculum, and instruction and our community to arrive at any results that could be built into our 2028 bond um where we could realize additional savings uh and and build better better schools for our community. Um so that so if we go to the next slide I just want to talk about

122what a right sizing study would include. Um so things that it would include are things like factoring in instructional equity goals from growing together. Right? We know that we spent a lot of time looking at every region of our district and providing a variety of opportunities. So if we are to look at right sizing as a solution um then we want to make sure that we're very mindful of the decisions that we've made to date. Um we also want to consider our enrollment projections. Have a look at our small schools and our underutilized facilities. Um we do have areas of our district that are growing um and do not have schools that can accommodate that growth. We also have small schools and facilities that are underutilized currently um that are worth analyzing for uh efficiency.

123Um we also would want to review district boundaries. Boundary adjustments may be one way to adjust um for areas where we have uh uh underserved schools. Um we'd like to analyze the cost to repair versus the cost to replace of our aging facilities. Um so while our capital improvement plan calls out facilities for consideration um some of those important conversations haven't been had yet uh around decisionm related to those. Um we would also uh anticipate uh cost analysis for closing facilities um what what is gained financially by closing a facility and then engagement with stakeholders and the community in the decision-making process. Um so that is uh that is at the focus of tonight is is thinking about um how that may um inform uh our capital improvement plan as one final layer into our

124plan. If we go to the next slide. So our current draft capital improvement plan connects excuse me if you can go to the there you go. Okay. So, our current uh draft capital improvement plan connects every school and support facility in the district with a construction plan. And uh that those decisions were based on conversations with our task force and we uh built a plan that uh identifies a category for every facility. That could include uh a maintenance and repair school, uh facility modernization, new construction, a comprehensive modernization, and then we also have a category for no work um which is included in that plan. Next slide. Um a reminder that key takeaways from our physical assessments identified over $965 million in 10year systems and infrastructure needs. 559 million of that is immediate. So any

125plan um has to factor in immediate repairs to infrastructure uh and systems related to the district. Um all right, next slide. I also I also just want to add as it relates to systems and infrastructure, one of the challenges that we have had um in construction and capital planning is uh the need to be reactive. Um we're always challenged with funds. Our buildings are always challenged and moving from a place of being reactive to proactive is something that we actively want to challenge as part of our construction pathway moving forward. um so that we're not uh put in positions where we have to uh use a band-aid solution instead of the right solution to fix a problem. Um and so including that in our decisions was very important in how a project was uh was

126prioritized. Um on the next slide um so this is the current list of no I'm sorry previous slide. This is our current list of uh projects that fall in our top increment one category. They are not in any particular order. Um in our prior presentation um they were uh ordered by priority. But what you can see here is that every project on the list has a critical or failing facility condition index. Um many of these are projects that um have enrollment questions um and capacity questions um that other schools don't have. And a number of the facilities on this uh list are facilities that have been been upgraded three, four, and five times and still fall on a failing list of uh improvements at their facility. So, um important to place the highest needs first

127and those that have multiple high needs first uh on the plan. Next slide. I also just wanted to share with you um uh when we talk about future construction and we talk about the capital improvement plan um what might the construction climate look like when we go out to bid in the future. Um so we have a better understanding of how far our monies would go. Um this is a snapshot of costs associated with new construction for elementary, middle, and high schools based on our optimal school sizes in the future. Um and this is um taken to the midpoint of our anticipated construction. It also includes all soft costs. So this is um the range that we would be looking in. So when we think about bond dollars and what is allocated to us um

128we want to think about a plan that is diverse and is not solely focused on new construction. Um as you can see um the money does not go as far and our needs are very great. Next slide. Um when as a point of reference um when we look at potential bond dollars uh and reflect on what final bundling of our capital improvement projects looks like um we know that the final capital improvement plan can look very different based on the funding available from the county and it may result in very different approaches to how we package projects. Um so for example here you're seeing um you know the $150 million range to say the $350 or $450 million range. Um we would need to focus more on maintenance and repair uh uh and really restoring

129our facilities um in a as a comprehensive as a way as possible. When we look at the upper range of this, and I've included $650 million, but as you know, um when we factor in planning, uh in addition to aging facilities, our need is well over a billion dollars. It's likely in the $ 1.5 to2 billion range. Um but when we start to get over that kind of $550 million cap, um we can start to begin to factor in these larger opportunities for a new construction project, a major modernization project. Um and so it's important that we have the information from the county um to complete the plan um because it will affect the scope for projects and we may need to make scope adjustments based on the money that is available to us. Next

130slide. So, next steps. Um, so, um, we're currently, um, waiting for additional information from, uh, from the county for funding direction. We're on hold kind of, um, during this process. Um, we are sitting with our finalized capital improvement plan at 90% um, and are looking towards July to December of this year to complete it. um hoping to include an overlay of uh right sizing the district as part of that process um and then doing a final bundling once once we hear a final number from the county. Um the county has indicated that shovel ready preparation is possible. Um so once we complete the uh priority one projects list, we could then begin shovel ready preparations and that would um take us from January of 2027 to October of 2028. And I'll talk about shovel ready

131in a moment. Um the election in November 2028. Um so um looking to that date as our benchmark moment and then going out for uh bid in January of 2029. So being able to take those increment one projects directly into construction as soon as bond funds are available um would be a priority uh for us. Next slide. So shovel ready status. Um these are the checklists that have been provided to us um by the county. Um this is a similar process that we had in 2022. Um and what it would involve is taking uh the first five to 10 projects that we have on our list through this process. It begins with feasibility studies for certain types of projects which includes surveys uh programming developing all the pre-work for our design teams. Um then we

132would go into construction drawings. So we would be able to go to complete construction documents um during this time frame so that we have completely permitted projects ready to go out to construction. Um and this uh time frame would also include our construction approvals process going through the department of public construction permitting um and would allow us to have those highest priority projects designed and approved and ready to start construction when the bond passes. Next slide. There's some additional make ready that we've had underway um as we wait um to hear from the county. Um one of those is our facilities forecast and student assignment working group um who has been evaluating our student assignment uh problem identification. So looking at areas where we have disparities as a result of growing together or as a

133result of enrollment um where we may want to consider alternatives like boundary adjustments or other solutions to adjust for um schools that are either over or underserved. Um over the summer there will be some scenario building by our uh FFSA group um to look at possible solutions for implementation um that will be brought to the board in the fall. We've also been working on assessments of some of our additional assets like old Lowe's grove, old northern high school, old DSA and staff development with excuse me, staff development center with the goal of having a plan for each of those facilities um as we move towards the end of the year. um including um looking at uh Old Northern High School where we do still have some staffing occurring and looking at solutions for where and

134how we move individuals out of that facility. Um in addition to some of the items that you see here, we're also preparing uh updates to our website. Uh I know that we've spoken in the past about making information more accessible to our community. Um, and so over the summer, you will begin to see updates on our bond program. You will see uh uploading of our learning environment guidelines that can be shared with our community. Um, and also facility condition assessment information for each of our schools um to provide uh our community with more information uh and uh information on their schools. Next slide. So for tonight the uh the primary ask and I've listed it here is administration's recommendation is to involve a third-party consultant and bring a plan to rightsize the district. It would

135be our goal to incorporate information developed from that plan into our capital improvement plan um so that we uh have a plan that addresses all aspects of our need within the district and does it in the most uh uh e economical and uh cost-effective way. So with that um I believe my next slide is for questions and so I'd like to just open it up for um any thoughts from the board. Miss Ber, >> Miss Mitchell, just gratitude for the um thoroughess of this outlook as we plan forward and the enormity of the task. Um, I guess my um dream and hearing of what the county manager said was that they had lobbs funding that was available if we had shovel ready projects at any time between now and 2028. And so I almost think

136we need two we need more staff but in operations I'll just say it. um working together like I understand why you'd want a consultant to do the complexity of right sizing and the big big huge community conversations that that will entail the $55060 million worth of urgent facilities needs Hbacks and roofs that need to be done that are incredibly expensive and not ever going to be covered by our six million in annual recurring money. Those can't wait either. And so I I think it's both and I think and drawing lines at Lion's Farm, not going to wait, right? And so there are some urgent urgent driving projects that I think need to continue to push forward. And I heard and maybe others heard it that the county like they have in the past have other

137financing tools other than geo bonds that they could go to on our behalf because they know this this work is only going to get more expensive the longer we wait. Um the other thing that I loved when we did the learning environment guidelines was we took away the trailers. >> We put prek in every elementary. we did qualitative things and I want to make sure that that doesn't get lost as as y'all continue to drive this work. Um, but I don't think the community has bought in on this learning and environment guideline with legs smalls size elementary schools specifically. I think y'all are going to hear a lot and need to shepherd a lot more discussion about that because we have so many beautiful small elementary schools and um I think that'll be robust conversation

138um for y'all to continue to lead forward. I think that Ignite Academy needs a home somewhere that is real and not some trailers. Um I think we continue to hear about the needs for athletics. Chair said something when we most recently met about that. I think sustainability needs are not going to go away. Um and and lifting all of those things up as y'all drive this work, I think is going to be just incredible. I dream and wonder about um housing for affordable housing for our staff as part of what we lead and bring with things going forward. Um y'all know all the things and we need beautiful like up-to-date offices for you all. we need to get you all out of trailers as well, your team. Um, so there's a lot a lot of

139work to do and I look forward to seeing if maybe those can run on simultaneous tracks because waiting till 2020 29 for any money to flow is is not going to save this community um and save the schools. And I I look for enrollment strategies that y'all can continue to dream and the overlay with growing together and and deep robust analysis of what we've done there and whether the goals and and initiatives that we put in place are having having the impact that we wanted. Um I don't know that those were questions. Those were just ramblings of someone that hoped that there was a bond in 2026 for Dr. Lewis and and Mr. Barnes and you to actually continue to address these aging facilities and I think that that folks will continue to have questions

140and we need to be ready to answer them about that long list of elementary schools that we plan to touch and have are not able to touch at all um but still have urgent needs and children in those spaces. So there's a lot to hold tension and continue to drive forward on I think a longer term plan for 29 but also simultaneously on a shorter term plan and I think the county will meet us there on some of those needs. So I hope that made sense. >> Thank you. >> Miss Byer can I ask you a question? Um, can you um can you help help me understand the the difference between So, the LOBS funding is the is the funding that the county is saying that they can that we can use for um to

141get things shovel ready for a potential 2028 bond funding, right? Or is that different from another kind of funding? Is are you saying that there's also extra money that may be on in the county that we could use for some of our more immediate um failing systems needs right now? So I'm I think without trying to make any statements for the county and what what they've done in the past when we you know we have geo bonds that go before the voters in a November referendum and can only happen in even numbered years but in the past when we've had needs they have other tools um like limited obligation bonds they have sometimes they'll dip into their fund balance they will they will as long as we bring a shovel ready project and um they

142have been creative in coming up with different financing mechanisms to continue to address the need and they I think they said that in the last joint meeting or two that we had in this space that um that they they had other tools in their tool box. Um, is that am I remembering that right, Chair I'm >> Yeah, I think it's the county has multiple ways to finance uh potential capital projects for the school system which could include lobs and could include a geo bond. It could include some other things. >> Yeah, I was wondering um I mentioned that because I was wondering about you know just the immediate needs the the the failing infrastructures that we're facing right now. Um my question had to do with do we have to wait till 2029 to address

143any of those needs? Um can any of the money that is available for um getting things shovel ready would that address would that be able to address some of those immediate needs that we have in infrastructure or I guess I need to look at that slide one more again. Does does that take care of on that slide? Can that money only be used for those particular things once we know what we want to do for the bond? So, that was my question. >> I think we'll need to continue to have those creative conversations with the county um so that we can meet some of the gap uh issues that we have >> and and also say in my conversations with the county manager, she has indicated that um the county support for lobs for LOBS

144uh upwards of maybe 200 million. This was a month ago now. A lot has changed since then. Um, and it is a both and. We we we can't wait just sit here and wait until 2028. There are some there's some things we're doing now as it relates to recruitment and and and bringing students into the and families into the district. Uh, in addition, there are some relief we're trying to provide for for Lions Farm. Um, and so those things are happening simultaneously because you have to also think about um those laws potentially to assist us with um getting things sh ready. But the close to 60% of our buildings that are in dire need right now, um that that's some um support for us in in that area as it relates to to lobs. So

145yeah, we will still have those conversations with the county um to provide that immediate relief for us. Chair Mstead, >> what thank you for this presentation and all the work that goes into um navigating all the square footage of our district and thinking about, you know, how do you how do you prioritize almost a billion dollars worth of facility needs? We know that students and and um educators are in every one of those buildings every day. So, how are we figuring this out? Um but I I do wonder like what is the kind of next steps process around this one to five immediate need? Um, I'm looking at Little River that's on that list that you just shared. And we know we've had educators faithfully and consistently come into the board meeting about conditions in

146that building. We know that um I think it was Club and uh Watts were on our list previously for um needing a lot of needs and that are still on that list. So kind of can you walk me through maybe how do we marry this ask for the consultant very immediate needs with all what can we do before 2029 if that question makes sense kind of practically is there anything on this list that we're actually like we need to go ahead and figure out how to tackle that in the next year or two >> so um as it regards right sizing and a plan um some of the facilities that you see on that top increment one list are facilities that also want to be part of our conversation around right sizing. Some of those

147schools are very small um and some of them are in critical condition. Um so I think that is uh important before we make a determination about what the project scope is for some of those projects to have these important conversations around right sizing and I think we have the time to do that before we actually uh begin the implementation of a plan uh at the end of the year. So I think um um it would be good to do that exercise and to make sure that we are aligned with um what our task force talked about with what right sizing is informing us with. So I think that's one thing. Um as regards to funding for items before 2029 um we have a very comprehensive list of items that are critical um in every area

148of systems and infrastructure. So it is not um difficult for us to pull out priority projects and to develop a list. I will just say um cautiously though that we have to bear in mind as we choose projects to understand what our ultimate goal with that facility is. We do not want to be doing comprehensive replacement of roofing and HVAC etc. if it's going to end up on increment one and it's going to be a new facility you know. So, um that's part of the the juggling of the information and making sure that whatever we rises to the top in this first um uh implementation of funds between now and then are projects that have great need, but we feel very secure about the future of those facilities and we're very capable of getting to

149that place. Um and I think we're very close um with the added uh element of right sizing on top of that. But just to be clear, sounds like we wouldn't be doing kind of any work until the consultant comes in and develops a plan before we would start trying to look at do we address any of the kind of one to fiveyear needs in some of the schools. >> So that that's a really great question. I will say that we do have um many facilities that um would not fall in the category of right sizing conversations that have critical needs that we could easily move to the first of the list without a problem and begin implementation tomorrow of those. So I'm very comfortable that we could easily develop a list for the county of

150what we could move forward with now. >> And then what you all could work on do you need direction from the board to work on that list? I'm just thinking about how do we start the ball moving for some things that we know like our students need, right? Our educators need. So, how does that work? >> So, we could certainly um bring that conversation to the board. Um we also are ready to move on those things now. They're very objective decisions to be made about um age and um need. So, I don't know that they need uh immediate conversations. It's more about informing the board of what has risen to the type that to the top that we feel very secure um in the status of that facility that this is a good decision-m uh

151process for for each of those uh each of those decisions. >> I really appreciate that and would love to see us starting to move some of those conversations. I think we're going to have be having conversations with the county making sure the board is informed of what has risen to the top of that list. Um pulled it back up. Staff Development Center is there, which we have staff working in every single day. Um, so how do we, >> excuse me, are there opportunities for that? Southern High School, you know, is also high on this list to think about. Um, I know that it's again juggling the short term and the long term, but I just our students shouldn't have to wait for us to figure some of these pieces out. Um, and I think most

152athletics are in a separate line item than facilities or are they kind of overlapping some of these grounds, uh, parking lots, athletic facilities are all included, um, in the capital improvement plan. They've all been reviewed, analyzed. They've all have a a grade associated with them and a level of work that needs to be done at each. So, wondering if we could also get some of those in the list to help move those up. >> Um, [clears throat] is there um, I know we do the facilities assessment, which leads into how the CIP works. Is there a place where we like myself, the board, the public can find kind of the full facilities assessment so we could look through and see kind of what the needs are in these different buildings and spaces? >> Yes. So,

153um, as I mentioned, we're working on updating the website now. Um, those things will be available in the website where you can look at a school facility. I will say that, um, some of the minutia associated with the facility condition assessment won't be there. It is a very comprehensive tome. It's over a thousand pages, you know, with photographs of equipment, age of equipment, things like that. So, all the important information related to the health of a facility and the immediate needs and where those exist in the facility and the cost associated um will all be available for every school as will the learning environment guidelines. So, um we've just kind of waited through this process to to get to a point of what we know wants to be on the website. So, that will be

154there. Um, also the building services website will include um, updates to sustainability. Um, we've spoken in the past about our energy management dashboard and we have a lovely group of students from Duke that are helping us with um, setting up a new energy management dashboard in the district. Um, and the sustainability piece will also speak to the facilities condition assessment. Um, our capital improvement plan includes um, solar, it includes LED improvements um, for those schools that haven't received it yet. And that has all been folded in as part of the plan. It'll also have um the plan for sustainability at our schools moving forward so that you can easily look at the checklist of what we're looking for as a district. Really excited about that reworking of the website so that can be easily accessible

155for the public and for us as board members. I know a lot of folks are interested in what we're doing with our buildings. And I think the more we can also um communicate really clearly with the community how bond and lab dollars are being spent to maintain Durham public schools buildings, the better we are, better position we're in. Um and then my I think my last question on this is they ask about a third party consultant. Um can you tell me a little bit about what happens next? Is there an RFP for the person? Do we have a budget around what that might look like? So um typically in this type of scenario, yes, there would be an RFP, there would be a series of interviews to select a team. Um we have worked with

156a some architecture teams um recently that have very good familiarity with our district. Um that may prove advantageous um moving forward, someone that is is more nimble in knowing and understanding the size and needs of our schools. Um but certainly we would go um through an RFP process. Um it is very common to seek an outside third party um to do this work because um they're uh non-biased. They provide an objective analysis which um oftentimes is very comforting for our community um to know that um we have an objective third party um reviewing our schools as part of um looking at right sizing. So yes, there would be an RFP and >> do we have any approximate budget of how much this typically costs? >> And if we don't that's okay. Okay, I can we

157can get that later. >> We haven't developed an estimate for that yet. >> I'm really interested in this process. We know we've got neighbors um in Chapel Hill that also just went through and I wonder what the lessons learned uh from their process. I know was from what we've read in the news a really ch anytime we're talking about closing schools is challenging but a really challenging thing for them to weigh through. So I I wonder what are the other areas that we other school districts who are navigating this that we can learn from. And then my last request I think is essential is we have to bring community with us on this journey. Um we've already in some ways failed at that a little bit as we had conversations earlier about closing. I get

158phone calls on a regular basis. What are y'all doing about that? When is that happening? What's going on? And so how do we from the jump, from the get-go, from starting this process, make sure community and the values that our community has are aligned with as we move through this process. Um, and we all know Durm wants to be involved. We want to have be equity focused. We want to make sure our academics are strong as we're thinking about the facility needs of our school. So, how do we marry all that together? Sounds like a really huge task, but a really good puzzle that I think we can, if we do well, we can end up in a really good place at the end. So, thank you all so much for this work. Um, I

159think that concludes my questions at this point. Thank you. >> Are there any other comments from board members or any questions, Miss Byer? >> Yeah, just just to follow up on Cher said, Miss Mitchell, you said like architecture firms do this work, which is great, but I think if there was a dream team, it would include folks that have academic experience. And I don't know if that exists but um >> so uh when we did the learning environment guidelines um we uh enlisted the services of an architecture firm a large international firm there are many of them that specialize in K12 that in their teameing bring educators as part of their process and also bring community leaison frequently hiring within our community um to bring people on board to help facilitate conversations. So it is

160fairly common. So, I would anticipate that when we write that RFP that we include some of those important details that we would like to see from uh from the team that uh represents us. >> Miss Carter, >> um thank you so much for all of your great work and this really thorough presentation. Really appreciate the comments from my colleagues also and um and questions. Um just one more that I had which is you had mentioned the student assignment problem identification work underway and a board presentation summer 2026 but um but then mentioned the fall. So I just wanted to clarify so that we know what to expect. Will we be receiving a presentation in June or is that for August September? So, it's uh we we would anticipate a two-step process um first to educate

161the board um with u the problems that are at hand and then to come back um with proposed solutions um for each of those scenarios um because we do have um issues in each region currently. We want to have an opportunity to vet those. And so um currently the problem identification piece has been completed and the FFSA team is starting um the investigation for possible solutions. So I think we've fallen a bit behind on moving forward to the board. But sometime in the summer, I think it would be important for us to talk about um the issues that are at hand and what we're seeing currently in enrollment. Um and then come back with uh thoughts for for the fall because those decision any decisions that we make related to boundary adjustments um or other

162types of scenarios um need to be communicated to our community before Thanksgiving, I believe. So, yeah. Yeah, I think both of those conversations need to be had. >> Thank you. Can we get that update then in June or if that is already underway or is that too early and that something that Well, curious to know from you, Miss Mitchell and Dr. Lewis, when should the board expect to receive the first part of that two-part sharing? >> Yeah. Yeah. August. I think it would be August. >> Yeah. >> All right. And just to jump in on that, feel like first meeting in August in order to be able to kind of get feedback and bring it back and if you're talking about a November deadline around showcase for schools and applications opening. So it feels like

163a really tight kind of first tight tight timeline but an urgent priority to get that on that first meeting in August. >> Board members, I don't see any other hands or qu So um questions. Any more questions or comments? Um so administration has asked if we would direct them to come up with a plan for using to to to let them come up with a plan for using a third party to rightsize the district um in preparation for the 2028 bond. And so do we need a motion for that or can we do that by consensus to direct them to go ahead and to look into doing that research for finding a third party for that process? >> This item is not marked for action. >> No, but it's so since it's also not wasn't

164on the agenda necessarily. So, I'm just I'm asking is that something that we can just do by consensus to go ahead and and agree to allow the is that something that we can do? Can we just say by consensus to agree to allow administration to do the research to begin the process for including a third party? From a legal perspective, that would be fine. And I see a thumbs up. Does everybody understand what I'm asking? I I do, but I wish we had more like generative how much it will cost as we've just discussed some major things. And so I wondered if there could be a more robust presentation in two weeks, two days if you want of an actual vote. Um it's just a little bit strange to have it not have a cost

165or >> my my understanding is that they're not asking us well clarify if I'm incorrect. They're not asking us to um to go ahead and find to to initiate and to hire a third party. They're asking us to direct them to do the research and to bring it back. >> They want to research what it, you know, to see what it would look like to bring a third party to help us through this process. Am I correct? I just want to make sure that I'm that they what I'm what the ask is. >> Yes. To involve a third party to ultimately bring a plan back to rightsize the district. So, but are you asking you're just asking to to do that research to see what that would look like? So, we're not actually doing it

166yet. You'll bring us bring it back to tell us how much it would cost and um maybe even we'd be able to see what the RFP looks like and those kinds of things. >> Yeah, we can certainly do that, but keep in mind obviously if it's over $9,000, you would have to approve that um consultant if it's and we still can, you know, ensure that the board is aware of of of that cost before proceeding. But the goal is to just um have us give us direction to move forward to involve a third party to help us rightsize the district. >> Better miss golf. If I could, the use of unanimous consent is is fine in the circumstances in which the board members are in agreement as to what it is you're you're asking. But

167if there's any objection to that then the more the more appropriate stance would be to uh offer up a motion. >> Okay. Um so do we have um Okay. So do you have any more comments? Okay. Vice Chair Rogers. >> My question I think Why would we authorize that without the information on the problems in the district? Can that can those things happen at the same time? Right? When you're come to us to talk about the issues that you're seeing with boundaries and utilization and this is what's happening, this is why. This is what we're seeing. This is the facilities um document. Maybe you'll have some more information from the county about the bond and we're looking at those things side by side and giving authorization for that to happen or is the board not

168giving consist consensus now and and right now you don't know how much it's going to cost? Is the board not authorizing consensus right now around this going to delay the projects any further than we already are? if we wait until to do those things side by side and get an understanding about the cost of it. >> Let me ask this. Would it would it would the board feel um comfortable allowing administration just to go out for the RFP? Start that process. >> Wait a minute. No. Okay, Miss Meyer our fee is not committing us to anything. So, I guess another piece that continues to to um challenge me and while I love the learning environment guidelines for new construction and things going forward, I don't know if y'all are going to write an RFP to

169say school, elementary schools have to have 700 like because you brought it here tonight. we agreed with it and any school that is under that is more vulnerable for closure even if it's a thriving school under growing together. Like I don't know what y'all are doing with it, but I wouldn't want our consensus and trying to move this project forward to say 100% the every step y'all have taken is exactly precisely how this work should be guided. and and it's because also of the community engagement piece that I think is so ro needed and robust moving forward. So I don't know and I don't want to slow your work down and it's critical. I don't think we have the internal bandwidth to do that and I wouldn't want an action tonight to actually box it

170in in some way when we know we have probably over a third of our schools including small high schools that don't fit the legs or the you know and things like that. I don't know. Yeah, I think the other question about it and consult turn that off. The other question about the right sizing is like and and they might explore this. So maybe you'll help me understand right sizing people think closure but is right sizing also looking at a lot of other ways to fill buildings with students >> because I think I'm sorry there's also some ways that we could be looking at moving boundary lines around to help with some of the work around right sizing and so does the cons and there I mean people do all kinds of things right different programs

171in different places that kind of thing to think about enrollment so is it is it just around building facility space or does the consultants get a little more expansive in that because to me this is a conversation about buildings but it's also a conversation about enrollment and that's a programs and that's a multi- team I think we talked about that just a little bit earlier conversation >> the draft RFP RFP it does include demographic enrollment analysis as well as boundaries building utilization boundary optimization uh and I would tell you when doing this in a previous district the the selected consultant comes to the board meeting and shares an overview and that's an opportunity for the board to give the consultant guard rails before they go out into the community. So, for example, to board members

172buyer's point, if the board has a consensus that um you know, we don't want to start at 700, we want to start at at 500, they give the consultants those uh guardrails and directions before they go out. >> Michelle, I think what Oh, go ahead. John said you can you can finish. Go ahead. I just I think like what maybe some of we're struggling with is how we've gotten to this point to justify that already at this time and what are the other methods that the district has utilized and felt like we haven't gotten to you know they are not seeing any yield from in order to start going down this route. Um and I so I see I think this presentation has laid out the construction cost and like the normity of that which

173is one certainly one factor but what are the other kind of factors that say actually right now is the time to engage this conversation about right sizing versus in a year or two years or when I don't know when that right time would come. So I think maybe that's the question I'm struggling with. I don't know if my colleagues also feeling that tension around why is now the time that we want to do this. I think when we look at our inventory of buildings, not only the condition, but the number of buildings that we have uh and we haven't taken into account our decrease in enrollment. I think our highest I think on record enrollment um was around maybe 34 35,000 students around 15 2015 2016. We had fewer buildings then than we do have

174now. And so as we account for, you know, again, providing quality programs, which has to be the driver of this for all of our students in all buildings and accounting for assuring that to connect the conversation we had a moment ago, ensuring that we we're able to invest in our staff year after year, some of these tough decisions um have to be a part of the equation so we can ensure that we are, you know, being fiscally responsible um as it relates to um our inventory of buildings and and decreasing enrollment. Miss Chavez and then Vice Chair Rogers. >> Well, thank you. I'm I'm um I am in favor of moving forward with this work. Um, I do think what might, um, you know, um, help with some of the, you know, valid concerns that

175my colleagues are bringing up is a timeline of engagement with the board or, um, perhaps like when we would, you know, find out more like, um, you just shared, Dr. Lewis, this you know that the idea is that the consultant would come back and um [clears throat] to the board and ask for guard rails and have that discussion. where would those discussion points be with the board? Um, of course with others as well, but um so that um maybe the board doesn't feel that it's a runaway train with many, you know, us receiving some of those community concerns about, you know, closing schools because of what's been mentioned, other districts doing that, you know, all of that. Um, so I think just so we can have um perhaps that's something that could be brought back

176um a timeline so we kind of get an idea of what this process looks like or your vision for it, what it could look like. The other question that came to mind for me is what's going on with the work that's happening with the county and UNCC school of government on preserving the Olo's Grove sites and how we wanted to extend that to Northern and maybe look at that around DSA because that wasn't mentioned in the CIP plan and I don't have we just she Yeah, but like how do the two work together? How do those consultant how would the consultants work together? Because they were going to be doing the community engagement part and helping to develop where are we in that process? Is there a timeline expectation of a report back from the

177board on to the board on that um and to the county commission? Right. >> Yeah, that work continues. General Ken has been involved in some of those meetings as well. That work is continuing. And so those three buildings um those buildings that we asked uh the UNCC school of government to look at um Olo's Grove, Old Northern and what will become ODSA um those meetings and that work continues and I've our last meeting we talked about when when will be appropriate time to uh update the board. So they're you know willing and ready to come update the board on the work that they've been doing. and any updates or thoughts around the community engagement that they would be doing on that? >> Yes, that as you recall that was a part of the the process

178that they shared that they would they would do. You remember around the I think it was around phase one where they would have they were having like individual meetings with individuals or small groups neighborhood association that's where they are in that process before more broader uh community engagement. Ken, am I missing anything? So they have started the phase one stuff. >> So yes, we meet every Friday with uh that group to discuss their their next steps and they're in the process now of meeting with um all the people who have an interest uh in the low growth site. Uh we have not expanded to um the other sites yet. We're just concentrate on Los Grove. So, um the group UNCC, uh DBS, uh Devon and I and the county meets with um with with them

179and they're just meeting with um community members and consultants at this point. >> I'll also just add that running concurrent to that is uh appraisals. We have appraisals underway at all of these sites um to understand the building value, the land value. Um and that's additional information that we're bringing forward um as part of our uh understanding of these properties um in addition to what we're learning from UNC regarding you know who what other partner organizations um would be interested in the sites and how we might um look to utilize those in the future. >> So Dr. Lewis, I thought I heard you say there is a draft RFP already. Is there a reason y'all can't bring that in two weeks and then we have something more robust to see or that ready or is

180still in draft? Is that Hello. Um, so there is um there is a draft RFP um that that we um ran through um council at Therington Smith to get some feedback uh on that wording. Um we we received feedback on on how to best tighten up the wording for that um when we're prepared to to post that um and run that through the procurement process. Uh, so I think we're we're at a spot where we um we feel confident we could put it in front of the board um and and you get a full sense of of what that breadth is. Chair, >> can I also ask for a timeline of how the multiple kind of projects we have going will be working kind of together or not? Like how do we see what's the

181timeline for multiple of the projects that are happening? I'm a little worried about the pace of the work that we're doing with the school of government right now because it'd be really nice if we had DSA conversations ready for a 2028 bond, right? The school will um students will have moved into their new building. We've done all the kind of community engagement. We have a clear plan about what's going to happen there, but it um I'm trying to remember when we first kicked off this conversation, it had to be almost a year ago at the beginning of the school year, and it feels like we're in phase one of one building. So, I'm just I don't know. I want to think about how do we be strategic about the multiple things that we have going

182on in a way that will be best most impactful for the district and the best use of our dollars. So, if we could bring some type of timeline around how each of these items will work together towards the end goal, which we're still trying to um make sure we're clear about what that end goal is. I remember you mentioning lifting that up, Miss Mitchell, but I think we're just it's a lot we got a lot of different pieces moving. we got to have them moving in alignment with each other. >> We can certainly um share a timeline for those um parcels that we're talking about so that you can understand um the timeline for decision- making regarding those. I think it would be very important for um DSA that before we have folks moving out

183of that facility that we have some decisions about what the future of that facility is. So we certainly understand the importance and um certainly can share a timeline for um how we get to decisions on those sites. >> Yeah. Umstead uh I will remind you that we the agreement with UNCC is just for the Lowe's property. So the county has paid them contract with them for the Lowe's only property. We were going to see how that process was going to work out before we expanded it to uh possibly expand it to Northern High School or DSA. I thought we talked about at the meeting having all three together because there was a cost savings to do all three buildings. We I I hear we did talk about there's a co because we as I asked

184I asked um about the cost savings that it would be to do all three. Um so I don't >> Yes, that's correct. We are doing all three. They're starting with old Los Grove and the county is paying for all three. But if we bring in if we run this RFP bring in a consultant to do right sizing and based on the pace where we are with Lowe's from last fall to now by the time we get to bond ready projects. We will have already made some decisions about whether or not we're doing DSA in Old Northern with in terms of right sizing the district with the new vendor and won't have the opportunity to work with the school of government to do the same things. >> I don't think anyone is interested in even bringing

185old Lowe's, old Northern back online. the their goal was to see what we would do with the the property school of government goal. Hey, Miss Carter Artley. Miss Byer, >> I think what I've heard tonight is that you've taken many steps to get that and it felt like there were many thorough steps over the course of the past year plus to get to the point where you're making this recommendation. So, it comes based on expertise and data. Um for that reason it and what you've outlined in slide 11 which is the different pieces of a district right sizing study which um as chairum said mentioned is not just about closing facilities. It's multifaceted if to me this feels pretty straightforward to me. I would I don't mind seeing the RFP but also we do have

186to approve large contracts. So, I'm okay with this, you all moving forward on this and it coming back to us that it sounds like you're saying this is what we need to do for our district right now based on all the information you have and your expertise. So, I certainly don't want to slow anything down. This feels like it should be further along and that's no no fault of anyone that's been doing this incredibly complicated work. The things that I think we're missing are the academic driving or or vision for I don't know that's from within or without but we had talked about and dreamed about a a model career technical education school at the old northern Dr. Lewis and that's before you arrived but that's what we told the community. Do we still dream

187that? Is that still part of it? I don't know. We talked about um all kinds of amazing things that could sit in a portion of the DSA site as the an educational use as a driver for what would happen rather than every other use that the community is going to want for that very coveted downtown site. And so I think whatever you all bring has to have robust learning academic driving the decisions of the buildings rather than the reverse. And I don't know, you know, does our community want more year- round schools? Are we filling the ones we have? Do we, you know, is monastery a thing? Who know? I mean, all of that, right? Um, and how does it how do we get moving forward? I I don't it's if it's a consultant, it's

188it's a very specific consultant and it's it's us robustly driving the academic vision, not the building's driving. If that makes any sense at all. I will just add that the reason why this is an important conversation at this moment is because when we went through the decision-making process um we talked about a number of ideas for facilities that are challenged um and where right sizing is a solution or a possible solution. Um, we talked about ideas. Those live in the contents of our capital improvement plan. And in order to make decisions about some of those, we truly need the engagement with our community and further engagement with our instructional leadership and curriculum and instruction to make the appropriate decisions that land at the top of our list of projects. So um it's just that additional

189layer that ensures that we have engaged our community and we've had robust conversations around you know if we're looking at a particular solution is it A B or C that we're doing for that facility you know because there were multiple facilities in our conversations where we talked about more than one solution for them and so we want to make sure that we get the right solution and we don't just choose one and that's um I think that's an important reason why do having the right sizing conversations uh is is a very important thing to do now um while we have a chance to make sure we get it right and we make sure that we have our community and our staff on board with the decisions that are being made and that we're building consensus

190as we go. I think that's very important. >> Thank you for that. Having said that, can we return to what what should we um what would you feel comfortable directing administration to do? They're they're asking for us to recommend that they come up with a plan using a third party to do this. Um, do we have consensus? I mean, we don't want to move forward with that. Um, Dr. Lewis, would you want us to vote on this or do you have enough information? Well, we we don't have consensus. Um, everybody does not agree that we should um, everybody does not agree that we should direct administration at this time to come up with a plan using with using a third party. Um, is there any suggestion on a recommendation that we would give? >> Um,

191vice chair. Yeah, there's not a vote. It's >> this is consistent. No, it's >> Oh, that's not my There's no unanimous consensus. So, we would need to vote if that were the case. All right. So, >> I I still wonder if we if y'all could bring a more robust um RFP in the meeting in June to the meeting instead of the work session that we could have more sense of what y'all are dreaming and putting out there to the community. And I think that would bring us to consensus. Um if if that still meets your timeline, >> what would you want to see in the RFP? Are there any guardrails you want us to ensure before we bring it? Because I what I don't want is to bring an RFP and then we're kicking it

192down the road even further. I >> mean, I don't want to be the decider of this. I I know this work needs to move forward. I think I I my the things I've articulated are the academic piece that needs robust representation, not being tied to specific legs with our facilities, the incorporating the sustainability goals of the community. I don't know the equity goals that drove growing together and the analysis of of that. I I don't know. I don't know. >> I'd also say the the work you all have done to get us this far has been good and is very much appreciated. Um it feel the request of saying hey we want to look for a third party and we're not ready to um y'all are saying we want to look for a third party

193and the board is like okay tell us why tell us what you're looking for is more where we are. We'd like to know what it is that you're looking for so that we can say, "Yeah, we agree with that." Not so that we can say, "Nah, we don't want to do that." Um, because what you're asking for tonight is authorization site unseen. And while we could offer you that, then you post it, somebody in community sees it, sends it to us, and it's like, "Hey, are y'all okay with that, the goals and guard rail still wouldn't have been there?" And so, like, I could change my position right now in this moment and be like, "Yeah, I'm going to give you consensus and not have to tell you what those goals of guard rails were

194and you'd be good with that. But just let us see what the request is. Let us say, "Yeah, we feel comfortable with that." I think some of how this work has progressed has not gone the as we expected. The capital improvement plans taken a little longer than anticipated uh both on the part of the third party and sometimes on stuff that's happening within the district. Um the work with the UNCC school of government's going a little slower than we anticipated. Um again another third party, some with the third parties, some with stuff that's happening within the district. Uh there have been instances where RFPs have been um posted, vendors have been solicited, and then nothing's happened. And so and and I hear you saying that that's the prerogative of the district prerogative of the board

195to be like, "Yeah, nah, we put this out there, but we don't really want to do that." But I think we want to make sure that we are all as a collective intentional about putting out what we all agree with and we just want to see the work. We just want the evidence that y'all are ready to put this out. Miss Card, >> um, just to add to that and respond to your question, I guess if I see an RFP, I'd be interested in uh, timeline for reporting back to the board, like when that vendor would report to the board and like with what frequency and what we'd be receiving then, and also maybe some idea of potential cost of this project. Are there any other suggestions about what board members would want to see

196if an RFP came? And also if um would we have consensus for the administration to bring back an RFP um in lie of a plan for how they would use a third party um alongside um do you am I understanding I just want to be clear am I understanding that um you want to see the RFP alongside a plan for using a third party to come back to the board. >> If it should be it could be in the RFP, it's fine. >> However they want to present it. >> Okay. because I was and then um I was understanding that if um if you were asking us to come up with a plan for using a third party that that plan would include like what you would be looking for, what you'd be asking for,

197what the estimated cost might be. That's part of what I was thinking was coming back with the plan. So I'm I feel like I'm misunderstanding why. Okay. Um, can you one more time explain to us why we have to why why administration is asking for us to direct using a third party to rightsize the district? Is is there a need for the third party? Can you why is that important at this particular juncture? Um, and how is that different from having just bringing an RFP as part for the plan? Because the RFP would in, you know, in insinuate that we would, you know, how we would be seeking a third party. >> I guess the short of it is, um, this third party would provide an objective analysis, uh, free from bias. Um, this third

198party will um um facilitate meaningful engagement in the in the community um as it relates to any type of consolidation or potential school closure. Uh and ensure that the board has because the board board ultimately will have to make a decision on a particular building if um closure or consolidation um is certainly on on the table. And so ensuring that the board has um and again that was the purpose of bringing the consultant to ensure that their guard set i.e. you know, ensure that you're meeting with all parts of the community, make sure you meet with this group, um, and to ensure that the board has what they need to make that um, final and ultimate decision. And yeah, >> I also heard that we have other third parties that are doing, you know, doing

199the work already, you know, through the UNCC. them. So would this particular plan consolidate those efforts or take the information from those other third parties that are currently activated in this area? >> Totally separate work. Uh they would take that into account obviously is part of our inventory but total separate work. >> It's separate work that would they would be talking to each other. Um, so with this third party uh I'm I'm I feel like the plan I just I'm still in favor of seeing the plan, but I want to um again because of time we probably either need to find consensus or go ahead and take a vote so that we can move on to the remainder of the agenda. Miss Chavez, >> I want to make a motion that we direct staff to

200come back to the June monthly meeting with um a an RFP um that may also include a plan which includes the scope of work, the timeline including engagement with the board and budget or consulting ing with a third party regarding right sizing of the district >> and second. >> It's been moved by Miss Chavez, seconded by Miss Carter Autton that we direct administration to bring back an RFP that that's where I missed it. That >> that um I didn't write that part down. That may also include a plan. That may also include a plan but that in that does include the scope of work. Number two, timeline including engagement with the board. Number three, budget. Scope of work, the timeline um of reporting to the board. And the third thing was >> budget. Could I

201>> is there >> friendly amend that to say that that's at a minimum like that you that would not be the extent of the Yeah. Is that sure? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, it's been Did Did y'all capture that? It's been properly It's been moved and seconded. Um, is there any discussion? >> Okay. Vice Chair, I mean, Chairstead, I >> I think this is we know this will be in there, but I just wanted to add community engagement as a robust community engagement. I know we've talked about it, but since we're naming things, I just want to name that as well. [clears throat] Right. All those in favor, I I >> All those opposed, use the same sign. It passes unanimously. All right. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for this conversation.

202And now we're moving on to item five or is that our policy committee. Um the first thing is um we had the we moved policy 4326 seclusion and restraint as item A. from consent. >> Yeah, we move that to item A. Correct. From consent. >> That's correct. All right. So, it was moved from consent. Um, who's presenting the item? Dr. King and Dr. Bell are on the precise. So, I I don't think we have we don't have an additional presentation tonight. My understanding is that this item was coming for the board to discuss. >> So, let's take Is it all I'm I'm hearing that we want to take a fivem minute recess. Can we take a fivem minute recess then come back and figure out [laughter] who's presenting? All right. Five minute recess. We'll be

203back at 8:37. We are back and um we're at item 5A, policy 4326, um seclusion and restraint. And I'm going to turn this over to Miss Carter. >> Thanks so much. Um, I'm I'm very proud of the work that we've done on this policy and I think it's almost there. But as we heard during public comment tonight and we received some communication today via email from Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children um also um very grateful for how they've worked to educate us and hold us accountable during this process. So I think the things that they pointed out today were frankly at least one is an oversight on our part. So I want to take some time to discuss those um because I do think that they are important points that get us to a good

204place here. This will not be a perfect policy but I think it'll be really good. So the first one is um we had we had modified the policy in our conversations to require same day verbal notification for physical and mechanical restraint but we didn't do that for seclusion isolation or reversive procedures. I don't think we intended to not put that in there. >> Um so I wanted >> Can you give the number and >> um sorry that's okay. It's divided up into different categories based on each of those different things toggling back from different documents. So let's see. So we have if you look under physical restraint for example, you scroll down for acceptable uses under um section A is physical restraint and then you go down to um three talks about school employee reporting

205and then four notice to parents. And so in that section um there's a requirement for same day notification of a parent if a child is physically restrained and it gives some details about under what conditions that has to happen. So that's the example for physical restraint. If you scroll down further you get to section B which is about mechanical restraint and you have the same thing that mirrors that which is a same day notification to parents. Scroll down further, you have section C, which is about seclusion. And there in notice to parents, we did not put same day notification. Um, and then again, if you scroll down further, you talk about isolation and aversive procedures where that doesn't include same day notification. I thought in our discussions and policy committee, we talked about same day

206notification for each of these. And I don't I can't think of a re my memory is not perfect, but I can't think of a reason that we would not have put it in each of these. So, that's my preference. And um that was one thing that came from uh Durham Advocates for Exceptional Children today as well. Curious to know if there are any board members who disagree with that or who are concerned with that or if there's any reason not to apply that to each of these sections. Just trying to give space for everybody to consider what was being asked. I am I'm fine with including same day notification for all three. And >> Miss Scoff, if uh Miss Carter Aen, if you would like to put this in the form of a motion, I

207think what you would be asking for is a motion to um to delete the words in paragraphs C4, D4, and F4. the words when reasonably possible but no later than the end of the following workday because that's what was eliminated in those other ones. It it the what by eliminating those words what's left is such notice shall be provided by the end of the workday during which the incident occurred period. So your motion would be to remove the words when reasonably possible but no later than the end of the following workday in paragraphs C4D4 and F4. So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Miss Byer, seconded by was that Miss Carter Autton to remove um where's that language? >> Could you please repeat that, Attorney Merchesen? to remove the words when reasonably possible,

208but no later than the end of the following workday in paragraphs C4, D4, and F4. E4, D4, and F4 to remove the words when reasonably possible, but >> not later, no later than the end of the following workday. >> No later than the end of the following workday. Right. So, is there any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Yeah. just because not because I don't agree but because I'm looking at it in the policy and when I look at it in the policy there seems to be a section about the reporting there seems to be duplications of the notice to parents and that's causing me some concern. I want to make sure that they're consistent. And it's okay. Somebody else can do that. >> Well, we've already made a we've

209already made the motion and we've already voted. It was 61. So, the motion >> I'm just naming why I voted no. Not because I don't agree, but because it looks like it's the same thing over and over. like section 4 needs to be consistent. >> I understand. >> That's all. >> Thank you for naming that and for that clarity of of why you're voting for why why you were um voting. You do agree, but you're you're noting an inconsistency and that's why you didn't vote for it. Oh, it is. >> And I missed the opportunity during discussion to ask a question because I had my hand raised, but it's okay. >> The excuse me, >> is there a D4 or is it D3? >> That's that was the problem for me. >> Okay, you're right.

210You're right, Miss Pitman. It is a it is a uh it is D3 for isolation. So a motion to amend what was just adopted to correct that would be helpful. >> Move that we amend the previous res motion to say remove when reasonably possible but no later than the end of the following workday in C4 D3 and F4. >> Thank you. >> Sorry about that. It was a good catch. Oh, I'm sorry. It's got a second. I'll second it. That motion >> been moved by Miss Natalie Byer and seconded by Jermstead to amend the vote to to amend the mo the motion to reconsider what the board just adopted. >> Okay. To make a motion to reconsider what the board has just adopted. Um, >> and it's just that and then once that's approved, if

211that's approved, then we have another motion that we start fresh on. >> Okay. So, we're making a motion to a to amend the motion that was just adopted. >> It's a motion to reconsider. >> To reconsider the motion that was just adopted. It's been So, any discussion? >> Yes, Miss Cardon. >> Um, I apologize. I should have ordered my um concerns differently because my next concern addresses the fact that there is no section 4 in isolation in the section on isolation and that is that we this I do truly believe was just no mission in whoever was editing this once we made these decisions. But we added a notice of parents. We did not have in the previous versions of this policy any notice required to parents. We added that but we did not also

212add a notice to the principal. So in every other section there is staff notices the principal principal notices the parents and that was just I think a oversight here which is why this section doesn't have a four. There really is consistency and we did look at this closely. This is why I'm glad for people that are taking a 5,000 look at this policy. >> I think what might be missing in section B is the school employee required reporting to principal or designate which is which is the paragraph three in all of the other sections. That's what's missing which then changes the numbering for what we're doing here. So if we could have a motion to reconsider then we can take up that we can we can have a motion reconsider. We can take up your

213sec this other issue first so we can correct that number and then we can come back. >> Move that we reconsider. I thought we were in the discussion. >> Yeah, it's already been moved and seconded and we we are in discussion for re for reconsidering the motion. >> Um all those in favor >> I any opposed? >> Now we can entertain a motion a new motion. It may make sense for Miss Carter Autton to make a motion on adding a paragraph 3D D3 that's identical to the other paragraph. School employees must promptly notify the principal of designate of any use of isolation of a student by school staff. Um, Attorney Merchesen, if we I was I would have read written that down ahead of time if I hadn't thought that we could just match the

214language from the earlier sections. Is there a problem with that rather than having the motion be so complicated? Like if we're trying to do in section D exactly what is done in section C for example, we add the school employee required report into principal and the notice to parents of well we have notice of parents to event but so for sake of clarity I think having the motion separated because there's three different items here that were brought through the policy. So, I think it's fine if you want to say you'd like to make a motion to add a paragraph three for isolation that tracks the same language as paragraph three in in the section for mechanical for the other sections. That would be fine. Um, there's nothing wrong with that. That would make it clear

215as well. Okay, great. So, let's see. So, I'd like to uh make a motion to add a paragraph C for se in section D isolation that matches the language in [clears throat] section C um with regards to school employee required reporting to principal or design. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Miss Carter Autton, seconded by Miss Byer. I cannot repeat that back. Say it one more time. >> Right. to add um a section to add D3 um to match D3 which is school employer required reporting to principal or designate >> with the only exception being >> isolation of seclusion. >> Yes, but with but for isolation instead of seclusion. >> All right. So, it's been moved and seconded to add section three to match section section D3 to match section C3. Um, but for

216isolation instead of seclusion. >> Right. Did we get it? All right. Is there any discussion? >> All right. All those in favor? I I >> I vote I. Any oppose? >> All right. It passes unanimously. >> There any other things to lift up in this policy. >> Now we would go and add the the paragraph about notice to parents of a event. Right. Yeah. This would be the motion to reddelete the words when reasonably possible but no later than the end of the following workday from the notice to parents paragraphs 4 in each of the paragraphs for C4 D4 and F4. So moved. >> Second. Seconded by chair ro vice chair Rogers to delete the words when reasonably possible. Which sections were those? Do we name the section? >> D4 and F4. >> E4 D4

217and F4. Are there any comments? All those in favor? I. >> Any opposed? All right, it passes unanimously. And Mr. Chair Rogers, >> um, yeah, can we look at the section of the policy that is, sorry, I'm going to my notes. Um, physical restraint. So that's um a two under uh permissible uses of physical restraint. And item B is reasonably needed to maintain order to prevent or break up a fight. Can you can y'all talk to me about how you landed in the policy committee around maintaining order? Because if it's being used to prevent a fight, break up a fight or any of these other options and control is not control has not been established. Um, I'd like the board to consider different language maybe to as reasonably needed to prevent or break up a

218fight and just take out the maintain order. Um, it's vague. Um, Miss Goff, may I respond to that? >> Go ahead. The language with the exception of the added word in H which is substantial. The language in A through H >> directly tracks the statutory >> requirements or the statutory provisions in which physical restraint is permissible under state law. >> Okay. So as long as all of them with the exception of the word substantial and H with which the committee is recommending be added but all of the other language tracks the statutory language that you find in the general statutes. So as long as these are it would be considered a use of reasonable force assuming that it also is limited in its scope and duration. but in those circumstances. So that's where that language

219comes from. >> Okay. Um so that means we can add language. Maybe >> you can add language potentially. >> Um that can make it less vague. Um, so to maintain order in a hostile or tense situation, are there reasons why we would be an educator would be using restraint if a situation isn't hostile or tense? I >> think in the context of B, I'm not sure. I mean, to your point, maintain order. I know that's an ore there. Um, but in order for that to be reasonable, it needs to be a reasonable response to the situation. So maintaining order when it's outside of either preventing or breaking up a fight. I I I'm not I'm to your point, I'm not sure if those words add anything. And maybe Dr. King or Dr. Lewis has a

220different thought about that. If there's times when you would be utilizing a restraint in the school setting that is to maintain order that's not in that concept. I'm not sure if it adds anything. >> Just to be clear what I understand because it's the language in the statute, we can't take that language out or it's advised not to take the language out because I do agree it can be subjective. Yeah. >> And someone that could be yelling can be perceived as need to be need to maintain order because you're yelling and a physical strength based on this can be administered. >> Yeah. I mean what I would say is the policy. The statute defines when what's the maximum amount that you can use physical restraints. You can further constrict it. You can't expand the category

221of when you could use restraints. So if you wanted to place further guidelines or restrictions on how you define that then or circumstances in which could happen, the board is at liberty to do that. >> Miss Chavez, >> I just wanted to kind of address this. Um, one part of your question like how we came to that. Um, so will give me some piece was when we talked about pulling out this what's now in section three um that notification or reporting is required for A and B anything that results in observable physical injury or anything that um immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs or head freely. So there's a ven diagram. If this is maintaining order, this is restraints that fall into that category of

222reportable restraints because we talked about that a bunch and like or another ven diagram is breaking up a fight. But if it results in someone's head being held restrained, it has to be um immobilizing them. it has to be reported even regardless of the reason whether it was a fight to maintain order to whatever it is and so um that yeah it it doesn't get it's not a loophole where oh it was a restraint it was maintaining order so now it doesn't have to um which is broad and can mean different things to big people or something now it doesn't have to be reported it does if it meets this threshold in three so I just offer that Thank you. That's helpful. >> Were there any other comments, Miss Chavez? >> I would like to

223make one other um recommendation based on um feedback we got which I think is reasonable. Excuse me. In that same section three that I was just referring to, we were discussing. So a three um [clears throat] I would like to add uh one word there. So it says any restraint that immobilizes etc. excluding any physical escort and any use of restraint that is reasonably needed to teach a skill or to briefly I'd like to add the word briefly calm or comfort a student so that there is no um since calming can also mean different things to different people um and so the Um if it was a an extended period time of time of calming the student um then it would need to be reported. If it was a brief time it would not. >>

224Is that in the form of a motion? >> No, but I can make that. >> That's and and then I was going to say that that's a lot of language. Speak slowly so I can write it down. >> Okay. Could I could I make a suggestion? >> Sure. Um, a motion to add the word briefly to paragraph 3B after the word um um immediately before the word calm. I move that we add the word briefly to 3B A3B um directly before the word cal been moved by Miss Chavez seconded by Miss Byer that we add the word briefly to paragraph A3B immediately before the word calm. Is there any discussion? All right. Um, chairstead and then vice chair. >> Go ahead. >> Um, if this doesn't matter then just tell me doesn't. But how do

225we define briefly? All right. I just to the point of being subjective. It feels could be subjective. That was what I was going to say. It feels subjective. I don't disagree with their with you wanting to have a qualifier, but it feels subjective. And I'm thinking about I know y'all talked about this in policy committee. I don't know where you landed about uh what happens when the if the policy were to be violated. um what are the what are the accountability measures because then we are then pitting administration against educators around what brief is. I'm wondering too from like a legal p policy perspective does brief put us in any direction or all of this I think would be under something were to happen under review right you have an investigation HR looks does what

226they do and they can come to the conclusion that you were outside of policy based on xyz factors but interested to hear your thoughts merch so there's looking at paragraph this whole paragraph three um there's two paragraphs that talk about there's two subp paragraphs about when school employees are required to notify the principal. The first one any restraint that results in an observable physical injury to a student. That comes directly from state requirements of what gets reported to the state which is why that has always been in your policy and why it's still there. The second one is one that was added last year because it specifically tracks the federal requirement obligations of what gets rec reported to the federal government. The OCR that is any restraint that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a

227student to move his or her torso, arms, legs or head freely excluding any physical ex escort ex and that would exclude temporary touching of holding of the hand, wrist, arm as stated there. So that tracks um that tracks the federal guidelines. And then this other provision is and also any restraint that's reasonably needed to teach a skill or to calm or com comfort a student. I it's my understanding that the reason that was included is because the notice to the parents is being greatly expanded under this policy in general. So where before your policy was only to report to parents um in the policy although not necessarily the guidelines from the special education department but the policy was only what the state requires is what's required under the policy and then only what the federal

228government requires. When we expand it out there's the definition under state law which we're stuck with is extremely broad. It's much broader than it is in many other states. So it includes things like a child falls on the playground and scrapes their knee and you need to comfort them. That hug is a restraint, right? Because you're restricting a portion of the body. So I think the second provision was added in recognition that if you're going to require a principal to notify a parent every time we they administer a restraint as that is broadly defined, they won't get any work done. And that's not realistic. You know, every time a child falls and gets a hug or gets picked up because they're sad or what, that becomes unrealistic. So, um, inserting the word briefly does add

229some subjectivity. There's no question about that. Um, there isn't any requirement under federal or state law about adding this provision generally that's being included that I see creates a big risk. Whether we add briefly or not, that is subjective. I don't think that I would recommend that you define it. I think you either choose to add the word or not, but I I just think we can't go down a rabbit hole and try to define everything. So, it's either is this a level of vagueness that the board is comfortable with the word briefly or are you more comfortable with as long as you're, you know, calming or comforting the student, then we're not going to require um require just for that reason alone that it be reported. And I and I'm sorry if that was

230too long of an answer to your question, Miss Byer. >> I think in policy committee we had some conversation that the training is that you constantly re-evaluate. You're always re-evaluating. And I do hear you, attorney Merches, that adding the word briefly actually limits us more is a negative rather than a positive. Is that >> I I think it re by adding briefly that's opening up the meaning that sometimes when a principal or in a staff member is calming or comforting a student that will lead to you know that would lead to notifying the parent um if it's not brief. So it would be requiring more notification for some of those. I don't know that it opened I mean it to the extent it's vague I could see a potential complaint from a parent saying this

231wasn't brief enough brief it was this was a 30 second comfort or restrain as a result and I wasn't notified and that's a violation of board policy I I don't know there's lots of kids who get upset and it takes a long time for them to calm so I again I don't there is a a certain level of vagueness Miss Car, >> I I think I hear I hear that and I do think it's re it is something we need to consider and I'm balancing that against like the vagueness that is embedded in this if we don't put that which is like a staff member could pin down a student and be like I'm calming them and like 10 minutes could pass and they could say well I was calming them like I had to

232pin them down to calm them and then like no notifications required to parents in that case which also feels like we we that's part of the nature of this is we've had to kind of we have to give staff some discretion and flexibility while also protecting them and protecting the students that are vulnerable. So that's where that's coming from in that hypothetical. I'm not sure pinning a student down for comfort would ever be seen as reasonable. So that wouldn't be permitted in any event, but I hear that. I hear hear that. And I'm not really stating an opinion one way or the other about the about the motion. I'm just pointing out different sides of that. Miss Chavez, >> I'd like to call the question. >> All right. So the motion on the floor was

233to add the word briefly to paragraph A3B immediately before the word calm. Um, all those in favor >> I vote I. All those opposed use the same sign. >> No. >> All right. So, it passes 61. There any other discussion on this policy? Then we need to >> make a motion to approve >> policy 4326 rules for seclusion and restraint as amended. >> Second. It's been moved by Vice Chair Rogers, seconded by Miss Byer to approve policy 4326, seclusion and restraint. Um, all those in favor? Oh, well, is there any discussion? >> Did just notice there is another com on A2E if you want to add briefly there too. A to E. You want to be consistent, >> right? That's a catch. Are we able to amend the motion that's on the floor to include

234that >> in the state definition language in that? I think the difference there is that in 2E that's indicating that it's when you can you can utilize a restraint when it's reasonably needed to calm or comfort and I think the distinction in two we're just reading is when when you actually provide notification when a staff is member is required to notify the principal and therefore it would go to the parent. So only when it's not brief would it then go to the principal. That makes sense. >> All right. Any other discussion, >> Mr. Tab? >> Yeah, thank you. I just want to be very clear on why I'm voted no. Um the word briefly um is just too vague for me. uh and being in an educational environment and system, it's going to get challenged

235a lot. And so I don't want to bring that kind of attention to the principles in the school to have them to figure out how long something should be or how less something should be, which is going to bring about a lot of work for the principles and a lot of conversations they're going to have to have. So, I just wanted to make sure that y'all understand from an educational point of view of being in a building and having to deal with words like briefly, it's going to create a lot of conversation. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. All right. Any other discussion? Miss Carter Odden, >> I just I do just want to clarify because I hear that that's a very valid concern, Mr. tab, but there's we're not changing anything to um

236what staff how long staff are able to calm or comfort a student in the what's permissible section. What we were just talking about was the what's required to be reported section. So, I could see how that concern would still be present, but it won't be a matter of like a staff member being like, can I continue to calm this student? Is it been too long? That's not it. It's how long has it been? Do I need to now report this to where the parents know that this happened today? And really, they should they should be aware of this so that they can, you know, discuss it with their child, be present for them or just know how to support them best. Does that >> I hear that >> alleviate any of your concern or not?

237>> No, I but I do hear that. But I just know that in just putting words like briefly and things like that, it's just going to create that con kind of conversation. That's all. Thank you. >> All right. Any other discussion? All right. So, all those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? >> No. So policy 4326, seclusion and restraint um passes vote 61. Yay. Okay, that's one down. Next one. All right. Okay, now we are on policy wrong page 4307 disciplinary disciplinary action for exceptional children. Oh yeah, because that was the new one. This is the paper policy 4301.1 and point.2 student code of conduct. Right. So we'll invite the team to the podium to um prepare and share their updates on the since they were last with us. This is for second reading.

238>> Sure. We in included good good evening board chair, board members. Um it's a pleasure to be before you um at 9:23. Uh we did include a PowerPoint presentation, but we are not um going to review that tonight, Javon, so you don't need to cue that up unless the board would like us to review that. That's really just for the public uh transparency and kind of capturing a summary of the data. Um we did after our policy discussions intensive um policy discussions seek feedback from stakeholders which included both our administrators, assistant principles, teachers and families who are all impacted by the changes um implemented by the administration. Um and so the PowerPoint just kind of um visualizes that those overall summaries there. Um in addition, we did take into the guidance, the team took into

239the guidance the um updates that were suggested um to the policy. And so you'll see those red lines. I know in conversations and questions with the board, there's some additional um things to uh note with the policy and so we just want to be clear about what additional changes we would like. In addition, I do want to get Darren Smith to chime in around some of the language that we have added and some of the um reservations or concerns around that language. But based on the conversations with the board, I I understand that in addition to the red lines that we are um bringing forth this afternoon or evening rather that we would like to also remove um from pages three through five the traditional punitive model chart um that is listed there. Want to

240remove the entire chart from the policy and keep it for a professional learning resource. It was a um added there um just to bring clarity around moving from punitive to more restorative practices. Um, and that was uplifted by the board in terms of that being a concern. >> What page is that? What? >> Well, there's not page number. So, maybe what? >> Oh, sorry. What category maybe it's under would be helpful. >> Sure. >> I don't know how to. So, it is um page four of the PDF. framework that's outlined in your document. >> Can I name that I sent my questions in advance? They're not showing up in the questions document. My colleagues haven't had an opportunity to review that. I was not making a suggestion for the full board. I was asking a

241question. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Okay. >> This is a very new process, so we don't not really sure what the process is here. So, thank you for that clarity. >> Yeah. No, it's all good. Okay. So I can tell I can share my questions. I realize it's coming. >> Sorry. Do you do do you want her to finish her presentation and just save the questions for after? >> You saying >> no. Okay. >> Okay. Cuz she's speaking to my questions and I don't want y'all not to know. Um, I know this is second reading and I just ask, can you share with us why the framework chart has a traditional punitive model listed? If we're moving away from that, does it really need to be included in the policy? And what measures are in place

242to ensure that educators don't look at the table and say, I'm using the traditional punitive model as opposed to the restorative model. And then I asked for clarification on if the policies apply to prek and if there's a tracking on the number of calls for pickup by demographic particularly after disciplinary incidents and how are these kinds of pickups um documented in educators handbook. Those are my questions. >> Thank would you like to respond? >> Sure. So I I didn't respond in writing, but wanted to say that we're we're fine to to remove that framework. The framework there is just to show where we were and where we are as a district. Um so the value there is really in professional learning which would not come from this policy. So we definitely can remove um that

243that table there. PreK is accounted for and then early pickups are technically a a suspension. So it is still noted in educator's handbook. I'll just name that taking out the frame the that one column is up to my colleagues. We would do the will of the board. Whatever you would like. >> Are there any other um any any other any more to the presentation before we take comments other comments from the board? >> No ma'am. >> All right. Thank you so much. All right colleagues. Um this particular one is for this is on second read. >> Yes. Okay. So any discussion? Okay. I see I see um chairstead. I see Miss Carter. >> Yes. Um thank y'all for some of much of this being included in the policy and the updates that have been made.

244I I know this is taking a lot of time, so I appreciate the time and investment that you all have made into this. I have a few questions that I think I'm gonna hope they don't cause a lot of conversation, but we can move it quickly. There was just in the under the chart under where it has the strategic highlights of the restorative framework. Um, and it has the questions. It says when appropriate to the circumstances, administrators should guide disciplinary decision-making through the consideration of the following questions. I'm wondering if we could add language there just to be clear about who the questions are for. Um and so because the questions use you, right? And so I'm wondering if um when appropriate administrators should guide decision disciplinary decision- making through the consideration of the following

245questions with students or something like that just to get it clear because it's not clear about who we're talking about in that process. there. I don't have page numbers. So, um, >> there's five in the PDF. Three, >> four, five, five in the PDF. >> I'm in the clean version. It's page five. >> Guess because I'm in the track change version. Sorry. >> I'm also in the track change version. It's on page five. >> Two, three. >> Yes, page five and track changes. Sorry. Um, I don't know if there's consensus from the board on that change. Just to help clear that up. I have others. So, before we move on, I just want to make sure there. >> All right, Amber, are we giving thumbs up for that? >> Miss Merchensson lets us >> I'm

246not sure what the thumbs up is for. I'm sorry. >> Um, it looks like we have >> Can you repeat? >> Very informal. Yes, we so um they again in the exactly what you're saying. So we're making consensus on the on that so that we wouldn't have to vote. Go ahead and make that that would be one of the things that we would want to amend. So it looks like you said that there was language. Where was it again on page five? >> So it's on page five is right before the applicability of code section. There's five questions that are listed. Um, but the questions aren't clear about who we're talking about. So I in the sentence right before those five questions, it says, "When appropriate to the circumstances, administrators should guide disciplinary decision-making through

247the consideration of the following questions." I would add with students. There might be a cleaner way to add that. >> So it's just adding the words with students at the end of that sentence. >> Yes. And so >> through the students consideration or for the students consideration like to put the student with the consideration. I don't know. >> That's fine with those questions are for the students >> questions with the student of the student. >> I welcome feedback. I like I don't know but I just it's not clear about who we're talking about. I I I I read this if I understand correctly that these are questions that the the policy committee wanted administration to ask of the student before making disciplinary decisions. Is that right? >> Administration. [clears throat] Okay. >> Yeah. Those are

248pretty standard restorative um practice interaction questions. Um, I don't think it has it creates a problem to add the language, but I mean an a trained administrator is is going to know, you know, very well who this who these questions um go to. They're kind of the bedrock of of the of the process. >> I think that is that's true. I want to make sure everyone who reads it also is clear, too. And I think this is what we're setting up for policy is model for other folks in other districts, right? So, I 100% agree. I recognize those questions because I've been trained in it, right? So, I was like, "Oh, I know how these questions go for students, but how do we make sure that's just clear?" Um, okay. >> So, I saw lots

249of thumbs up. Are we okay with adding for students at the end of um that sentence when appropriate to circumstances, administration should guide disciplinary decision-making through the consideration of the following questions for students? We want to add that for extra clarity. Do we have consensus on that? >> Personally, like with students because there's language in here that talks about how we're doing things with and not to. And four gives a doing it on your behalf >> with students. >> So with >> Okay. With students. All right. I see head nods from everybody. Okay. So, we all agree on that. We don't have to vote on that. That's We're good with that. Okay. And other question I had, and if it takes us too far off and we're not there yet, that's fine. Just tell me

250and we'll have to have the discussion. But under determining supports and responses for behavior, um there's a list. It's on page I don't know, let's see, one. >> What's the next page? >> Six. On page six, determining supports and responses for behavior. Around the middle of that paragraph, it talks about multiple interventions, right? Such interventions and responses may include, and there's a list here. The list also includes detention. And I'm wondering, does that fall under our restorative practice framework? Um, >> do we have detention? >> I don't I think so, but I'm not sure. It's about in the middle of the page. It says such interventions and responses may include for example then it goes on to say behavior contracts, peer mediation, restorative practices intervention, conflict resolution, detention, restitution, loss of privileges, school or community

251service andor other restorative practices. We we are happy to remove that. Okay. Do we have detention? I guess was the other quote. >> So as a standard practice, no. I think that you will find that educators and principles and leaders in the moment have creative things. So it may be come sit with me at lunch or it may be it may be um something less informal um than to say the tension. Um but again we we we don't want to in the of course in that feedback that was shared want to be specific but also want to leave that that availability for administration have flexibility in what they do with students in response to behavior that is an alternative to suspension and not punitive per se but we're happy to make any amendments. >> I

252see um Mr. tab and I see um Vice Chair Rogers and Carter Autton. >> Thank you for your clarification on that. I'm just getting a uneasy feel that detention for some staff may feel like we do have it. Some saying we don't have it. So now I'm going to yield to Dr. Lewis or Dr. King. Um what do what do we have? Y'all know I got to go straight I go straight to it. >> Yeah, we can certainly find out how many schools are still using the detention. I do know that as a way of not suspending students. Some schools will use some form of detention where they still call it your traditional detention hall. Uh that's that's one thing. But I do know they look at many alternatives to suspensions and and that's one

253of we certainly can find out how many schools are using. But you're right, it's not definitely not restorative. So my followup to that in in the language, are we taking the lang should we take the language out or do we need to wait for further instructions from you in terms of finding out what what we really have? >> Well, we can take it out because like I say, it's certainly not restorative. You know, if you can leave in a paragraph that says detention and other restorative practices, that one certainly is not restorative. >> Okay. So for me, which means if it's not restorative, then we shouldn't be using detention, the word detention in our in our language, and we should not have the practice detention in our schools. That would be clear both ways. Thank

254you, Eric Goff. May I comment? What it the removal of the word detention would certainly remove it from this list which appears to be more restorative in nature but it doesn't then prohibit its use. These are examples of categories of things that can be utilized for restorative purposes but it's not inclusive. So if you such interventions and responses may include for example right so it's removing that doesn't necessarily say detention is prohibited that makes sense >> thank you for that clarification >> that that makes sense but it goes back to what is our practice what are we doing if we're going to stay with being restorative. So, just a a a wee bit of concern that it it feels like we're shifting away from shifting our focus to more restorative practices, which is what I

255thought we were getting at, to excluding those practices that are not necessarily um restorative. ative and I think we we we we maybe need to be really careful about that. Um and of course, you know, it's it's it's you know, we'll do what the board directs. Um but but I I I think that's a step further um than what our building level administrators were anticipating. Um, I appreciate the clarity that the the lawyer gave that as an example in that paragraph. It's probably not the best example of a restorative, but it doesn't um exclude um it doesn't exclude detention in that way from this policy. Um, and that is probably another discussion that we, you know, would have at a later time. Um, Vice Chair Rogers, were you next? >> So, yes, I was going

256to comment on the detention piece that Mr. Tab spoke to, and I want to make sure that there's consensus around getting some data and information reported back to the board around the practices of detention. Even if we remove this from the policy from this particular policy here, remove the word detention. I don't know when is the right time. Maybe when you report on disciplinary action, you can include that detention in there, including lunch detention. Is detention recorded in educator's handbook? It is. >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. Did I Did I call you next? Okay. All right. So, Miss Carten, thank you. Um, I think that we've made a lot of progress with this policy. Very grateful for your work on this and I have two things I'd like to other things I am

257proposing that we might do with it. Um, one is I'm wondering if it really is necessary to suspend preK through five students for level 1B infractions. And we kind of went back and forth on this. This still feels really subjective to me because this is things like disrespect, non-compliance, and I know there's the language around aggravating factors. I just like these are young kids. Do we need to offer out of school suspension as an a as something that happens in response to oneb infraction? So that's one thing I'm proposing to the board. If if it were up to me, I would say that 1B infractions out of school suspension is not an option for them. The second thing that I'm wondering is if we can have principal supervisor review prior to all suspensions involving students

258disabilities and curious to know from administrators what the burden of that would be. To me that seems like it would be beneficial as we're looking to reduce the number of the of suspensions with students disabilities to have that additional layer of review for all those students. As we heard in public comment, this policy here puts principal supervisor review in for preK through two. This would just expand it up for students disabilities up through fifth grade. Many of them might not be um on grade level um anyway. And so I think just to make it a blanket, these are all getting reviewed as we're trying to get a handle on that. So curious to hear from board members and also again administrators to hear what the burden would that would be on implementation of those two

259changes. >> I would just like to point out Cher Gooff that when you look to the policy as it's drafted as it and as it describes level 1A and level 1B both under um 4301.2 to and 4301.1. Neither of those infractions lead to out of school suspension. With level 1A, those violations may result in inschool interventions and/or supports only under your policy. And then they may not, and it says specifically, they may not result in out of school suspension. Level 1B standard violation should generally result in inschool interventions. But if the student refuses to participate in the inschool interventions or engages in persistent violations of level B, it could lead to an out of school suspension. So under your uh under the policy 431.2 two that can lead up to up to five days and

260under 01 um it is um no more than two days. So there already is that built in. So it may be that there's some inconsistency in the policy and how you're the language about prek to two is because it's already not possible under level 1A for any student. >> Right? I understand that for level one A but level 1B is where there is a possibility with the aggravating or if they decide not to >> participate in in school. So and I'll note too that in what the that part it says no more than two days and then later in the policy it says no more than 5 days. So that is the inconsistency. I think that if we keep the possibility of out of school suspension for 1B infractions for the young for prek through

261five, then we need to clean that up and have it either it be a max of two days or a max of five days. But again, this is things this could be like non-compliance with direct directions or disrespect of others and our elementary school students. Not saying these are not issues but we need to out of school suspend them. >> Could you share what page the five days in the track changes? >> Uh 5 days is on page 10 at the bottom. Thank it. >> Mich is my question as we consider these changes is is new directions considered an alter alternative for in school or out of school suspension for elementary. Um, if I understand correctly, you're asking are students able to attend in lie of an out of school suspension? Yes. >> Okay. And

262also in in lie of inschool suspension, >> we we that's not really an option that is in educators handbook anymore. However, it is listed that way for coding for state purposes, but our principles are not assigning in school suspension um as a response to a discipline >> clarify infraction. >> Okay. >> To can I clarify that? So, um if a student chooses to not do out of school suspension, they choose in new directions, it's coded as in school suspension. >> It is coded for the purposes of reporting to the state. That's the way the state receives the the data. >> Even though they're in a different school than their current one, a different learning environment, it's listed as an inschool suspension. >> An alternative to it's in lie of out of school suspension. I guess

263with this I'm wondering if there's if there are any benefits to suspending students for one to two days um for repeated violations of of oneb if we have evidence that that you know actually addresses the behavior and they you know um that we have positive results from suspending those students for those types of violations. That was a question, but I don't Does anyone have an have a response? >> Yeah, I I I don't I'm not sure how to answer that question. I mean, I I don't know that we have evidence that any suspension ever um provides a positive outcome. Um, and frankly, I don't I don't think that's the purpose of suspension. Um, my assumption is that most often, particularly at the lower grades, when you're talking about a suspension for a child at that

264level, um, in that age, we're we're talking about a scenario where the behavior has been consistent, ongoing, and the principal feels like they don't have additional options, and and it's it's probably more in the range of, you know, kind of opportunities to reset. Um but you know I would not be willing to suggest that it's it provides a positive outcome. Um I think we all know that you know suspension creates you know you know negative outcomes in in in most instances. Um that having been said I mean I [snorts] um I think there are some instances where where it is appropriate. Um um but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go in terms of suggesting that there are positive outcomes. >> Um thank you. So then my then I would definitely want

265to take this out the option for um a suspension for one to two days for repeated violations of 1B. I understand that it can be hard for staff to deal with vi repeated violations of these things and not knowing maybe what to do with a student's behavior. I I I completely understand that. Um I do think in a restorative district ultimately our commitment is to do restorative actions through and through. So otherwise it seems punitive to me and I do think there are some students particular well I was going to say particularly at the elementary school level but I think it can happen all the way through who repeatedly do things to kind of see if you'll push them away and exclude them. Um, so I do think there I mean if there is a

266reason to suspend um then I mean out of school you know and not send them to the restorative practice center or do other restorative actions with them like I'd like to hear those but it sounds like right now there's not necessarily um that evidence that it benefits the child and their behavior and like you know restores that behavior in some kind of way. So for that reason, I'd also be in favor of taking that out. >> I think in some instances, in very rare interest in instances, I'm thinking about some conversations um that come from a place of frustration from some of our principles in terms of supporting their teachers and supporting the learning environment of all students. Um sometimes, uh not all, but there are sometimes um um some schools struggle to get parent

267support, right? And that's one way to get parents support. Um because one instance I'm thinking about, you know, there are some some challenges to maintaining a a learning uh appropriate learning environment. Um you're absolutely right. There's no research that supports that out of school suspensions benefit the child. Um but when we think about you know the impact on the education environment um sometimes um you know sometimes I will just speak as a former principal that sometimes you you have to um exclude to ensure that um all students learn and you know I think the the biggest piece of that is that re-entry when the student does come back whether it's a one or two day when the student comes back what supports um are in place working with the with with the families. So I

268just want to kind of offer that as a um in in rare cases that there are some um principles that you know need some support from um from the families in that regard. >> Miss Byer, >> thank you. I I want to like ground us back that we are making massive improvements right before school in this policy. Um, and you know, I appreciate the the concerns about the level 1B. Um, but it already is written that it's only for a student engaging in persistent violations and with aggravating factors and the principal must consult with the principal supervisor and student support services to determine the appropriateness. It's already getting a a check in some ways. So, um, I'd rather us not get stuck on what we are still debating at this late hour and lean into

269definitely. Did we settle the taking detention out? I don't remember settling that and I I felt consensus around it, but I wanted us not to lose that, which could clearly not a restorative practice. So, we could take that out of that text. And then, Chair Rogers, you started with this table that lists punitive things. And I I love the idea of if we're not punitive, if the point is we've got to get our restorative language in there, let's just take that column of punitive things out to avoid any confusion from staff. And if we could get consensus on that, I think those are two things that majorly improve this policy. Column labeled traditional punitive model. So, um, thank you for bringing us back to removing the word detention. I heard that. And then this is

270the diff, this isn't the table that you've already mentioned as >> the same table. >> It's the same table. So, we're talking about pay the table and removing um the word detention. And we're looking to see if we have consensus around those two things. Um, so do we need any discussion around that before we have any cher >> you can change that in the table. It also means you have to go in and change more of the language, right? Because the language is all about the table is how we're moving from traditional to restorative. Um, the chart is designed to clearly illustrate this shift. So, you just might need to tinker with some more of that language. Okay. >> I'm sorry. We're expanding this the scope of edits. Now, >> um Miss Carter and Miss

271Chavez, >> I'm fine with those changes, but I don't think that they make any substantive difference to what this policy does. So, I would like to I'm wondering are folks in favor of having a principal supervisor review potential suspensions for students disabilities through grade five? Are there concerns about that? We haven't discussed that. It sounds like there's one person at least that does not want to not allow suspensions for elementary school students for level 1B offenses. So, also curious to hear what others think about that. I think of the two I feel more strongly about the um because I feel more strongly about the review for students disabilities. I'm going to hitch my horse to one of those. All right. Do we have consensus on the other two things that we mentioned before we go

272back to um talking about uh principal supervision um reviewing before suspensions of K5 specifically as it relates to students with disabilities. Um there's two things. So, I saw I saw um a question about that, but I want to make sure that we're talking about the first thing that we were looking for consensus for before we move on to that discussion really quickly. Um I saw your hand. Um Vice Chair Rogers, do you want to hold your until after that consensus? Okay. So, do we have consensus on the first two? Do you want to say something before we get to that? I'm I'm talking about the the >> Oh, the first I thought we got cons. No, no, I don't want to say anything before that. >> Okay. So, regarding removing detention and um what was

273the and and removing the the the column from the chart around that has the punitive measures. Are we good with that? I don't see everyone's are we good regarding the removing the word detention and also amending that well removing the chart um which would require >> removing the column from the chart that talks about and then that would also require going back and amending the language to to to reflect that so that it makes sense. Are we good with that? I just need someone to repeat exactly in clarity what we're working on because I'm hearing bit pieces from over here then I'm hitting pieces over here. So can >> All right, let me give it a >> state. Yes. >> All right. So we're seeing if we have consensus to remove the word detention from

274that list on what was that page. Page six >> under determining supports and responses for behavior. >> So there was some examples that were given detention was more punitive in in those examples that were meant to be examples of restorative practices. So we want to remove the word detention from there. Then we also um there in the column that you see on I forget page >> four and five >> page four there's a co we want to remove that column that also lists all those punitive measures. just remove the whole column and then change adapt the language when they're referring to the column to not have that language in the policy anymore. So, it's those two things that we're seeing if we are sharing that that that is okay with the board. So, um is

275that okay? All right. I see everybody's hand. So, we're good with that. Now, the other conversation that we want to settle is around um preK through five and having them be exempt from uh the 1B infractions. Is that the conversation? And then also um either that or a PR some sort of principal supervisor review. Um Miss Chavez, I just wanted to say I think this is my last comment on the suspension piece. Um so I hear um you know what you were saying Dr. Lewis about sometimes um there there being a need to um uh to exclude a student from a space in order to kind of preserve the educational environment is kind of what I took away from what you said. um that to me speaks to the need for other alternatives within the

276school like a restorative practice center that is um fully supported and probably the need for more resources. So if we do not remove that, I would just say that I realize it takes resources and I know that students can do repeated things that are not necessarily rise to a certain level but they interrupt repeatedly the educational environment. In that case, I would just ask that that is something um that if we don't remove that from the policy tonight that that's something that administration look at how to create those alternative spaces within the school to a greater degree and maybe put more resources. I mean include that, you know, or prioritize that next year. I mean, we're just going through our budget now, but because I think that's really important to be able to not exclude

277students. It's like, you know, sometimes we need equitable uh measures, different things for different students. So that I mean I may be speaking the obvious but I and you all are already working on this but I think that I want to lift that up that if all if suspension is like the only option when a student repeatedly you know does something annoying um or you know curses or something um I mean that can be you know then um then what are we creating within the school environment ultimately that would keep our kids with us in school but and not have us put them out. You know, I understand the wakeup call to some parents and that kind of thing, too. But that's Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. >> Absolutely. 100%. And just to be clear,

278I wasn't speaking of anything that was like annoying or cursing. It was like we have to clear a classroom, you know. >> Okay. >> Tables to that degree. When I say it's impacting the learning environment, I that's why I was meaning it that way. >> More aggressive levels of um of interruption. Okay. All right. The way I'll say the way it reads now, it does say it's like all of those 1B things, you know, which include disrespect and things like that. Okay. That's my last comment on that. I also favor the review for all kids with disabilities. Um Okay. All right. Any other any other comments? Rogers. Oh. Um, chairs. >> Just a couple of of things. I think we've done a lot on this policy and I don't want to belver the moment tonight.

279What I I think I asked this question the last time we talked about it was how do we keep kids in school? How are we re making sure students are engaged in learning? I don't want any student student going home for suspension, but what's the assignment when they do go home so they come back ready to engage in learning the next day is the other part I'm thinking about. What's the pot of resources that central office might have available for some student? So, was that look like space in a school? Does it look like a social worker that's going to touch base with that student while they are home for that day? Because just being home for the day doesn't automatically mean a reset. But if I send you home with some kind of here's

280some assignments, I want to see you back. this is what we're going to do. Like that creates a different um different kind of reflection for that student that hopefully is bringing them back ready to reset for the next day. So I think there's work to do. I feel a little um I feel a little anxious about saying no when we are moving around social workers and and assistant principles. And I don't want to see kids suspended at all. And so I want to figure out in our maybe central office resources, are there ways that we can be supporting individual schools as we're moving around personnel because of other a lotment reasons, right? So I want us to get creative in the central office space around how we're supporting because I think it was a small

281we had 10 kids on the on the chart the other day. Like how are we supporting those 10 to make sure they're staying in school and what does that look like on the central office end to support those students. Um the other question you asked around review for students with disabilities if we're going to do that I would actually like to see it K12 and I don't know or pre-K12 and I don't know if we have the resources for that because I know we have a large number of of students here in our district that qualify for right IEP and and 504 services but I just think those um comp com compounding factors sometimes can come out all over the place and when I really think about upper elementary school and middle school when students

282are starting to get disconnected with school that bleeds into what happens in high school. Do they finish? Right? And so I I appreciate that the recommendation and the ask. I'm not sure we're there yet, but I wonder how we get to the place where we're reviewing all of those for K12 all the way through. I I have um a question um because I'm not sure where this came from in the policy, but on the same issue about review of preK of your EC students on page seven at the bottom of the first paragraph, it ends and there's been language that's been added in determining an appropriate disciplinary response. Principles must also consider any applicable individualized educational program or section 504 plan and ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws governing ch students with

283disabilities. I don't know the purpose of this, but as I read this, it is very vague. And if I was a parent of an EC child who was suspended, I would say that you are not permitted under this policy to to remove my child if there is any violation of the IEP. My child didn't get readaloud in math. And this policy says you need to ensure compliance with the IEP. The IDEIDA in 2004 was reauthor was reauthorized. Prior to that time, what that said was under the manifestation determination review was that children with disabilities could not be suspended. And one of the reasons was if there was if there was a determination that the IEP was not being followed. Congress removed that language because what it was creating was two separate codes of conduct. Any

284any incident in which the IEP wasn't being implemented, like read aloud in math class, even if what you did was punch your assistant principal in the face, would be determined to be a manifestation. And so they were finding that children with disabilities were not being subjected to the code of conduct because it's not difficult to find minor violations of the IEP. And that's so they changed that. So it's now a different standard under the MDR where it's you have to have a direct or substantial relationship. Any violation of the IEP or failure to provide FAPE has to be a direct and substantial relationship to the disability that's being recommended for removal. So, I'm very concerned about this paragraph um because I it it's vague and and I'm not sure its purpose. >> Miss Carter, >>

285thank you. Attorney Merchen, [clears throat] this was um that's very helpful and I can explain the why I recall it being added. Um and this was written, I think, by um Attorney Weber. I checked with him. He didn't know how this got in here. you didn't write this language. >> Okay, then maybe staff know. I think it was in response to some requests that we add um a student's disability status as a mitigating factor and concerns around that that seemed to be aligned with what you're explaining here now about the history there and yet a desire for there to be some evaluation or acknowledgment of what whether those child that child's needs were being met at the time that the incident happened. So, I hear the legal concerns with this and I'm wondering if there's

286a way to still this just says principles have to consider applicable IEP or 504 and then of course we have to comply with the law which we have to do anyway. So, >> but but what's the purp I mean and ensure compliance with all I mean that's I I don't know how that's relevant to whether or not you can move forward. So if I, like I said, if I was an attorney for a parent, I would say this suggests that you can't take any disciplinary action if you can't ensure compliance or an event that there was. It doesn't make sense to me. Do >> you have a recommendation for modifying that sentence to make it? >> My recommendation would be um removing this sentence alto together um because I'm not sure what it adds. I

287think there was concern about adding a child's disciplinary or uh disability status as a mitigating factor because that what that would mean was that every child with ADHD will say it's mitigating and I should not be suspended like it it would lead to a lot of challenges. So the the mere fact that someone has a disabling condition and there's lots of disabling conditions um we have a process for making sure that children who are engaging in behavior that's related or substantially related to the disability cannot be suspended and removed from school. That's the MDR process. I I don't know that there needs to be additional protection above that. That's how that process works. Now if there is in if there's a need to build greater capacity about what that process is of course we do

288training on that but but but that's how that process is designed to work but doesn't m happen after 10 days meaning the child could be suspended for 10 days before that evaluation happened. The guidelines in this district is that it should happen within 3 days or two days if possible. >> Yeah. So there's you're saying there's not a way to sort of have it in there as a consideration that's that's mitigating to help the child but never aggravating. You couldn't put it in the list and you couldn't end it after the like take out that and ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws governing students with disabilities. You that would still cause you great discomfort. So keeping I think you're if you're proposing in determining keeping in determining an appropriate disciplinary response, principles

289must also consider any applicable IEP or section 504 plan. >> Period. Period. >> Yeah. Must or may like whatever like must. Yeah. We're trying to help and not hurt in the outcomes of students with IEPs and 504s. >> So if I was a principal, I guess my question would be what am I supposed to consider about the IEP or 504? I'm not sure that that's helping me as a principal to understand what it is you want me to consider. So it seems vague, >> Mich but I feel like it's coming at the 11th hour and I didn't know there was any concern with this sentence and so now I feel like um and we were talking about the review of prek through 5 or prek through 12. So, I would like to finish that conversation

290and then I I understand this is about kids with disabilities as well. But I think that it just feels like last minute to me because we've already gone through policy committee all the meetings talked about this a whole lot and this hasn't come up and I don't know exactly when this was added but I just need to um it feels like something a whole new consideration right now at 10 after 10 o'clock. Um, and so, um, and I could see it meaning different things, but I would really need to, I don't know, look at it in a different light. So, I'm wondering if we can finish the conversation on review first and get consensus around that. Yes. Um, go back to Nancy. I've lost the language for what the consensus was for. or I don't

291know if we ever formed that language for what the consensus was for the ask around the um the the um 1B and fractions for prek through five. So I'd like to make a motion that we add um language into the policy that requires uh principal supervisor review for students with disabilities. And that's just for the 4301.1 the elementary school policy. I hear what Cherom said. Ideally that would be for all grades but I think this could be a kind of a test case for our youngest students to see how that goes and then we could consider expanding it later. >> Principal supervisor review for >> prior to suspending students disabilities >> prior to prior to suspending students with disabilities. So I heard a motion but I heard seconding >> second >> there. Okay. Any discussion?

292>> Just add a clarifying question for staff. Principal supervisors are required to review all suspensions for elementary school students. Is that correct? Sorry. Can you say that on the microphone? principles are are required to consult with principal supervisors before implementing K2 suspensions. >> K2 suspensions. So that would include whatever um other statuses a student might have. Right. >> It would. >> So are we asking >> and I do want to I I do want to stipulate that it is a consultation not approval. So are we was the amendment to supervise for principal supervisors to review um K2 or K5 prior to suspending students with disabilities >> uh preK5. So in this version of the policy, there's already some modifications to add a principal supervisor review for before suspension of prek through two students just generally

293and that's what chairs just asked about. So that's in the existing modifications. Um what I'm proposing, my motion is to include extend that principal supervisor review um prior to suspension of students disabilities for all preK through five. All right. I see I saw Miss Byer and then I saw Did we have a second? >> Oh, we didn't hear a second. Oh, Miss Chavez seconded. So, I'm wondering if we've made significant enough changes to this that this is going to need to come back in on the 25th or whatever and whether we could kind of get to where we put a pen in this because I don't see the pen is not a motion, but I don't see how you consider what y'all are asking and what your motion asks for without understanding the point that

294Miss Merchesen made um which I don't care when something comes up it it came up and it's significant for us to wrestle with and so I'm still wrestling with it but that the two are related and to me it's it's I'm not even sure where y'all are trying to put this language in. You're trying to modify I'm not even clear what y'all are saying. You're trying to say principles must conduct a review of prior interventions and a consultation with principal supervisor before the principal imposes a short-term suspension for grades prek to two and for any student with pre prek to five with an IEP or a 504. Is that what where and how y'all are your motion reads? which also goes to what she's saying that we're adding vulnerability for the district of this blanket

295thing that we've tried to do to help students with IEPs and 504s, but we're actually it feels not helpful. Um, so I'm I'm still struggling and wrestling with those concepts and how they're we need to spend some more time wrestling with them and probably not at the 11th hour. Um yeah. So my two questions were one for administration um around how what the workload would look like for the review for students with disabilities from preK through fifth grade. Any idea? So consulted with my colleagues in preparation um for this evening. Um and so um in speaking with the elementary assistant superintendent um that supervised principles um there is no way to know exactly um how this would land. Um but they definitely were open and said that this is something that they can set some

296structures up to add in the additional request. Um we're not really sure what that response time or what that would look like. It would depend on the frequency today. Um so we would we would have to to see. Um, I also wanted to make sure that we didn't put schools in a space where um, even though it is consultative, we want to make sure that we have a response to the families and the students for whatever decisions are being made in a timely way. And there's no way to be able to guesstimate that um, at this time. >> Thank you. And then I guess my question for my colleagues is what are we looking for the outcome of the review to be? Under what circumstances would a principal supervisor be like, "No, I strongly advise

297this out of school suspension. I encourage you to do what are we want them to be encouraging to do? And how are we going to ask the superintendent to be accountable to that and monitor that long term?" Miss Cart. So I think this um I appreciate those questions and I think that it's part of my vision is reducing the number of out of school suspensions for students disabilities and I think a couple ways you do that is like on the front and the back end once like one principles have a lot going on and if they're the main the only person making this decision without consulting somebody else whether I maybe ideally someone with expertise in exceptional children or in disabilities but if not then maybe principal supervisor, right? Get someone else's feedback on this

298to figure out is this the most appropriate thing given what this child's needs are and how they acted out like kind of weighing that so that on the front end there's a further layer of review and assessment with the idea the end goal of reducing the number of those kids that are out of school on the back end. It would also be nice to have review of the data periodically of like what was happening like what happened why were those kids suspended is that what we want to be doing here in our district. So, I think both of those, but the simplest now to put in this policy to just move a little bit forward would be that I'm fine if this comes back to the board on June 25th with some recommendations given the

299discussion today related to the language that Attorney Merches flagged as being concerning related to this, related to the table, and then the board can kind of look at it and not be making major decisions at the 11th hour, but see it again. But Feels good. Do we want to Oh, I see. Chairstead. >> My only concern about that is we're I think summer leaders uh leadership retreat is on June 23rd. We have um which means all the principles are going to get trained on these new policies as well as like year- round school starting in July. And so I I hesitate to be doing that work after we had time intentionally with our principles to talk about what this looks like. Uh so here might be a compromise that we take out some of the

300language that we felt like was challenging for the district. Um and on the 20 what is it 25th staff brings back some proposals around procedures that can help us get to this goal around decreasing suspensions. Right. And so I as you were talking Miss Cardott and I was thinking about like are there questions um that could help frame up how we're talking about these conversations differently right like all principal supervisors or APs and principles get a set of questions that help them think through is this the right course of action or there something else like there are other ways we can get to this means and um the ends that we're trying to get to and if we're going to make changes for next school year we need to be starting that process early to

301give staff the time to create the right processes procedures and resources ideally before a budget season because if there are budget implications we need that in a budget ask right and so they can be fully implementing that I don't want to put our schools in a position where we have made a policy change but haven't done the adaptive work to make sure their leaders are ready for adapting that change um is there anybody who can entertain a motion for The motion on the floor was to Okay. So, and it was seconded. Um, and we vote on that motion. The motion was to add the language for principal supervisors um to review preK through 5 prior to suspending students with disabilities. Um, that was the language. >> Gooff. >> Yes. There's one other possibility, and I

302raise this up only because I hear some hesitation by one or two board members about whether they're ready to vote on this. You could, if anyone is so inclined, make a motion to table this item until X. And when you table discussion of this policy to a def definite time, whether it's the 25th or another time, the motion that's on the floor will go with that so that when you begin the discussion, the motion is still active and it just travels with that. So that's a possibility if the board's not ready to take action. But >> that doesn't help administration at the leadership conference. >> Okay. >> Right. And and if we go ahead and if we go ahead and vote, even if we vote it down, we can still raise it again if it

303comes back. >> You can >> um if it comes back. Um so the motion is on the floor. So um all those in f Oh, Dr. >> Yeah, I I do want to acknowledge and and and you know, I get I don't want this to be a you know um problem in search of a solution. We we have been decreasing our um suspension data overall specifically for students with disabilities from two years ago around 15% down to 10% last year and that's all that's K12 and so I would venture to guess if we look at that elementary data it's even smaller than that and so just want to make sure we're making data data informed decisions as well. We're not there yet but we are making progress. Just wanted to make sure that was in

304the space. I just want to speak too that you know this policy has come so far. Um there's a lot of really good things that are already included. It's come a long way and um it's it is you know it would be the policy but nothing is written nothing is so much in stone that it can't come back. you know, it might be such that a policy gets to a place to where, you know, we put it back, it gets tiered again to address a specific thing that now has been illuminated because of all the work that's been done on it. So, we can also consider um you know, if we make a change, that doesn't mean that we can't bring it back again in another policy season after it's been amended to address specific

305things instead of the whole policy. I mean, that's that's the purpose of policy committee. I'm sure things will continue to be living documents and learn and grow. So, um, we need a vote. So, um, all those in favor, does everybody understand the motion that's on the floor that we're voting on? Okay, good. >> Okay. Principal supervisors, we're asking to um this this motion is for to add language that says principal supervisors will review um prek through five suspensions prior to suspending students with disabilities. Okay. >> I'll say so all those in favor >> I all those opposed I >> All right. So it passes 43. Yes. I'd like to make another motion that we um with regards to the sentence that attorney Merchesen flagged that we just cut that second part of the sentence out

306for the sake of simplicity after the word 504 plan after the words 504 plan to add a period there and cut the rest of it. second with the if you'd consider the friendly amendment that it we change the must to a may >> it has to be a second and then >> sure that's how I was saying it >> so it has been moved I hear a second >> I seconded it and then I would like I was trying to find it again but I was trying to to alleviate the concern that attorney Merchesen had And one way was to take that last chunk and also to consider changing the word must that a principal must consider it to may consider it and then it I think alleviates even more of your concern. That's what

307I was going to suggest. >> I'm looking for the must. >> Does that attorney Mercherson and what about the word what about shall as a middle ground? >> Shall is the same as must in a in a legal So I think we had we have your motion um Miss Carden Alton Al I'm not sure was that seconded motion to end the sentence after the word section 504 plan. >> I seconded that and I was really wanting your feedback on the must to may to actually as a friendly amendment. >> So I think that is helpful to have that change to May from a principal perspective. I still am not sure what I'm supposed to do with that um in determining it. We may consider the applicable IEP or 504 plan. That doesn't help me understand

308what I'm supposed to be considering, but I but I am more comfortable with the word may than must. Um, it's been moved by Miss Scar and seconded by Miss Natalie Byer to amend the sentence on page six and to seven. Um, with a friendly amendment to change the word must to may and then to um delete after delete the words and ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. governing students with disabilities. Is there any discussion? >> The amendment hasn't been accepted. The friendly amendment hasn't been accepted. >> Okay. Um >> I could accept it. >> Miss Carten has to say >> All right. So has Miss Miss Carter, would you be a me, you know? >> Yes, that's fine. >> Okay. So now now it's for discussion. >> Oh, yeah. A process point.

309Who who did the track changes in pink and who did the track changes in purple? Is it two different staff member? And also I'm kind of okay cuz I'm wondering how we got here. I was just looking back at the other the last draft we reviewed in policy committee. >> I think that um the pink and the purple are times in different drafts. I think one is the first um set of revisions and then the second or the second the other color is the second set of revisions. >> Okay, thank you. Um and then I was just kind of wondering why this we don't have the answer this why it maybe didn't get attorney review before it came to us. Um >> oh of course I'm not in those >> it did. Oh, okay. It

310did. >> Yeah, I'm I'm not in those meetings but when I spoke to Mr. Weber today he indicated that he's not sure where that language came from and that when he was last in the policy meeting he didn't think that that had been added. It seemed new to him. >> It seems I mean I know well staff has been working on this a lot and is indicating that there was some attorney review. So I don't I mean so it sounds like somebody reviewed that and I don't know what happened but but not Jason not in the policy committee but yeah. Okay. Miss Cardon, >> um just returning to the issue of there being inconsistency in the max number of days for um suspension um for the 1B. So if we're going to keep the possibility

311of out of school suspension for 1B violations and one place it says two and another place says five. Is the intent two days maximum? So, can we change at the bottom of page 10 the maximum the up to five days to ensure consistency then? >> Could could we get a vote on the motion motion first? >> Yeah, we need to vote on this motion. >> All right. So, motion's on the floor. All those in favor? >> I >> Any opposed? >> Uh, no. All right. So, this motion is approved six to one. And Miss Carter Autton, did you want to make another motion? I move that we amend um at the bottom of page five, we amend possible suspension up to five days to possible suspension up to two days to align with and make

312consistent with other language in the policy about the maximum length of suspension for a 1B violation. Assuming I'm reading that correctly, just trying to make this consistent. >> Can you say which chunk you're in? Because my page five I don't is a track changes version. Are you in the >> No, at the bottom of page 10. >> 10. Thank you. Hasn't gotten a second yet. >> Second. been moved by Miss Carter Autton, seconded by Chair Umstead to on the bottom of page 10 to make consistent uh to change it from 5 days to two days the number of days of suspension for consistency. Could I could I just get I'm not sure where you are. Is this in school interventions and supports possible suspension of up to 5 days with aggravating factors? Is that where

313you are? you want to change that to up to two days with aggravating factors. >> Any discussion? >> I I'm just trying to figure out because this policy is so massive to make sure that is consistent throughout and the staff that worked on it. I don't even know why it says with aggravating there. Is this is this edit making this policy consistent is I guess what I'm asking and y'all have spent more time in it than I have. Miss Carter Austin, do you know can you direct us where the policy you were referencing the two days? I believe it is making it more consistent, but I did send this question in advance um yesterday. Just didn't receive a response to whether I was seeing something that wasn't inconsistency or not. Um the two days is

314one place that exists is at the bottom of page eight where it's detailing the response to 1B violations. is the one that you had read earlier, Attorney Merchesen, about generally resulting in in school, but what happens if how it gets to the out of school? >> Well, the two days is back up on page seven in the track changes on the two days. The appropriateness of an out of no more than two days is there. Yes, there also. I guess I'm not even sure why on page 10 it talks about aggravating. Um well on the page seven that has to do with your prek to two second graders I think that language of no more than two days >> on page >> what about page eight does it aggravating >> under level oneb on page

315eight. >> Mhm. >> It says no more than 5 days. >> It looks like there it says no more than two days. Under level one B, the principal must consult with the principal supervisor and student support services to determine appropriateness of an out of school suspension of no more than two days for level 1B violations. And then in 10 where this is what you flagged Miss Cardon. I think at the bottom of page 10 it indicates >> up to five days with aggravating factors. So it appears that that would make it consistent. It goes to two So the hour is getting bias and um >> there's a motion on the floor. Um so the level Okay. So what we're the question the the discussion is that if we make this change can will can we

316make this change consistent throughout policy? Do we have to be more specific than that? Um or that the intention of this motion was to make it consistent so that it would be two days instead of five days. Could I could I help rephrase that motion? >> Sure. >> A motion to amend the policy to clarify that suspensions um under 1B are limited to a maximum of two days. All right. So, that's an emot. Is that a an a good amendment? >> Yes. That's great. >> All right. So, >> second. [laughter] It's been moved and seconded to amend the pol amend the motion on the floor to um say um to clarify that suspensions would >> to limit the length of suspensions to two days >> under under uh oneb two days >> under one B

317to more to know to limit to clarify to limit this is the the number of suspensions to 2 days under level 1B >> and to limit the length of out of school suspensions under 1B to no more than two days. >> Okay. And does that satisfy the consistency that we need to make sure that we have throughout the the policy? All right. Um is there any more discussion? All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Right. It passes. Um, we have not gotten to >> Yeah. move that we take policy 4301 and policy 430 one 4301.1 elementary and 4301.2 secondary. Um we approve them at with the amendments as approved this evening >> for second reading. It is yeah second. >> Oh this is second read. So we're approving it for second

318read adoption >> for adoption. Okay. >> For finally adoption. [laughter] >> So uh it's been moved by Miss Byer seconded by was it Mr. Tab? Second by Miss Carter Autton to approve for adoption policy 4301.1 and policy 43 01.2 um with the clarifications we've discussed today. Um >> as as amended >> as amended for second read or adoption as amended for adoption. Okay. Um, is there any discussion? All those in favor? >> I I Any opposed? It passes unanimously. All right. U, my question is that um we still have we have three other items under policy. Um, I want to know if um the board would be amendable to tableabling. Is there a way that we can table some of these to another board meeting? >> Yeah. >> Well, I'm not saying >> you can

319say no. That is that is true. But I'm wondering with the administration are any of these that are remaining critical crucial to address today because we are preparing for the beginning of the school year. Um before we consider whether or not we should move any anything. I at least want to consider um D lessons learned from policy committee. I think we can move that conversation to our next board meeting if the board is okay with that. And I'm wondering about these other policies. Um I know where, you know, some things are of time consideration for us having the discussion and moving things forward so we know what to do before the start of the new school year. [clears throat] Okay. So, go ahead and do that now or move that now. All right. And I

320see Mr. Tab's hand. I was going to just Can you comment like >> just going to say 4307 is there are some minor updates and that will align with the other previous policy we just discussed to get that done before the leadership retreat. >> Okay. And regarding the the grievance procedure, also the grievance policy, want to know, you know, get some some feedback from the board about whether we want to discuss that now or if that is something that we can discuss at the next board meeting. Mr. Tab, >> thank you very much. Um, as one board member, I would love to to have uh Dr. Bell complete policy 437. Uh and then if it's the pleasure of the board that we can table policy 1750, the grievance policy as well as lessons learned to

321a to a future board meeting. Um we do have graduation tomorrow morning and we still have to go in close session. So I want to be respectful of people's time. >> Um he did you didn't pose that as a motion but >> No. Well, I just said I just wanted to see how you all feel with that and then I I would do the motion. >> Make your motion. >> Okay. What I just said, I I make that motion. >> Second. All right. It's I see a hand. You have to repeat the motion. Okay. So, so >> I make a I make a motion that we table policy 1750 and lesson learned to uh to the upcoming board meeting >> June 25th. >> Second. All right. It's been moved by Mr. tab seconded by Miss

322Byer that we table um policy time >> 1750 and uh lessons learned from the policy committee process to the June 25th board meeting. Is there any discussion miss? >> I want I'm not necessarily opposed to that um because I do like sleep also. My one concern is that would be putting a first read of a policy on at a board meeting. Um so just wondering what others how others feel about that. Um it's not ideal but yeah I agree. It's definitely not ideal but I do agree with Mr. Tab that we are pushing everyone to their limits especially with graduations tomorrow. There any other comments? All right. Um, all those in favor? >> I I >> I. >> Any opposed? It passes unanimously. All right. So, policy, where are we? policy of disciplinary action for

323exceptional children, students with disabilities. Um, right, Miss Bill, are you presenting this? Well, I just wanted to make a brief note about the precies for this item to um let the public know that inadvertently the wrong preces had been uploaded earlier and so we replaced it with the correct prices. So just to kind of lead with that that was an administrative error. So now the correct prices has been posted and I will pass it over to Dr. Bell if that's okay. And before Dr. Bell starts, I do want to remind the board that this one is on the agenda for first read. And so in order for us to get this ready for the leadership retreat, the board, if if it's the will of the board, would have to wave second read if they'll approve

324it tonight. If you all approve it tonight, >> I think I think this one was up for discussion. I think we reviewed it at the last policy committee meeting and um you can tell by the track changes that additional language was included to reference IDEIDA and 504. um and other guiding laws and policies um as well as referencing 504 and a um an ask was bless you to also reference other existing DPS board policies that referenced suspensions so that parents when they're looking at this policy or other community members um could have that reference to other disciplinary policies because currently for students with disabilities students with disabilities follow the code of conduct right that all applies to them um the only difference as Miss Min had said earlier was with MDRs when manifestation determinations kick

325in and all of those policies are outlined in our North Carolina policies governing services for children with disabilities which are the state policies. Um so I don't know if there were questions from the board that language was added referencing existing policies regarding discipline and we added some clarifying language in the beginning um I think defining students with disabilities and other references to policies and laws. Miss Bayer, >> you have any wisdom on the footnote? I know what the DAT group wants us to not something but can you say what that footnote any either of you know what that is? >> Sure. So one I would say that this policy is not a required policy and many districts don't have this policy doesn't a general is just a general thought. This footnote um comes from Fairington

326Smith because there's concern that in your long-term suspension policy, policy 433, I'm sorry, that's not 4303, it's um Thank you. Yeah, it references um long-term it's it's referenced in the long-term suspension portion only. Um and and of course that doesn't apply only to long-term suspension. It also doesn't accurately reflect the requirements. So I recognize that that pol this other policy is not um being brought forward at the same time. I'm concern you know the concern from our office is that this is going to create some inconsistency that can't really be rectified today or in a month. But I would recommend that very early on in the policy committee work next year that those policies be put at the top of the agenda so that we can get consistency quickly with those policies. So, if that

327can be taken up quickly by the policy committee at the start of the year as as what it is that they're going to be looking at next year, that would be very helpful. >> Any other comments, questions? Miss Chavez? >> Um, so we it doesn't seem to me we need to set a footnote because it's more like a a process thing to bring back these policies. >> That footnote wouldn't be part of the policy. This is that that is just a comment. So if you approve it, that wouldn't be part of that. That's just a note from Yeah. >> Okay. >> I make a motion that we adopt 437 as presented and wave second reading. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Miss Byer, seconded by Miss Rogers to approve policy 4307 for second reading.

328Um, did I capture all that? >> And wave second reading. >> Oh, and wave and wave second reading for adoption. >> Yep. >> Any It's a sec. It's already second. Any any discussion? [laughter] It's getting late. Y. All right. All those in favor? I I >> All any opposed? It passes unanimously. Just look, I turned off my mic. I was ready to go. All right. Um, so where are we now? I think the next items on the agenda are for information only. Um, are there any summary of follow-up items? So for the follow-up items on the budget update, um [clears throat] there were comments written around s um concerns regarding sustaining the increases for the future followup. What does it look like to reduce the increase for higher paid staff? Um, there was a question

329around understanding the aotment cuts and the clarification on the art aotment cuts. The rest of these notes look like just notes and comments. Mr. Teter, did you have anything else? Is a specific followup. Share Mike. Sorry. Thank you. So, I think I also have um also have in my notes uh that we will um provide an update on the board's individual uh the board's budget um and and then as well as we'll come back after having taken another look at what some other options might be uh for for some cost-saving measures that are alternatives to what we proposed. Um and then we'll um follow up on whether so the the employees that were reported under the 1922 per hour will follow up and report on how many of those are part-time versus full-time um to

330to honor that board question uh that we had earlier. Um and then also u taking a look at the um the movement of interpreters uh from the salary study that happened two years ago. And then for the CIP update, um there was a request that to bring the RFP to include the plan scope work including community engagement timeline for engaging with the board in a budget and a question around um how do consultants work together third party right sizing in the UNCC school of government and a question around the lobs funding for shovel ready projects and county resources for financing projects. And those were the major pieces under that one. And I believe that's all the specific follow-up items that were captured tonight. Board members, anything else you want to lift up for follow-up items?

331Did that capture it? >> I see Miss John, board chair, I mean, chair by uh I see that you have I see it on your face. If there's something that you're thinking we're meeting >> Yeah. I I don't maybe I don't know if we full got consensus on this, but bringing back um at the board meeting kind of a plan for reviewing the students that um qualify for exceptional children services. Some type of plan for staff to be looking at those. Could be wrong. There's not consensus. We have to do it. Um, can you I think I'm in favor of that, but can you share more to make sure that we're on the same page, please? >> I think when we this I brought this up when we were discussing adding that language to the

332policy and instead of adding the language that staff would review or was it principal supervisors would review all >> suspensions for students with uh students who qualify for exceptional services. We would restrike that language but ask staff to bring a plan or some procedures around reviewing those suspension recommendations for students who qualify for exceptional children services. I am in favor of that. But we did approve that language tonight. So I would it would be in addition to that review by the principal supervisors. The board would also be seeing a plan for >> Okay, never mind. >> All right. Um, >> I I think there were other things that we talked about that y'all will catch on on review, but I can't really articulate them right now. Um, >> under otherwise, I would move that we

333go into close session for the reasons stated on the agenda. It's been moved by Miss Byer. Oh, nobody's second. Second, not move. Moved by Miss Byer, seconded by by Miss Chavez that we go into close session for the items stated on the agenda. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? It's approved unanimously. Thank you so much for if you have stayed with us this long and we will not be returning after close session. We won't be streaming after close session. So, thank you very much.