001All right, that's that's new this month, right? Like I didn't say that. Okay, >> that was like good evening everyone. We're going to jump right in. Um, thank you all for adjusting your schedules today. I know it was last minute. Um, we have a brief time together. So, um, we were going to have a discussion about the school calendar as well, but we're going to push that to December for our citizens advisory committee, um, because there are two things we want to focus on this month. Um, the first one is going to be the finalizing the advocacy letter and then the department of education actually sent out a survey regarding school funding with six different components of which some of them are very applicable to our district. So, we wanted to discuss that as well.
002Um we'll start off with the letter. Uh Mr. Moralda, if you want to take over that. >> Thank you. And uh I'll try to be very quickly uh quick. So uh last meeting we had two uh I presented the two letters that we had worked on uh on our previous campaign. Uh what you have in front of you are two new versions of that letter. Um with the feedback collected from the committee uh inclusive of the board integrated into those two letters. uh while the letters the letter uh draft A uh refers specifically to the school funding formula and draft B uh still talks about school funding but through the lens of full day kindergarten the thought was that uh in pursuant to the department of education's release of the survey if we were to
003uh accompany uh our letter with the timing of that survey directed to the state legislature as Mr. Stratton pointed out, you know, that these two initiatives are functioning from different areas of the government. Uh the survey is being facilitated by the Department of Education while uh the legislature we've been appealing to for the funding. Uh so this first letter uh references Senator Gopal's proposed legislation um but also reminding uh the state legislators that our district has been uh underfunded and uh we just asking them to uh consider our district for additional funding. One of the uh some of the key changes to this letter from the prior letters is that we actually tried to tie our uh appeal to S3917 um to kind of talk about uh uh the way that we could support some
004of these unfunded mandates through some unique funding mechanisms but also bringing to their attention the uniqueness of our learning community. Uh so you could see that and I did receive some feedback from some of the committee me members via email and if I did so we tried to integrate that into the letter as well. Uh these letters are up on drive for. Uh the second letter uh speaks specifically to full day kindergarten and the uh the uh political talking points and mandates and all the other fun stuff that accompanies this hot topic uh not just uh concerning Monroe but the state at large. This letter speaks specifically to the situation here in Monroe and also asked the appropriation committee budget committee to target funding to help us uh and other districts that are currently in
005this position. Uh this letter is drafted in a manner that is specific to Monroe but potentially could be utilized by other districts in our vote. So if we wanted to form that coalition that you had mentioned before, we could potentially begin that with this letter and say, "Hey, you know, obviously it could be tailored to meet your district's need." And then that might be a powerful gesture. Um, couple things that are not in this letter that I know we are interested in. Itemized costs that pertain to this project simply because we don't have them yet. Um, but when when that time comes, we could integrate those costs in specifically because like we did in previous advocacy letters, we think that sometimes when you have things like BDA uh toilets and and boilers and chillers and
006stuff, it makes it a little easier for the state to act. Um, in addition to this, as I mentioned, we have uh updated our website. So, once these letters are finalized and made uh to be distributed, we could have two separate sections on our advocacy website. One that pertains to school funding, one that pertains to full day kindergarten and everything in between. So, uh that's where the two letters are. Now I know that um the former letter full funding formula probably has a a little more urgency behind it because we want to release this in tandem with the collection of the the survey. >> Uh so I don't know if you want to start there. >> Yep. Um, I think that would good. And then I just without, you know, going into that like the
007letter too specifically, um, I think if we can, you know, looking at this letter and sort of, you know, because we're going to take a look at the survey now, um, maybe making talking points directly from the survey, you know, without like knowing exactly what's there, um, that might be helpful. Well, you know, the only thing I was going to say, and this is coming from me, who's probably more wordy than most of the people sitting at this table, um, but I think if maybe we could like have less in there while still making our our points and maybe more of like an action plan. Um, I like we've had this discussion for a long time, but I feel like we need to give them like these are the steps that we need because I
008think we obviously need to address the problem, but I I also think if our legislators don't know the problem by now, then we've got a bigger problem. Um, but just how can you help us solve it? you know, understanding like the we can't give them exact costs, but perhaps just saying like here's an approximate amount and if you can market it as utilized for full day kindergarten, working at like the full day kindergarten, then if it's, you know, if we don't need that much for capital funds or expenses that we can use it for staffing costs or other things so that way we're still able to utilize those funds. But I know like that's one of the things that they've always come back to us like you know give us a number >> they want
009specifics >> and I know we have to be careful with that because we don't have those exact specifics but without that I feel that we might not be successful no matter how many times we explain the problem right >> um but I think as far as like the school funding component maybe going through the survey might help um to sort of like I guess get those talking points >> for like consistency and things like so just to to address the the cost piece. So the design study the end product of that will be project to add on to or modify for the long-term solution for kindergarten. >> That's the number that we've been looking to have for probably, you know, many years. Um, and now that we're in a position to have that, I think
010that that would be the ask in terms of a a one-time support, right? That's a project that could be a specific number could be asked for, utilized, completed, and executed, right? The other piece in terms of sustainable expenses, um, that would be staffing costs. We uh we're in the middle of the budget process. So, we're looking at staffing in sections and attrition uh with retirements and things like that. So, you know, coming out of the budget process, we'll have if if there is any new staff needed, we'll have that associated expense or if it can be absorbed through, you know, like a call attrition and enrollment changes and things like that, um we'll also have that to share. And then we have the money that was appropriated this year um to use towards some I
011would consider it non endgame capital expenses and things like that. So curricular materials, desks, tables, chairs, things like that. Those are things that we can address this year with that extra money. So, I would say if we're looking for something systemically fixing some of the extraordinary aid issues or something like that or reallocating and getting us more of the special need uh extraordinary aid and things like that that we qualify for, that is a long-term solution that helps us with our ongoing expenses. The one-time expenditure is that capital project a few classrooms here, a few classrooms there to undo the overcrowding that we live through um and put our buildings back to their operating standard operating process. Um that would be what I see as the long-term ask for, you know, onetime shot of a
012because we see this the state is not changing the formula for us for next year to help us support a sustained effort in full day. it would be another, you know, shot of funding to help get the wheels going or help fund a project or something like that. So, that's the way I see this rolling out. So, if you're, you know, asking for an an itemized list of expenses, that will be derived from that project design study that we approved last month and is in the process. They'll be on site tomorrow. Um, we've already, you know, exchanged uh building layouts and and things like that. They've been on site. They've walked the buildings. um they they're assessing the spaces and things and they'll come up with design ideas and projects. That's that kind of long.
013>> So just sort of thinking from what you're saying, I think for maybe today we focus more on the school funding component as it relates to the Department of Education survey and potentially any pending bills to modify the formula. Um I think that with the design study giving us that number ideally we will have that before the state starts to do their budget and because um that usually I know the governor usually gives his address in February then we usually start to get those numbers in March. So I think if we can hopefully aim and speak to the person, you know, the company doing the design study for the kindergarten by January, so we can sort of then go to our new legislators. Well, they're the same, but go to our legislators and say, you
014know, this is what we need based on the study that we had done. That will be our full day kindergarten element of it and we'll have those costs. Um, so I guess let's focus on like the the formula and the department of ed survey and sort of working on that. Um, so I guess moving to does anyone else have any feedback? I wanted to go to the department of ad survey. Go ahead. >> Um, yes. I thought both letters were really good. Um, I just had a suggestion or a thought about um this one sentence on the draft B. It says uh districts that face rapid growth, high senior population, and limited commercial tax bases require a nuanced funding model. Um the maybe it it might be better to say um districts that have a
015higher percentage of residents who are on fixed income because not every senior is on fixed income and not everybody who's on fixed income is a senior. I mean, there's some people on on disability that are not, you know, that are under 65. >> Um, and so I I think the because we've asked for state funding before and typically the response has been that supposedly we're a quote unquote wealthy district and uh instead of asking the state for money, we should just raise taxes. I mean, it's not that easy when you have a very high percentage of residents were on fixed income. It's why it's been difficult to pass referendums. Um, so I think the fixed income you know, aspect of it should be worked into itself. >> Sure. >> Agree. Because there are some senior
016you you you can apply to have your taxes frozen and it you know and a lot of the most of the seniors will do that. >> Yeah. >> So I mean you're not coming up with any high numbers. They're coming down for the seniors. So >> So just to piggy back because I understand what you're saying. I think for the purposes of the formula um one of the issues that we've had is that because of our higher percentage of seniors the way when they calculate the adequacy budget it's based on how many students we have um versus our wealth and so that's sort of I think where that like senior component comes in. Do you think that seniors on fixed income then? >> You know, >> um because when they calculate our total population, we
017have significantly more when you calculate the wealth based compared to the number of students that we have and that's why we end up with getting zero equalization aid because those numbers are not similar to most of the other districts. And then the other aspect that I, you know, we've sort of heard and I I wish that we could get these exact um this exact data is that all of the wealth that they believe stays in Monroe because we have a number of seniors who have, you know, homes in other places and things like that, the wealth isn't necessarily staying within our municipality. Um so they're calculating money that's not necessarily coming to us when it's supposed to. Um, I do see what you're saying though. I don't know if there's a better way to to
018word it. Um, >> how can we say it worded that we can get equalization made? I that's what my is in my mind. Is there some way that we can word it different? There was a there was a a bill that I have to go back and look that Senator Greenstein had tried to advocate for, but because there weren't enough other uh districts, municipalities at the time, it it never moved. That would allow for districts that had a higher number of um you know, senior citizens to get like a certain amount like $100 per senior because they realized that there was that like unbalance of that when they were looking at the equalization aid. Um, so I'm wondering if maybe if we find that bill that >> I was gonna say I could probably structure
019that sentence to similar to what you were suggesting with the survey to kind of be read similarly to what they're looking for. >> Yeah. And like she like um Sarah said specifically to those seniors that have maybe frozen frozen things that they're not putting into that >> right >> for a minute. the survey that you're talking about, is there a completion date for that? >> Yes. This week, I believe, right? Yep. So, that's why I felt like that was definitely the more urgent matter. >> So, the survey is uh something the DOE is putting out. They're exploring, gathering information on uh different policies that they have operating. So, the six different areas they're looking at gathering information on is the use of wealth measures in calculating state aid. That's exactly what you guys were just
020talking about, >> right? >> Limiting the amount by which state aid may change annually. >> And I'll go through kind of uh not the direct impact with Monroe, but how maybe a school district like ours would benefit from certain ways to answer these questions. applying greater flexibility to the tax levby growth limitation, the calculation of transportation aid, the calculation used for formula aid for special ed services, and then the reimbursement amounts for exceptionally high costs uh related to special education. So those are the six areas they're gathering information on. my initial read on the complexity of the t of the types of these questions. >> It's really something that you know even Laura and I had conversations about how to answer this in respect to what would benefit Monroe um for feedback from because and
021it asks you when you the first question on survey is who are you? Are you a stakeholder? Are you a taxpayer? Are you a district employee? Are you district administrator? So they they're going to, you know, sort the answers by who's answering as well. And there are many questions on here that I would not expect the majority of people who have access to this survey. Yeah. >> Uh yeah. >> Even even have like a an educated guess like you would just be throwing at it. So >> listening would not have anybody. So that's that's why I think I just wanted to take a moment to highlight some of the general themes that I would think of if someone's going to go through and provide this feedback just so it doesn't inadvertently steer it in a
022direction that doesn't >> benefit the district. >> It's not it's not designed for like your peripherally involved constituent to answer, >> right? >> You know, feeling really good about the answers. It's open to any >> public to anyone but people have to understand what the question >> is there a way for us to without telling people how to answer it guiding the bill. That was our kind of our gets back to like the referendum budget questions like we can provide facts, right? But >> that's what we'll do. We'll share information, but we're we're not putting out how to answer a question because some of these are truly as it some of these are totally there's one section that is totally appropriate for a resident uh to basically share how they would want their taxes to
023be impacted. That's 100%. We would never even imply what would be more beneficial. Um but like for example the first section talks about local resources and that is the uh um equalization aid section. So and and they have a nice little paragraph that speaks to what they did in 2026. But the question is is averaging multiple years of wealth data a better approach than using the most recent year alone in calculating equalization aid. So as a as a resident in county, you may or may not have that as an answer. So >> they changed that this past year because they they made it an average of I think three years. It used to be just one year. So I think they were asking is that something that they should continue or should it go back
024to just the most recent year. >> So we correct. So so I'm going to inform. So what what benefits I would believe any school construct and specifically Monroe is consistent consistent funding consistent data so an average doesn't have you immediately react react to any spike or decrease in anything >> so I would think when it's talking about should we consider instead of a year-toyear live response where you could get a spike and a decrease, you know, whether it's people moving in or a company moves in or whatever it is, an average would be providing a level of stability and consistency that a district would be supportive of, right? >> Just like we don't want a one-year expense one year that we have to scramble and cut things to to cover and then the next year
025now we have a gap that we can fill in with something that reinstate the programs we had to address. So, >> so in that sense, would you suggest that whatever the largest averages that they're offering would be better because it gives us the most consistent numbers because this I guess the smaller the average, the more direct it is from year to year. >> I think the danger with a large time frame is you also have a if you're consistently growing in wealth and found, if you have an average that's too long, you don't realize it as fast as you potentially may need it. So typically when we look at things we're probably a four or five year average is pretty stable. Um that way you know if you're seeing growth you're consistently growing. A two
026year or three year average is a little short. I would say a four or five in anything we look at it's is a trend or something that we look for. So um you know if you were to answer that question it gives you a whole bunch of things. Four or five 10 years. I think four or five is probably no matter anything financially we're looking at that would establish a trend but it would also minimize any spikes or decreases and not even just with wealth but you know enrollment you get a spike you get a decrease. So we're looking at you know change over time. So again we're not telling anybody how to answer but when it comes to looking at something over time an average is always a nice piece. >> So the question
027is different depending on what how you >> how you answer. Yeah. I'm just wondering because as as a district administrator, am I getting different questions than a resident? >> Oh, I didn't even think of that. >> No, no, you're getting the same questions, but if you answer yes, no, or unsure, your secondary questions are different. So, like if you answer yes to that, it gives you the choices of how many years do you prefer, right? So, Laura would look in this and probably have some sort of answer that she's thinking of with experience, whereas somebody else may not. >> It's funny because they're asking residents to weigh in on like transportation aid experience. So this really isn't something I mean because my initial thought was the more strength in numbers we have the better chance
028we have of change but >> it could end up you know >> backfiring >> right if people aren't answering it in the way people >> the questions are bad >> based on your so you everybody get the same question but your answers if you say yes you get certain certain secondary questions but if you say unsure you get prompted with something like if it in that last one I'll go In that last question, if you say unsure, it says, well, should additional measures be taken um in terms of weighting more recent data versus eliminating outliers. So instead of having you say yes, we should use an average, it says, all right, if you're unsure, are there other things that we need to do instead of an average, you know, look at the median or the
029mode or something like that. So again, doesn't necessarily help, you know, maybe a peripherally involved. So, >> I wonder then if maybe what we do is take the survey, the I guess the questions that they're asking and use what might be beneficial for our district in the letter, which we can also send to the department of education, you know, maybe to the the vice president or whatever they call it of like school funding at the DOE, but not necessarily direct people to the survey because we don't really know what they're going to end up getting based on what They answer like one of the questions that came up is um the tax cap levy flexibility which basically right now districts are only allowed to go up to 2% except for very specific things of like
030health care costs or you know things but they're asking and this is something I think we actually discussed last year for additional categories would you want to see flexibility for like transportation or um I can't think of the other one We threw out security. Security security would be another potential. So that was that's the one question that we won't we would I wouldn't share an answer because that is a personal question as a taxpayer that is you know would you approve the district be able to have the flexibility to and it gives you options either eliminate the 2% cap and be able to increase to uh meet the needs of the programs of that year would and then it gives you some other options. Would you, you know, would you like to have it a
0313%, you know, increase? Would you want to have uh get rid of that increase and have a no cap um you know, no 2% piece? That's not something the district we're not going to share an opinion on that because that is a taxpayer piece. What I can share related to that is the district and any organization that's operating in these conditions needs flexibility to be able to adapt to, you know, we have these health care costs that are coming up that are exponentially increasing. JCPNL sent us the same letter that every resident in town got about the increase in electrical pieces. So, you know, we're operating with that fixed cap. Um those are fixed expenses that are increasing flexibility to address things underneath whatever parameters are set by the opinions of the residents. Right? If
032it they believe 4% is a better piece, if they believe 2% is fine, but additional waiverss or additional exemptions may be appropriate or the hard no. Um then those are our marching orders. But as a district, flexibility is key for us. um labor costs. We, you know, in terms of we want to make sure we're paying the salaries that our teachers deserve and our administrators and our, you know, our staff deserve. Um and we know that all of those are very difficult to have under that 2%, right? That 2% was put in 12 years ago, 15 years ago um in a different economic time. So, we don't have an opinion as to how to answer that question. All I say with that one is flexibility and being able to adapt to the conditions that are
033not predictable um or change yeartoear um is key for any organization, municipal organization. So >> um I guess the other one that I saw come up was limiting the increases or decreases in aid. Is that other one where >> So so I can give you some feedback on that. So that's something they did last year. Um and they uh what happened historically is um districts would or really like usually about a week before we present the budget, we get our state aid figures and then it's a mad scramble to make sure all the things we've been planning for like six months sync up to what we thought until like a week before our state aid was going to be. So sometimes districts got a little more, sometimes it got a little less. couple and as
034we went through S2, some districts were systemically losing significant amounts of money and they would not really have a prediction um as to how hard they would get hit. Last year, they put it as a you can't lose any more than X amount percentage. So districts could plan on the front end, worst case scenario, this is what I was going to potentially lose. So the questions in this survey are would you support keeping a cap on how much a district could lose and then depending on your answer they would say if you support the cap on how much they could lose do you also support a cap on how much they could get >> right because in their mind they have a fixed number to distribute if we're taking away a certain amount we only
035have a certain amount to give to someone else who's getting the increase. So, um, my answer to that question is we again speak about stability, right? A spike, and you could argue a spike either way, um, is difficult for a district to manage. You know, certainly we would never turn away a huge increase in state aid, especially if it was here to stay. Um but stability you know normal up and down is something that you know we we look for and that's why we we do repairs and cycles. We do capital projects in cycles. We do curriculum adoptions in cycles. So we don't have multiple elementary textbook adoptions that cost a tremendous amount of money in the same year. Right? We do one every year and then we just kind of cycle through. So stability
036is key when it comes to that answer. Again, >> yeah, >> I would stability means some sort of up and down, >> right? Limited >> predict predictability. Again, what that percentage is is, >> you know, right, >> needs further discussion. And uh >> couple comments on the special ed piece that they have questions on. Yeah, >> we would need some more information or we would really have some good feedback on answering those special related questions because they're so nuanced. Um they speak to uh basically last year they funded your true special education costs instead of a an average cost. We lost special ed aid because of that calculation. But in reality, that's better calculation. That's what it should be. It should be based on actual, not a census based piece. >> Um, >> and that
037special ed cost is both in district and the extraordinary like out of district aid. >> Correct. And then another question they ask in here is um would you rather have full funding on a very on your very costly high cost in most cases out of district placements or would you rather have partial funding on a broader uh group of students that are out of district placed or ex you know extraordinarily expensive. So, we don't have we Lauren and I were talking and we there's we don't have enough information um about what that entails, you know, um is it >> it's usually out of district is more money. >> Well, in this case, it's all out of district expenses, but it's really would you rather have partial funding on a larger group or full funding on
038a smaller group >> because some plots are significantly more expensive than other. And I believe in reality it's probably the same amount of money. It's just would they rather assign it to students that is in a spread out fashion or assign it to more specific cases. So it's I don't see it as a way for us to get additional aid. I just see it as them looking at it and saying you know because one of the things they did they haven't changed the threshold in which they reimburse since 2008. Costs for expend for uh educating the students are about 95% higher than they were in 2008. But since that threshold is still low, there's a lot of students that qualify, but we get very, very small percentages of what the costs are. They're basically saying,
039do we raise the threshold, but pay you more towards the students that are now in that higher threshold. >> Again, we don't have enough information to really say this is the way that it should work for us. And I kind of think it's the same amount of money. It's just is it spread out or focused towards a certain >> I I have a question, Dr. And how many students do we send out special ed? >> I don't have it in front of me, but it's >> 39. >> Yeah, it's it's >> 3940. >> 30 40. >> I always try and agenda. >> We we we keep students that are placed out of district are there because um you know we've tried everything we could and that's the perfect placement for them to be. That's not
040a bad number. >> No, no, but and it's but it it's students are placed where they >> are in the best position to get what they need and learn. So we don't have cap, we don't have a threshold. If we can meet their needs in district, we keep them in district. If we can't meet their needs in district, then we have to make it work >> in and out district includes busing and everything else. >> Y whatever other additional care. So people don't realize that that's a big plus for 49 students if not many students. But >> costwise, you know, >> in the state sends us a tremendous amount of money to support those students. They're just asking the question because I'm sure they hear it. You haven't changed this since 2008. And they're basically
041like, yes, but if we change it, it's going to change these other things because we're not going to be able to you're not going to be getting them the funding for all the students that you think you're getting. So, do we give you more money on the ones that now meet the threshold or do you just want to keep it and we'll give you the money for a broader group of students? So, again, they're getting information. They're going to do the do the work starting in December. I think they report this out early December. >> Um, >> and it's complicated. I mean, >> but as we're talking here, it's >> it's there are a lot of nuances. Every district probably answers it differently, which is why the formula benefits some people from their perception, but
042hurts them and those things that hurt them, they may help us, right? So, it's it's a complicated piece. >> So, I'm thinking we table the full day kindergarten letter until we have the numbers from the design study, which hopefully we'll get, >> okay, >> before budget season for legislator. >> We use the school funding formula letter. we perhaps add some relevant facts from the Department of Education survey that would help us without going into the specifics of it like just consistency is important things of that nature. Um we I'll try to find that bill that would help us address the equalization aid component um when it's calculated the local wealth um and say if that can be something that's incorporated into S3917 which is like one of the many funding bills that are out there
043but because it's someone who's been in charge of the education committee and who's one of the more highranking officials bill it's been continuing to moved. Um, so I feel like that might be the one they end up using. Um, and then is there anything else like in terms of like this the funding letter I guess committee wise? I know this there was a lot of discussion. >> I'll try to like even I'll go through it again and and clean up some of the, you know, the maybe the more limiting statements like you had mentioned by, you know, referencing fixing pumps and things like I know you were talking about the full day kindergarten uh letter, but I can work that into that as well. >> There is a part here already about full day kindergarten.
044>> Yes. >> Right. >> So, what I also would like to try to do is make the letter speak a little bit more closely to um maybe align some of the terminology and the language used in the survey featured in the letter so it resonates them a little bit more. >> That's it. I think that might capture if if they're going to hear information and the buzzwords that are and they can connect that might be >> I can try to syn synchronize you know maybe and even sequence you know our talking points too with the >> and then um you know I could you know I just because we're not meeting I can push it out to the committee digitally and we can look at it over the next couple weeks or or sooner >>
045and once everyone comes to consensus we can post it and distribute it as you want. >> Okay. Is there a way for us? I guess I always prefer to have one letter as opposed to multiple because it can get confusing. >> But do you feel like it makes more sense to have us one letter that's more geared towards the Department of Education versus one that's going towards the legislators? Because I feel like the legislators are going to care more if they hear the like the term unfunded, right? Um, so I don't know if we can make one letter that sort of tailors to both groups because then it's easier for us to ask our community to send it out to all of those people. >> Yes, very easily. >> Okay. So then I guess that's
046what we will do. And um if there's any other talking points to know we're already over because we had that abbreviated time today. I want to >> definitely unfunded mandate. It's important to >> district unfunded >> for all the seven districts that are in our the same boat as we are. Yeah. >> And then, you know, and this maybe this is a nice segue to the next discussion. At what point >> do we want to reach out to those seven districts >> in concert and say, "Hey, this is what we're doing. You guys want to get on board and maybe we can operationalize them a little bit more." >> We had said that >> and we've been talking about it for about a year now. >> We're starting putting the letter together. >> Yeah. >>
047They said we wanted to contact those districts and send them a letter and say, you know, doctor it up to your district and how >> Yeah. Hey, this is what we're doing. If you guys want to jump on board, here's our timeline. >> And if they see more >> districts, >> couldn't hurt. >> Yeah, I think that wouldn't hurt. >> Two of those other seven districts also have representatives on the legislative committee with me. So, that'll be easy to reach out to them. But, you know, Miss Alvarez had suggested maybe reaching out to the board president for those other districts to get them all on board once we have that letter. >> You have the seven districts. >> Are they now? There's Well, I asked you last time is there's only one other district for
048middle six. >> There's no other. No. We're the only one in Mil. >> Milstone does not have full day kindergarten, but they're considered Mammoth County. >> So, they're also K to 8 for White. >> There's how many? >> They're K to8. So, they also don't have to deal with running a 3,000 or 225 high school. >> I have the list of them. >> Okay, so then if we can, you know, if you want me, I can call a couple whatever you want to do. >> We can send emails to the board >> or emails, whatever you need to send it to them and show them what the letter is and would you like to get on board with us? what we're working on. Great. >> I'll have an updated draft by the end of >>
049Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dr. All right. >> Anything else from anyone? I know this was a bit hectic of a meeting with it being a shortened session, but um next month we will uh discuss the calendar and if any of our citizens advisory committee members have anything else they want to discuss because we haven't really talked about what we're going to do as of January um in terms of like because that's when we have our reorganization if we're going to be you know like redoing the application process or anything of that nature for our committee. Um, so I don't know if next month would be the last month for the group that we currently have. Um, but if there is anything, whether it's partnerships and grants or if it's, you know, anything
050that you feel you would like to discuss, perhaps just I know Mr. Rald is really good about sending the emails in advance to let everybody know that we're having the meeting, but you know, feel free to email him or myself or or Mr. opinion or you know just to say like I'd love to discuss this and if we can do it and it's something that makes sense for us to discuss you know we'll we'll try to do that just because more time we'll have more time with the next meeting there >> I like the idea of discussing the calendar >> although we're going to let you guys know between now and then and this is what what kind of prompted are reaching out uh we'll be collecting feedback from our team as well um and
051we encourage you guys >> to bring talk about school calendars and you know it'd be good to hear from the students too from their perspective perspective, you know, especially a week like this. >> Yeah. Like you like having a week off in November. >> As a high former high school teacher, I have strong opinions about >> stuff. I really, >> right, I don't need >> I think my my part was about election day, which we're still working on hopefully getting the polling places out of schools because I feel like until that happens, we can't and then it's so broken up anyway. We can discuss it next month. But I agree like if you talk to your people that get ideas, there's certain things we have to follow, right? That are contractually obligated. >> Um but
052then there's certain things that are a little bit more flexible. So those are the things that you know would be great to talk about. >> And this is a great time of year to talk about school calendar because everyone's we're living through it literally. >> That's right. >> You're saying the teachers convention week is flexible. It doesn't have to be. >> So the teacher trips don't take off the whole week. Right. Where I work, we go I went in Monday, I was off Tuesday, went in Wednesday, and then Thursday, Friday, I was off. Right. >> So majority of districts to make to end earlier than anything. >> Yeah. When you have a whole week off, you're like working past June 20, you know, past my my grandson, they were off Monday and and um Wednesday,
053right? >> And then no, they were Monday and >> this next month. >> Yeah. the election day Christmasly the school calendar is 99% established there's very little flexibility in some of the dates although other than crowbaring them in like >> random days sneaking in or coming in on some holidays that are controversial but >> the uh 99% of them are defined by the days that that we recognize >> for holidays >> and then uh the coordination of some of the holidays in the spring. >> Um >> and then also defined by when we can get uh graduation date at the high school. >> That's that's there's some flexibility with that. You usually a few days we and then when when is uh the beginning of the school school year as well, right? you know, what
054day of the week we can kind of get in and how many days we get the teachers in before a weekend. Do we get them in after a weekend? >> Right. And next year, Labor Day is is weird, right? It's late or something like that. >> I've looked at some of the holidays already. I have not looked actually look at Labor Day. Um >> I think it's a seven. >> But yeah, >> but moral story is um there there is contractual obligations that we have teachers uh in terms of inservice days and things like that. So, you know, as much flexibility as people think there is, there really isn't. Um, you know, we can extend the school year and that's where some of the flexibility comes in or we can eat up our snow days
055and that's a huge risk. >> I I have data. I have data. >> How do I have children? Do we have built-in snow days? >> We have one >> one more than that. >> I'll double check. We may have had two this year, but last year we had one. >> One. >> Yep. >> My district adds them on to the end. So if you take Yeah, >> that's how New Brunswick gets my daughter at the end. >> I'll look in my in the back of my mind. I think we have one. We definitely have one. Maybe we put in two this year, but I have I have data that, you know, when we attendance rates for the days that we, you know, are broken up a little bit in November versus coming in on an
056unplanned snow day. And this is years ago, years and years. We haven't had things like that happen in a long time, right? But you know how many kids come in on a Monday of spring break because that's our additional snow day and and those often those are sometimes related to like I don't remember if we did an Irene or Sandy like think of the really extreme situations but um so we we do have attendance data about you know it's Monday and Wednesday of the November break is broken up but do we get better attendance then we would if we had the Monday of spring break as a random makeup >> because they have register certain amount of children is full for it to count. So Dr. There's a there's a lot of there's a lot
057of things that we do bring it to the associations bring it to them to take a look as well. >> The contract is up this year so we have to you know discuss. >> I was going to say this the contract itself once it's finalized. I know it's on the perk website so anyone can see like what the obl the contractual obligations are. Is is that something that we could share like with the committee to to and I mean honestly to educate the public as well but just like these are the things that we have to have in there um when we're looking at the school calendar because I think that might help. Well, yeah, and I think I think we will develop a calendar. We can get your feedback on it and we can
058make adjustments. Um, I think yeah, the contractual obligations are the amount of professional development days. >> Um, so in terms of how many teacher work days there are versus how many teacher student contact days there are, right? >> Right. So that the days that the teachers work that aren't student contact days are staff development days. >> Um, and then there are some things built in that are related to conferences, half days and things like that. So right >> um you know those are those are the biggest contractually related things >> right and then the half the half day or not very half day four sessions that we do then for PD are those part of that >> so so >> yes >> the half the half day PD days we >> combine sometimes to get
059those >> non- people contact days >> okay >> but >> if we can do them as a full day a full day staff development day is preferred because you have a >> when we do them as half days, the buildings are still operating on basically individual schedules. So you have less ability to have say all the grade one teachers get together from multiple schools because one school gets out an hour earlier than another school. So therefore their days over an hour before the other one. Uh so it puts limit and who can be an instructor and stuff like that. It puts limitations again unavoidable. We we have always had half days for professional de development in some in many cases usually in the spring. >> Um so it's just and it's the nature of the
060calendar the past few years um seems like everything that we recognize is in the middle of the week, >> right? >> Therefore it adds oftentimes they're uh on weekends. Therefore, you know, we we wouldn't necessarily take days off to recognize them. So it again it's yeartoear. There is no rhyme or reason. there are different calendars that all the everything we recognize you know is is referenced and things like that. So >> all right again >> sounds good. So feel free to bring any feedback you have obviously and then they'll provide calendar and we'll sort of you know discuss what we can and and what's not changed at all. >> And in the meantime while I work on these letters uh these these are up on Google and I'll make sure that everyone on committee has
061commenting ability. So even after tonight you can comment on this and I will integrate all your feedback. >> All right. Sounds good. Thank you guys very much. Have a great night. >> Thank you.