001Good evening. It is actually 6:01 p.m. and I call this meeting to order. I will lead us in the pledge of allegiance followed by Miss Garcia taking role. >> Please stand. Ready. Begin. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And we will now take role. Trusty Rawlings here. Trusty Verbath here. Trusty COC >> here. >> Trusty Emory >> here. >> Trusty Ward >> here. >> Okay. Thank you. We now move on to part two, approval of the agenda. Trustees, are there any questions? Okay. May I have a motion to approve agenda item 2.1 approval and or reorganization of the March 25th, 2026 meeting agenda? >> So moved. Rawlings.
002>> Second for Beth. >> Trusty Rawlings made the motion. Trusty Verbth seconded the motion. Discussion. Okay. Miss Garcia, please call for a vote. >> Trustee Rawlings, >> yes. >> Trusty Verbth, >> yes. >> Trusty Cosc, >> yes. Trusty Emmery. >> Yes. >> Trusty Ward. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 5 to zero. >> Thank you. We now move on to part three, communications agenda item 3.1, public comment. Agenda items only. As this is a special meeting, we will take a public We will take public comment on agenda items only. Public comment on non-aggenda items will be heard at our next regular meeting on April 15, 2026. Okay, we have two blue cards. >> Okay. Okay. We have two blue cards. Um, let's see. When I call your name, please come to the podium. State your name.
003Indicate whether or not you live within the boundaries of the school district. You will have three minutes. We'll have the timer on the screen. And the first speaker is Shauna Hurst. >> Good evening everyone. I live in the school boundaries and I just wanted to start off with just some thoughts of LCAP because I've sat through a lot of LCAP feedback meetings and a lot of board meetings on LCAP. I first just want to start off saying is that I do realize we're coming from a very successful district and sometimes we're splitting hairs and so I do want to acknowledge that a lot of this we're especially for our area a very high performing district. So I just want to state that first. But the second thing I want to talk about is after reviewing
004all the information and sitting through the meetings, there's a lot of feedback on having counselors, class size, MTSS, and how can we better help our kids um perform better and those three things come up repeatedly. And what I would love to see, and I don't feel I've seen this in the LCAP, is really discussing the pros and cons of those. I also know our current MTSS um teachers are I think they were only kind of contracted or budgeted through the end of this year. So that money I don't know where it came from. I forgot. Sorry Dr. Nye. And then same thing with um the additional counselors at the high school and I'm not sure about the middle. I think those were more permanent but the ones at the high school were one year too.
005So we're kind of at the end where some of these things that we only funded for one to two years are all ending in June. And so I also know back from when Rick Rove was here, he would say to really um decrease class size just by one count, it was over a million dollars across to do it districtwide or I don't know if it was like in a math class at Carl's bad or whatever. So I know all that is a lot of money. So what I'd love to see is just some discussion on why do we fund different things over others? like is class size. I mean, that's overwhelmingly what parents said over and over over again is class size. I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to smaller class size, but I'm not
006necessarily saying because I'm not an educator knowing that that is really going to make the results that we want. So, I would just like to see that discussion. I also had another thought as far as the counselors go. you couldn't afford the actual counselors, what about classified support for the counselors that take a lot of the admin off of them that would allow them more time with the students? So, that was just one price or cost-effective thing that I thought of. And another thing, and I know I'm a broken record on this for Dr. Norman, sorry. But on for social emotional help at the high school, one thing that's free is if the teachers just started entering the grades um weekly on Aries would make everyone parent and child alike be less stressed if they
007knew what their grades were. Because if my child would have known in one grade that they were very close to getting an A when they thought they were getting a C, he might have worked a little bit harder the last month of school. Just saying. Just my thoughts. Thanks for all you do. I gotta run literally. Bye. >> Jamie Rushing. >> Good evening. I am a resident, a parent, and a kindergarten facilitator for the district. Good evening, members of the board and staff. As facilitator, I want to thank you for your willingness to listen to all stakeholders, especially those of us in the classroom have who have expressed deep concerns regarding the potential roll out of full day kindergarten. Interestingly, the number one LCAP priority in the community and the number two certificated priority is
008smaller class sizes and adding full day kindergarten will undoubtedly increase the class size ratio for our youngest students. Please see exhibit D, slide 28, which highlights how smaller class sizes actually improve student outcomes. At our last meeting, it was noted that a survey sent to parents and staff offered a very vague description of a full-day model. Critically, it completely overlooked the proven benefits of our current early bird laid program. This model is more than just a schedule. It's the most affordable way to guarantee our five and six year olds a learning environment that more closely matches the state recommended TK 12:1 ratio. The reality of moving to full day without proper support is staggering. Many parents may not realize that under the GSA average of 24, we could see as many as 33 in a
009kindergarten classroom. Single room, one teacher, no aids with no clear class size caps. This is exactly why 88% of kindergarten teachers are against the shift. We understand doubling our class sizes will adversely impact the quality of education and the well-being of our littlest learners. Furthermore, the shift would likely cause a ripple effect, increasing class sizes for first grade. The recent proposal to add three more pilot schools is particularly troubling. It introduces chaos into schools where kindergarten roundups have already occurred. Families are already making enrollment decisions based on our current model. A lastminute change will create confusion for parents and disrupt planning for teachers. Successfully running additional pilots requires significant investment, new furniture, supplies, and essential supervision staff. At my own site, we have 79 students enrolled for next year. We currently have three teachers. That
010sits us at a pretty large number. Um, we're already going to need an an additional teacher, an additional classroom that is not prepared for kindergarten. There's no rug, the toys, all all of it. Um, and it will cause them to be in a space that's not even in our kindergarten building. If we cannot implement a change across the board in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and educationally sound, we must let the idea lie. Our legislators that I've written have made it clear to me in personal correspondence, class caps and ratios are in your hands. Thank you. We now move on to part four, open session agenda item 4.1, CUDA initial reopeners. Trustees, this is a discussion action item. I will now hand it over to Mrs. Megan Aras. Thank you. On September 12th, 2025,
011the Carlsbad Unified Teachers Association and Carlsbad Unified School District negotiated a successor agreement which expires on June 30th, 2028. Both parties have an opportunity to reopen a limited number of articles for consideration. Oh, sorry, sorry about that. Um, CUDA has identified the following articles to reopen at this time. Article seven, CUDA would like would like to address concerns regarding designated prep time and the increasing demands on teachers time. Article 12, CUDA is interested in negotiating a fair and equitable salary increase. And article 17, CUDA would like to formalize language and mitigate class size and case load challenges. Um, it is respectfully recommended that the board of trustees receive CUDA's 2026 2027 reopeners for consideration. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Trustees, do you have any questions? Are you good? >> Okay. So, trustees, do you
012have any questions? No questions. Okay. May I have a motion for the board to receive CUDA's 2026 20? Do do we have an opportunity for public comment on this item on each item? >> You just asked that. >> Okay. I didn't hear I didn't hear that question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. We good. All right. May I have a motion for the board to receive reopeners for consideration? >> So moved. >> Second. Rawlings. >> Trustee Siosci made the motion. Trustee Rawlings seconded the motion. Discussion. >> Okay. No discussion. Miss Garcia, please call for a vote. >> Trusty Rawlings, >> yes. >> Trusty Verbth, >> yes. >> Trusty Siosci, >> yes. >> Trustee Emory, >> yes. >> Trusty Ward, >> yes. >> Motion passes 5 to zero. Okay. >> Thank you.
013We now move on to agenda item 4.2, 2 202627 local control accountability plan the LCAP board study session trustees this is an information discussion item I will now hand it over to Dr. Brockett who will lead us through the next steps of the board study session. >> Thank you, President Ward. Uh and appreciate everybody being here to join in the conversation tonight. A little bit different uh workshop format than we generally have at our our board meetings, but I do want to walk through some background information first before we jump into um to tonight's uh discussion. Um tonight's purpose uh is to we're going to review uh feedback from the educational partners survey uh results and advisory group input that we talked about uh earlier this spring. Uh we've been getting input from um from
014our partners over the past couple of months uh regarding uh goals uh and actions to consider. Um we're going to review uh one by one our uh district goals, our wildly important goals we call them. uh and uh and come to uh some agreement moving forward about our goals uh that we will uh continue with or uh add or modify for next year. Um we'll review the success indicators as well uh and make sure there's no objection to those uh indicators and then capture um some additional board priorities uh for future consideration. So to do that I'll again I'll walk through the feedback. Um we will present uh staff recommendations for goals and success indicators. Um we'll review the next steps uh upcoming uh the the LCAP process takes place over the course of the
015spring and then of course we'll enter into um some discussion about this. I I do want to point out just a couple of quick things. Um just as a reminder, the LCAP uh is a three-year plan that describes our goals, actions, services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes to address our local priorities and state priorities. And I I share that specifically because I do want to be clear that tonight's conversation is specifically around our goals and success indicators. Um where we have ideas and thoughts uh as uh the speaker did about some actions and and services that might be uh that might be uh a part of our LCAP. We'll capture that information as well. And then what we will be doing is bringing back we'll cost out those different items as we continue
016with our development of uh the LCAP over the course of the spring. We'll bring those back to our May meeting with some recommendations regarding uh budget. I appreciate Miss Hurst sharing uh her desire to hear some of that discussion about those trade-offs. I think that's valuable uh part of the conversation as we move forward. Uh because the the LCAP is not intended to be a catch-all for everything that we do. There are some things that appropriately go in the LCAP. Um there are other things that are not. When we when we look for example uh in a few minutes here at some of our uh uh feedback that we received um you know there are there are uh there are groups from whom uh employee compensation came up. Employee compensation is really not handled through
017the LCAP process. That's handled through the bargaining process. Um there's uh significant feedback about screen time and AI usage. We're, you know, we're working to address those uh issues actively through policy development, uh the technology strategic plan and community uh engagement and and we don't have a recommendation at this point in time that those would necessarily be uh items that would be uh involved in the LCAP. So, um I I want us to keep that in mind. And again, as we move forward, what we're here to do tonight specifically is uh is make sure that we are good with our three overarching goals and that we go through each of our uh success indicators underneath each of those goals um to ensure that we uh are good to move forward with those. and then we'll
018start to put together those action steps, those actions, services, uh, and what the expenditures would be that would go along with those moving forward. So, that all having said uh, been said, I'm going to jump into our, um, our educational partner feedback. Uh, we had the thought exchange that, uh, was released essentially for the entire month of, uh, February. Um and what we asked uh families this year uh families uh students and staff was what action should Carlbad Unified prioritize over the three next three years to improve outcomes for all students including those with the greatest needs. We had great feedback this year. Uh over uh 3,000 participants uh over 3,300 thoughts were shared uh and over a 100,000 ratings. Um so uh strong uh feedback and engagement from our community. Um we had a
019mix as I mentioned of uh of different educational partner groups. Um strong student feedback but also strong from parents uh staff uh and community members. All of those numbers were up a tick from uh from last year's uh numbers at least. Um across the schools we had a balance uh of uh of family feedback from across our different school sites. uh we had a balance uh of of feedback from students at the secondary level. We specifically reach out do outreach with our secondary students um and not our elementary students uh and then uh with our employees as well a balance across uh across the district. So uh we felt good about the feedback that we received. Um when we look at um special populations, um we did receive a a decent balance as well um
020of a a almost representative sample of uh families whose students receive special education services uh and approximate just a little bit lower uh than our English learner population. So but good representation overall among our demographic groups. Um and then same can be said for um the ethnic breakdown of our communities. So, uh, we feel good about the outreach that we got and the feedback that we received from those folks. Included as exhibit A is a, uh, is a a lengthy packet, uh, of the top 50 rated, uh, thoughts for, uh, each of our feedback groups. Um, and and here, just for the sake of of the presentation, um, we captured the top five for each area. A and you can see some some trends here that are going to pop up. Uh as I mentioned
021uh earlier uh one of the speakers mentioned smaller class sizes. We do see that from a couple of our feedback groups. Um technology including uh including screen time, cell phones uh and AI were common themes that came up throughout uh throughout the uh feedback. Um and then um you know even the writing uh the the fifth one down there is writing but really if you look at the comment it has to do with are we actually doing the writing or are we on our uh devices. So this is uh obviously among our parents and community a hot topic is that technology usage. um certificated staff uh talked about behavior uh and um uh behavior and uh discipline uh counseling and mental health uh class sizes as well uh and student supports and MTSS uh our
022classified staff uh talked about um compensation and as I mentioned that's not really an LCAP thing but it's great feedback and I I do want to reference even the things that maybe don't don't fit within our LCAP feedback per se are great feedback. All the feedback we get from our community and our our partners is good because it helps us um guide the work that we're doing. Um addition to that, uh classified staff talked about mental health, well-being, and safety. Uh and then uh I I the the classified staff is interesting. If you read the entire 50, it's a it's quite a variety of different things. And I appreciate that our classified staff uh spoke to as I went through there, I I really saw, you know, speaking to learning opportunities um for both our
023collegebound students, our non-olbound students. They talked about the variety of things that we uh had uh available to students. If you kind of dig deeper beyond these top five here, finally, students uh students uh are consistent. uh they uh they talk uh frequently about food uh homework load um and uh bathroom access and and some repairs. So we've got some feedback um for our teams on that front. Um they they also talked uh interestingly students as you dig a little bit deeper about relevant and highquality learning experiences. there's n number of comments in there about some of the employability skills uh and other types of activities that are available to them and they appreciate those. Uh and then also safe, supportive and inclusive environments once you uh get a little uh deeper in there as
024well. Um I think is a common theme that you see from them. Um, one of the things that we uh that's beneficial about the uh the thought exchange platform is the uh AI features that uh it uses to help pull together some of the themes. Um, as I mentioned in in some of those some of those themes that I mentioned, those are human generated. Um, these are the AI themes that kind of take into consideration the the uh the whole picture and and uh and a lot of feedback from these different groups. Um but you can see again uh the the areas for parents and communities. Some of the things that we mentioned uh class sizes uh kindergarten has obviously been a topic of conversation and did ping uh on uh on the radar of
025parents and community uh technology and education uh mental health support and parent involvement which we appreciate that recognition. Uh on these themes the in the appendix there's some some additional information uh about each of these. So um in a vacuum I know they may not uh speak uh fully uh for example full day kindergarten there was strong support uh among those that uh that commented on full day kindergarten for the full day model. Um as it related to uh parent involvement um for example there was talk about the value that parents bring to the table uh and the desire of parents to you know have those opportunities to be involved in what's happening in the schools. certificated staff. Uh the top five themes that the AI pulled out, uh talked about full-time counselors, uh class
026sizes, again, mental health support, uh the MTSS work, uh and and programming, uh and continued professional development. There was a lot of positive feedback about professional development, but also a desire to continue classified staff. Uh again I mentioned uh classified staff pay um but also uh AI preparation, student behavior and discipline which is important, mental health supports again uh and a and a curricular focus core curriculum focus which uh was speaks to some of those like applicable skills um for all of our students. Um and then again on students uh food and nutrition and and again you saw when on that top five there it was the kind of the theme is better food. Um but there was a lot of talk about the salad bars and the and the positive steps that have been
027made in that area as well. Uh inclusivity and support for students, bullying and safety, uh again homework uh and class structure and then student voice and engagement uh from our consultation groups. Um we we really got some great feedback from our consultation groups uh about the areas that they um were interested in. Uh over the course of the past month, uh we've met with our uh our DAC our students uh our district e advisory committee, our student superintendent advisory committee, um our our certificated staff advisories, both our CUDA consult and our TEAC, our teacher superintendent advisory committee, our classified staff groups, um our uh PAC, our parent superintendent advisory group, our site administrators, and Carl'sb Education Foundation. Um that feedback is uh is put together as uh exhibit B. Um and as you read through
028those, what you can see in there is is very consistent themes uh again uh with what we saw on feedback overall. Um a lot of things that we uh that we have been focused on and are starting to focus on or heard back and other feedback um that we will continue to consider as we move forward through the process. So, that brings us through to um our staff recommendations for our updated goals and success indicators. Um I want to apologize. This is really best viewed on the computer where you can zoom in a little bit. Um especially if you're like me, you'll need you may need some glasses to to look at that. Um this uh to to get this all in one place uh came uh came down pretty uh pretty tight. But I
029I do want to point out a couple things and we're not going to jump yet into the discussion. I want to just kind of walk us through the couple things we're going to do and then we're going to loop back around to uh the point of discussion here. So um on the goals and success indicators uh that were included uh as exhibit C um what we what you'll see on there uh and and uh and is noted is the green uh the green highlighted uh areas are areas that we uh have staff recommendations for updates to uh those success indicators. Um we are not currently recommending any any changes to the goals. The three overarching goals are uh are solid. They hit key areas. Um and they capture I think the areas that we see
030both in our feedback um and our continuing work. Um so on the success indicators and we'll go through these in a moment one by one as we as we go through to make sure um that there's no objection to um any of the success indicators and or any of the um any of the recommended uh changes. Um but in addition to uh the front page there, you'll see included on the um below that uh the rationale uh for why staff has made recommendations um to update some of those um success indicators. And I'll go through each one of those when we get to that point um in a little more detail. So, what we're going to do is is again, and I I want to apologize. Um, we we've changed our our verbiage uh among
031uh trustees and I didn't update uh my verbiage in time. Um rather than consensus, we're going to ask if there are any objections to any of these as we go through. So, we'll go through one by one. Um we'll start with the three overarching goals. Um and then we'll we'll move on to the success indicators and also capture for uh from trustees any um any uh requests to uh add additional or make additional changes uh to any of the success indicators. Um so uh Dr. Nye will be uh capturing those in writing for me in just a moment here. He's loosening up his fingers getting ready to go. Um and then um and then as a reminder when we get to we go through as we as we think about this um we are when
032we we get through tonight. The goal tonight is really to get through our goals, the three goals and those success indicators that fit underneath and and come to uh come to some understanding or uh some agreement moving forward with those. Um the uh we'll bring those goals and success indicators back because I I anticipate some feedback and and probably some recommendations. We'll bring those back for uh uh another reviewing uh another review and final approval at the April meeting. So in a few weeks we'll be back um for that meeting and we'll bring back our goals and success indicators. Tonight, as we talk about things, part of what we're going to do is sort of separate those out between goals and success indicators and then actions and services. Actions and services are some of the
033things that we've heard talked about already. MTSS teachers, additional counselors, class size reduction. Those things are are all items that we'll capture in our document tonight and then we'll work with Dr. Nye and his team to cost those out. um see what those would look like uh in terms of uh budgetary priorities. Uh and then that information will come back at the May meeting uh when we'll present um our you know next steps in terms of our actions and services and our initial budget. Uh and then we have two subsequent meetings uh in June to have our public hearing and our final approval of the LCAP. So it's a multi-step process, not all to be completed tonight. Um, but this is kind of the beginning of that conversation over the course of the spring. Um,
034and and I just have included in there that schedule of what that looks like over the course of the spring. Um, I won't go back over that uh right now other than to say again um, you know, goals and success indicators will come back uh, in April. Uh, budget with tied to our actions and services will come back in May. and then we'll have a couple of uh additional opportunities to discuss any final uh modifications uh prior to submitting to the county in June. So, with that, I'm going to hand this over to Dr. Nye. And that moves us into the discussion uh portion here uh of our meeting. And um what I'd like to do is really just start us out um again with our uh with our goals if we can um start
035in uh each of our uh overarching goals there. And I'll follow through on the paper here and read them aloud as we go. And then um once we've hit each one um what we'll uh ask uh is uh just clarification if we have any objection to the goals and then we'll come back around and go through the success indicators. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Um when will have we have an opportunity to ask questions to clarify staff's recommendations? >> Oh, we as we go through each one, we're certain we can have a discussion on each one as we as we go through. Yeah, >> that would be questions as well. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, let's start with goal one. Uh goal one uh is uh what I as I
036went through and and presented this to a variety of our educational partner groups. I I call this kind of our academic goal um is to ensure that all students uh ensure that students demonstrate academic growth and proficiencies uh so they leave TK12 ready for college career and that captures a variety of our academic goals. Staff does not have any recommendation to change that. Are there any objections to goal one as stated? Okay, no objection. Let's move on to goal two. Goal two is uh to align uh student learning to state adopted standards supported by materials, instruction, techn and technology in a fiscally sound and clean environment. That's sort of our our catchall for how we do the things that we do. Um is there any objection to maintaining goal two as stated >> or a
037question? >> Is this when we would request to add a success indicator? We'll we'll get to that when we get to the success indicators. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um accepting how you presented >> just just goal two as as it's written in that green line that says goal two. Yeah. Not even the success indicators at this point. We're just the overarching goal. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. I I I think linearly. So, we're going to we're going to stay in lanes here. We we're just in the goal lane for for right now. Yes. All right. Perfect. And then uh and then goal three is down there in the orange. Uh goal three is to engage parents, staff and community to promote uh unique educational opportunities for students. Um then that's how our
038engagement goal. Um and uh and you can see the variety of types of things we've gotten after under there. And just speaking about the goal now, is there any objection to maintaining goal three as it's written? All right. All right. Success. We got one one step down. We've got our we've got our goals. I appreciate uh I appreciate that. Um now we're going to move on to our success indicators. Uh and what we'll do with these is we'll go through one by one. Uh each one uh I'll share if if there are any staff recommendations, I'll share the rationale behind the recommendations. Uh I'm open to any questions and and again this is an open format. Um uh less formal than our our regular meetings. So um you can feel free to jump in with
039questions at any point in time. Uh and um I'm happy to engage in that. And then once we get to to 1.7, that would be an appropriate time to uh make a request regarding any additions to these. So yeah, any any modifications or uh objections as we go through, we'll discuss on each one. So um success indicator 1.1 is our local assessment. It's it's our measure of uh students scoring higher typical growth on the uh STAR assessments. Um uh and what we do is we measure that higher typical growth from fall to winter and then really this measure is really our fall to spring. So we're trying to uh increase over the course of the year the the percentage of students that are making high or typical growth uh on those uh English language arts
040or that reading assessment and the math assessments with STAR. Um we have uh no recommendation regarding any changes. Are there any um Oh yes. >> Um would you mind sharing with the board and those playing along at home why um some are green, some are white and then any rationale as to why the targets may have changed? >> Yes, absolutely. So So on each one I as I as I mentioned the the white um the white ones are ones where there is no recommended change uh over what we had as our established uh and approved success indicator last year. Um the green will show the highlights where uh recommended changes have been made and then I'll hit the rationale on each one of those as we go through. Yes. >> So any any questions? Uh
041yes 1.1. >> Uh it's concerning I guess 1.1 and 1.2. Um >> uh can you confirm for me is the star test is that done on a computer screen? >> The star test is done on a computer. Yes. >> Thank you. I have another question. Yeah. >> Um, uh, Dr. Norman, I know you've worked in other districts, um, as far as doing assessments. I know we've had, you know, tools to assess, um, uh, this type of, uh, component academically. Um, have you worked with any other assessment tools, uh, other than STAR that can assess this data that we're asking for? uh my familiarity with um online assessments when it comes to um benchmark for example when I oversaw that implementation we used I Ready but that is also an online um assessment that um adjusts
042with the students as they navigate through it um I haven't used anything that was like a traditional paper and pencil in my role okay >> not my question but um so how does I um differ from star testing >> it doesn't significantly differ and I do believe in speaking with Dr. Nye when I arrived because I asked why don't we use I Ready because that was used predominantly in districts where I that where I've worked um that it was selected by our CLA our um certificated staff and I I would you mind weighing in on that because you were in the role at the time? >> Yeah, we've we've gone through several iterations where we IR typically are the two big ones that do a universal screener and that's typically what we're using them for.
043uh we created um really a team of teachers to look at the universal screeners that were out there um evaluate them and we've done that now um through each cycle. So we really enter into a contract. It's a year-to-year contract but it's really for three years and then we go through that process. So we've been through that process twice now with STAR and STAR has been selected both times but um we looked at I Ready we looked at I uh MAP testing as well was another uh universal screener that's used out there. So with um with I Ready for instance um does it measure at different times rather than fall and spring and is there more of a progression that you can see growth over time rather than these two um than just these two
044spots out of the year? >> I know that I does three times a year. Uh that's my my understanding when I worked with it. >> And to be clear, we we used our three times a year. this met this this metric was written to be a to measure a specific period of growth. Um so that's that's why it it shows the way it does but we do administer the assessment three times a year and and there's no limit on that. It can be you know it can be uh done multiple times. Uh we we set those assessment windows. Um however there's you know a lot of diminishing returns on on overf frequently assessing. Um, so that's why when this was implemented, we we settled on the three. >> Okay. Just following up and this is
045pretty casual, right? We can discuss amongst ourselves. I don't want to be point of order, so I'm just making sure. Um, I I think and correct me if I'm wrong, Trusty Rawlings. I think she's asking if instead of the assessments at these certain times that if the student is using the program, if that kind of gives kind of like um Achieve does, right? as you take it, you can see um the mastery >> over time rather than having to do these set >> screeners beginning of the year. Understood, right? Because you don't know the students. But >> however, as they run through the program, >> you know, they develop mastery. The program will actually be, you know, catered to what where they are. Is that what you're asking? >> Yes. I was under the impression
046that, you know, potentially I Ready or other tools could assess that a little more because year over year when we get to this when we get to the results, the outcomes of this, we hear like, well, you know, the um the high achievers didn't have to take it in the end and so the data is skewed. And so I'm not I have concerns that we're not getting good data out of this out of these two success indicators. And I'm trying to figure out is there a better success indicator in order to get the outcomes that we're looking for. That's what I'm trying to get at because I year over year we have had >> conversations of why the numbers don't look the way we think they're going to look in the end under the star.
047Um, so I have concerns about the these two um these two success indicators that I think to me I think there might be a better way and I was hoping Dr. Norman might have some insight since she's been in other districts that like like you say an achieve a you know what was the math one there's a math one where you at least see progressive you know you see progression over time and then if you see dips >> you know and then if we intervene >> are we seeing that are we seeing that go up because to me that's a better measure. I I'm not to me these two times a or at least the way we're looking at um this 2% from fall to spring is are we really measuring what we're trying to
048measure and are we getting at what we want to get at and I'm not I'm not convinced we are. >> So that's >> Trusty Amry >> um am I correct in saying because I know that the I Ready typically um ages out in a sense with skill level at eighth grade and STAR does the same correct? So any of those kind of measures is that what Trusty Rawlings is referring to? >> Stardust goes through high school. >> It goes through high school. >> I think I already eighth grade, but it should be adjusting for the student as they take the test to increase the it's diagnostic. It increases the level of rigor as they continue their mastery. >> Correct. >> And another thing that we've talked about too is is that we're not really we're
049not measuring over time. it's a year-to-year picture rather than this, you know, this growth from, you know, elementary to middle to high school to, you know, that we're not measuring over time. And that, you know, I'm not sure I'm seeing this big difference between the assessment, the state assessments and the STAR assessments. And and again, I'm not I'm not convinced. So, I'm I am going to object to those two because it seems like year-over-year we have had this conversation and I still um every year we're we're asking ourselves um you know why these numbers are the way they are and what are we measuring and is it accurate and so I'm I'm not convinced that we're that that we're getting the best bang for our buck for these two success indicators. >> Dr. What what
050cycle are we on with the current assessment? Is there any opportunity to explore? I'm not saying to abandon STAR, but have we have we revisited with teachers? Is this what they want to continue down? They have they asked about potentially exploring another assessment. >> We the only the only conversation we've had at this point, we we have had conversation with our math teachers as trustees are aware about the using the MDTP at the high school level. >> Um we've had some conversation about that at the uh at the middle school level as well. >> Um but no no action. Dr. Na, you'd have to remind me when the last time was that we revisited. It was before my time. >> I think it was I think it was a couple years ago. So, this is
051probably um up for review >> probably at the end of this year. Certainly. >> Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. Um did you get your answer? >> Yeah, I was going to do >> Go ahead. >> What was the alignment with STAR to the ESPback? Was it closely aligned? Because I know I ready shared that it was fairly closely aligned with the exception I think fourth grade it was a little wonkier. Yeah, they have reports on, you know, how they're aligned. I mean, they're specifically, it's a predictor, it's a predictor of how well students um potentially would do on the on the ESPbacks test as well, but there's not complete alignment. We see um at different grade levels, some students do better on the STAR and then not as good on the ESPback and and vice
052versa. So, it's not 100% aligned. I had a couple questions. Um, so I think both Star and I Ready kind of have this um I forgot what it's called, but where it kind of learns the student and gives them what do they call >> adaptive computer adaptive that's what it is. That's the word. >> So um and both Star and I Ready do that. Um, and I think the recommendation at least when I used I Ready and Powe was that they did recommend I Ready did to use it three times to actually get accurate data on the student. Does STAR recommend that as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. I I'll I'll add one of the conversations we've we've had as a staff around this particular especially 1.1 is is shifting the potential of shifting the
053um the target uh or well shifting really the success indicator from being this higher typical growth to actually um setting some uh goal around moving students. So if you think of of there's there's high achievement high growth, there's high achievement low growth. There's a quadrant, right? Um you know uh low achievement high growth and low achievement low growth. Um what we've started to look at is whether a a metric about moving students out of the low achievement low growth range >> um is actually could potentially be a better indicator. Uh the challenge is we don't really have enough we we started to look at that in the process here and didn't feel like we had a a good enough idea of what that was telling us or what those numbers would would track like over
054time uh to make a recommendation at this time. But I I I share, you know, we've we've gone through and kind of had some similar conversations about what what's telling us the best what's giving us the best information um to to aim for along these lines. >> Another question. So, um, because I think when teachers go into their dashboards, they can typically see where their students are currently performing based on how they've been using the program. But, um, I wonder too if um, I like the idea of looking at progress and growth, right? Because that's more impactful in terms of like hitting a certain percentage. We want all students to progress. Um, and I think that's what cust either month to month or three times a year. I mean, that would be better than what
055we have now, I think. But I just, you know, um, because I think we're missing kind of, you know, students go through stuff and they might not perform real well at, you know, let's say wintertime, but then they start shooting up in spring. So I that's the stuff I want to see that >> that what we are doing is working you know cuz remember this is a a success indicator for the goal right >> so to me >> I think there's better ways to indicate success and and I kind of like the idea of you know really what are we trying to get at is um is really getting those you know lower performers up to at least grade level right I mean to me that would be more impactful in my mind but again
056I so you're right I I would I would say your lower performing students. I I think there's you you want to move different groups, but um >> but progress over time is definitely >> and I think teachers definitely look at that um because they look at their dashboard, they look individually at how students are doing and I I also feel like there should be a conversation with teachers too because I think also that teachers some teachers not all like to do the assessments. Um, I think it you shouldn't use just that data for reporting periods, but I think they do use that as one metric. Um, so it might be a conversation that happens with teachers to figure that out. And Michelle, tell me more about when you talk about the teacher dashboard, is that
057something that and again in a broader scale, not just um not obviously individual students and that sort of thing, but is that something we could use as an indicator and to and to measure growth through the through a teacher dashboard rather than just this star? Well, I I'm sure the district could do that because when teachers go in to their classroom, like let's say they go in for a star, right, and they pull up all their students, they can probably, and I'm thinking kind of a benchmark, too, is you can get like um a pie chart or how like student certain students have progressed over time and things like that >> and you could probably do that at a bigger scale at the district level. Am I correct? >> Yeah. So would there be openness
058to kind of looking maybe at that as a broader measurement of what we're trying to get at instead of just the star to measure growth? >> Anyway, go ahead. I just want to throw it out there because that's that's really what I'm looking for because it's because you have different points of that you can look at rather than just this one. >> Well, let me interject real quick. We don't have an aggregate, you know, there's there's not a we don't existing right now have like an aggregate um assessment that hits pulls different data points. We have the ability to pull different data points for students and see sort of where they are. But I think what I'm hearing you say is is can we not just have the star but other measures and sort of
059come up with some overarching measure that that we don't we don't currently have necessarily a specific model like that right we that that a dashboard that pulls all of those things to in together right >> can I um yeah I think that's what I was going to say I think teachers use those on the daily and that one of the things that you know you measure is these are kind of on a progressive and so some of the work that they're doing in these programs isn't necessarily what you're teaching in class and that's why you give the diagnostic three times throughout the year to kind of capture and readjust that data. Um, so I think you know looking at this I I am in favor of keeping it as is because there are so many
060metrics that you can look at and we kind of have to pick one in order to really guide and you know be consistent with rather than you know teachers giving different lessons at different times and different students on different paths and tracks. Um uh my my question around that is has there been any talk though about using any of the ESPback interim assessments? >> Yes. Uh we we do uh not consistently and universally at this point use the ESPback interim assessments. Um but we we do uh in a variety of areas and and different grade levels and subject areas use interim assessments um to help prepare students. And it's certainly something we could we could look into as um as a metric for uh for looking at our progress over the course of time. Um
061but we'd have to take a deeper dive into that. >> Yeah. Just curious if I didn't know anyone was was even triing it about if they do both is that even are they aligned to each other? You know, that would be an interesting question to to see. >> Yeah, that >> we're already getting the data that we sorry would get from another source as well. >> Well, and Allison too, I think what you had said is that teachers are looking at at this on the daily and and seeing different growths in different areas and that sort of thing. And and I guess from my perspective, you know, not all students take tests well. And so a teacher may be seeing growth that this that the um test isn't capturing either. And that and if we're
062not seeing that, we're thinking like, okay, we got to we got to do all these things when actually there is growth in the classroom and that there is um uh and that um the numbers aren't reflective of what we're trying to get at. That's my point is is that when you see like 68% and that sort of thing, it looks like our kids aren't reading. And it's like most of our kids are reading at grade level, yet the numbers don't seem to show that. That's that's what I'm concerned about. >> And I was just going to say I I and I haven't used Star for a really long time since I was in Carl'sbad, so it's been quite a while. And I don't think I've I used it like everybody else is using it here.
063But um when we used Ready and Benchmark, um you could see that Whoa. see that progress and um but it sounds like that this is something we just have to look into more and then it also sounds like it might be a good time to start looking at other programs to see I mean I don't I don't know what it looks like for STAR but yeah uh Trusty Verbath >> can you tell us a little bit about why the teachers have chosen STAR over I ready in the past And h have they has there been any discussion about shifting? And >> yeah, I um I when I was involved in those conversations, one of the things that we were looking at was the idea that it did go through the high school level and that
064at the ESPback we were only assessing students at the 11th grade and this gave us the opportunity to assess students at the 9th 10th grade as well and even 12th grade if we wanted to. Um, that was one key factor. The other was just the usability of it. I think they liked Star and they felt it aligned a little bit better, but I is a good product as well. Uh, we need to use something as a universal screener um so that we can identify students in need of intervention and that's calibrated. Um, but to Trusty Rollins's point, you know that, you know, teachers are looking at a multitude of things in their classroom all throughout the day. Um, we just don't have a product that pulls all those things together and would state, you know,
065I I think whoever creates that is going to make a lot of money in public education. Um, >> doesn't um, Educ Climber do that for you? >> Educ does some of that and and we are exploring that more and more and I know Dr. director working with that we do have that ability to pull multiple uh facets from different places. So star and other things >> but not really to aggregate them in any >> yeah it doesn't aggregate comprehensive way but it shows a visualization for the teacher the end user >> kind of a picture of that student um but they're farther along I would say than a lot of other people and potentially there's some uh there's a way there that we could explore looking looking at edgy climber even more >> question is
066star still you have your universal screener at the beginning and then when they use it throughout the year it's answering questions right >> so there's there's complimentary there the star itself is not uh you mentioned >> and they test on books I think too >> well you mentioned achieve uh achieve is a is a comprehensive sort of reading comprehension right so you uh assess in achieve and then you do develop you you grow over time a student will grow over time in there >> star STAR is is just the screener. There are some complimentary uh resources that that you know students can use then to uh to practice those skills that they might need to or they do those through the course of their regular uh studies in class. There's a variety of ways that
067teachers will get at that. Um but it doesn't Star itself does not have a built-in curriculum. >> Oh, so you're only use it for the screeners. >> Correct. >> For I see. Okay, I understand. >> So I also have a question. Is there a way maybe to reward the success indicator to because again every year when this comes up we hear from folks what only 54% of our students are reading at grade level. I mean we hear it year over year. Is there a way to reward that where we're showing because I'm assuming based on assessments and that sort of thing that over 80% of our students are reading at grade level. And so I mean I would again I'm just making an assumption but the way this data comes out when we look at
068growth it it doesn't it doesn't show um it to me it doesn't show what we are um uh trying to achieve which is making sure at least everyone's at grade level if not higher. Um so again we hear it every year is what I'm getting at. Um, and so is there a way to reward it to maybe I guess um to really try to show the growth um you know where we're at and growth? >> What I'm hearing is a request from trustees to revise. >> No, I'm I'm asking if it if it's possible. >> Oh, yeah. It's possible. We can we can absolutely rethink. Like I said, we've had some conversation around um around maybe looking at some of those quadrants of performance and thinking about how we move students. um we can look
069um we can look at this uh a little bit differently. I you know I have to think about it with the team in terms of what makes sense to capture. Um that conversation about the the the quadrants took some time in in pulling that data appropriately then over multiple times to to see if that worked. So we can certainly go back uh and give a shot at something that I what I'm hearing is that that better captures um both the growth and performance of students >> and again is there an openness of my fellow trustees to ask staff to maybe reword that to capture >> I don't know if I would necessarily want it rewarded yet because I think what I would want to see is maybe a couple of different proposals on how it
070potentially could look because I I want to see it and before I can really decide on what that looks like. >> so I guess an openness to look at it maybe. Okay. Yeah. And to maybe look at different ways to look at it, right? >> Right. Yeah. And I think that might be a good time to tie in any rewarding and recapturing once the exploring other universal screeners to change it and then change it again. Um, I don't know if those two kind of cohabitate. Um, but can I I just had a clarifying question for the trustees. So, are you looking are you asking us to potentially look at different tools, different universal screeners, or are you wanting us to give options for how we would display that that growth? Because if we were going
071to explore a different screener, we'd need to have a process where we involve the teachers. And um I look I've done this before and you you get a committee together and you go through all your screeners. You make sure everybody has input >> at least from my perspective. Um I mean I did bring it up. So um but what I was looking for is more because what I heard is that star can actually do more than what we're using it for that. So it sounds like star might be able to be okay as the tool but maybe we need to look at what are we what are we asking to look what is the data point that we are gauging success >> and I think so and I I think you captured it well where
072you're saying growth and performance and maybe progressive performance or progressive growth you know because it's an overtime thing because what I heard you say is is that star has the capabilities we're just not using it in that way is that correct >> well we do use it that way and that's that's sort of What 1.1 gets at is is what the growth level is for students. Um there there are different >> data points that you can look at in in looking at student growth, right? >> Well, and also three times a year, right? That but we're only asking for two times a year. >> Well, this this one so so just to be clear that we we we're administering twice a year. Um this does look at two times during the year. So you'll remember
073in February when we reported mid-year progress, we we shared you growth has to be from one point to another point, right? So we shared growth from uh our our growth overall from fall to winter. And then the way this is written and that gives us our our midterm check-in, our our sort of benchmark, if you will, of how are we doing? And that's we share, you know, are we on are we on pace to meet this goal or not? And then uh and then the final indicator here is looking not fall to winter but fall to spring. Um and to your point uh Trusty Rollings, you know, sometimes some students go up and then down, some students go down and then up. Um that's the work that that teachers do uh at getting into what
074the specific needs are really in terms of what we're looking at here is some way to capture on a on a high level. And again, there's different ways to do that, but what we're trying to capture is not not that student level necessarily. We're trying to capture a high level of in general, are we are we moving more of our students along this continuum for higher typical growth uh than we were, you know, at the middle of the year. >> And I now now that you're now that I'm listening to you, Dr. Rocket, I I I think you make a really strong point because I think that teachers um need to be looking at that um growth daily because they're also creating small groups, right? So they want kids to be able to move in
075and out of groups because you don't want them stagnant in these groups. So um so that growth is important to them for um the maintenance of their classroom. However, I I think that if we were to do it and to look at that data um at the district level for for our benefit, we would also have to require teachers to consistently use to be fair. So, if I'm getting the growth data from teacher A, B, and C, right, we also have to make sure that teacher A, B, and C are using it the same amount of time. and the students are taking that program and using it the same amount of time to in order to see that progress and growth at the at this level because otherwise if you only have you know teacher
076B using it their students are using it sometimes and teacher C uses it once a month and teacher A is using it every single day you know your yeah your data is not going to be actual growth right of the students overall within the district and I think that's what Dr. Brockett is speaking to. Am I correct? >> Yeah. I think that's an important component of this is that really what we what we want to have teachers that you want to use the data at the closest level to the student, right? Uh teachers, our our principles, uh our our PLC's, our professional learning communities, when they our teacher teams get together to talk about this, that's where data really is the most meaningful, right? So um what we capture I think at this level is
077really sort of a again a high level proxy for seeing what all that that you know tells us and it looks for trends. Um uh my colleague Dr. Eer likes to talk about the map versus the territory. Right? You're looking at the map but that's not the real trail or path that you're walking on. you have to walk the trail to actually feel the bumps and and and avoid the the roots and the rocks that are in the trail and and to see the things that are there. The map, which is a high level goal like this, sort of points you in the direction that you that you want to go um as you move forward. So, I think that's for me the way I look at it and I I appreciate the conversation and
078we can certainly look at some additional ways to get at this, but I I do think that's an important distinction of of how we use data and that it's it's important for us probably not to be too deep in the weeds. That's where that's where the teachers and the students and the families and should be and and we've got to find those ways to capture capture what's happening at a higher level to help guide us to support them. So, and then to well to answer your question um Dr. Norman is um again I'm not necessarily looking for a different tool. I I'm I think and I think we have a lot of the tools that um we could use um not only STAR but what' you say it was ed >> achievement well educ and
079again I'm not saying that we use that exclusively but even a combination to say because one of the things I do remember as well is even with STAR like they would do an assessment but then if the students were like an AP and that sort of thing they're not taking it in the spring which again skews the numbers and that's what I'm trying to get away from is that the that our numbers aren't skewed to to you know that we have we have certain numbers in the fall but then certain students are taken out of that in the spring and then we're trying to compare apples to oranges and that's the part that it that you know it it never come we're always kind of rationalizing why the numbers are the way they come out
080which I'm trying to find a better way of measuring that that's all so again I'm not I don't think we need a different tool and what I'm hearing is there might be some additional ways to use star that maybe we haven't used in the past or that that we might be able to use in order to maybe improve this um this success indicator is what I've heard tonight, but maybe if I'm wrong, tell me. >> No, I I think we can go back and work with the team. I I I like uh what Dr. Nye captured up there in terms of is there a way that we can look at this to better capture growth and progress and and we can certainly bring back some recommendations uh as to how to do that. And I
081like I like that you put progressive growth and progressive performance because I think that that's really I mean I've been asking for that for a while as well that you know you want to see that over time it's a progression. So, so I'm happy with that. But please, >> um, is the wording that you are having a difficulty with proficiencies. you'd like to remove the word proficiencies from that success indicator because for me it's demonstrating ac academic growth is kind of indicating that we want to see progressive improvement but we also do want to see proficiencies as they leave our school district so that they're ready for college and >> totally agree with you and but what happens is is that when we get the when we get the outcome data it looks like only
08254% of our students students are proficient in reading and that's not accurate. >> But you Yeah, but but the reference that you made was that that it's more like 80% and that's still not proficient. That's >> well it could be. I mean if if we have 80% at that's reading at grade level% >> that aren't >> agree with you >> improved >> but we that's to me those are the more important numbers like okay so if we have 20% that aren't reading at grade level then to me that's where we need to really be looking you know and but we need to see that information and the outcomes for me have not shown that and and when we ask questions about it it's well we have to drop the AP students and we don't you
083know we don't measure the same students at fall and and spring and so to It's just seems like we're, you know, that we're not getting the outcome data that I think we really want. But, you know, so that's why I think improving it. >> I just don't want to take proficiency out of the equation. >> I'm not I'm not suggesting that. I'm just suggesting that to me there seem and I I think they've captured it. It from my, you know, from how I'm looking at it. >> I have a question. >> How do the teachers feel about it? Do they feel like this is giving them meaningful data that they can use to help formulate an assessment of progress for each individual student? >> Yeah. You know, as mentioned, it's it's a screener, right? So,
084it it as as Trusty Emery mentioned, uh, as a screener, it's it's useful because you you see where your students are. You see who might need some support, who might not. It is computer adaptive. So the the goalpost moves over time as students make progress. But that's that's accounted for in the program because it's comparing them to other like students that like for example the growth metric um is comparing them to a large body of data that that Renaissance a star has about how students grow uh typical or you know highpaced growth. Um the the critique that sometimes comes is because it may not because it's really assessing sort of um uh a student at at grade level and then sort of pushing them as they continue to grow. It it is sometimes disconnected from
085what hap what the teacher is actually doing in class uh in certain ways and and certain times it's not. So it's it's because you're because you're giving the assessment in three times during the year and it's computer adaptive. it it may or may not capture what they've been working on the moment. However, it's it's a good as a screener goes. Uh it's a good measure of just how students are doing generally. Uh again, it's it's it's for a student level, it's less of, you know, I've taught this and now I'm going to assess this like we we think of normally like I'm teaching, I'm getting feedback along the way. um this this is uh more of a generalized screener to help point the direction that students are making good progress or they're not making good
086progress. So um it's it's definitely that so the answer that was a long answer to the question which is that sometimes we get stronger feedback than others. Um but in order to get that general picture you're going to there's going to be give and take with any type of of general screener. So I think what I'm hearing you say is that it's providing value to the teachers. Some teachers find it a little more valuable than others, right? Why why don't we test our all students? Why do some students get excluded from a test in the spring? So, what we had originally done, I think the reference there is to the fact that our our seniors uh on the STAR um reading assessment once they'd met grade level um they we didn't continue to assess them
087throughout the year because they're they're 12th graders who are meeting that grade level. that that did skew the data and we actually we actually uh I believe the last last year when we reported that did not report 12th grade data to kind of exclude that factor out. Um there are some variances as I as I think uh Trusty Rawlings mentioned uh with regard to sometimes if students uh miss that assessment window um or something comes up then we end up and you remember those little tiny numbers we put below on the chart there that shows you know kind of the the number of students that assessed um those vary a little bit over time. We I think that we've done a good job of of minimizing that variance in most cases unless things pop up.
088And I know it's something that we've talked about with our team to say we we've got to be we've got to make sure we're consistent and we're consistent during the windows when that data is being captured to make it more meaningful um for our use as well as consistent for the use at the classroom level. And and Gretchen, I I just want to clarify that I'm not um uh um that I'm not suggesting that we that the teachers wouldn't find the tool beneficial. I'm just not sure the tool is capturing what our needs are. So, it has nothing to do really with the teachers as much as it has to do with us. >> Um I also had another question and this is going to um it >> is it for 1.1 and 1. Okay.
089>> Um we heard a lot about students being on screens. Um, is there a way to assess to do these assessments on Scantron and reading on paper? >> Scantron? >> I know. Think of that. I know. So long. >> 1980s. >> Well, but again, that's the I mean, we heard a lot of folks saying that they really want to find ways to get their kids off screens and, you know, we're doing some of our major assessments on screens. So, is there a way to do that? >> We I I'd have to look into that because I am not familiar with any current >> challenges. They wouldn't be as adaptive. >> And what grade you start? What what grade do you start star screeners at? >> Uh second grade. >> Second grade. >> Yeah. So we
090Yeah, we it'd be something we'd have to look into. >> Yeah. And it and and I think there's some benefit to it, too, because in third grade they start the ESPback. So it's important that they know how to take a test on a computer and that they have keyboarding and have that experience. So, it makes sense that your TKK and your first graders are doing more one-on-one assessments or hands-on assessments as opposed to >> and I would also weigh in one of the other advantages of STAR was the length of the assessments. Um, the teachers found that the length of the STAR was much shorter than the other universal screeners that were out there and they like that as well. So, that limits the screen time as well. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions about
0911.1 or 1.2? Okay. >> Okay. Um, we'll move on then to 1.3. >> So, we're we're no objections. We're good. We're But you're getting >> We'll go back through those notes when we get to the end to make sure that we're all on the same page. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, uh, 1.3 I I'll I'll lump together uh, as uh, I think that was effective to talk about 1.1 and 1.2 together. Let's let's talk about 1.3, 1.4, 4 and 1.5 together as they all um address uh growth targets related to uh the CASP assessments. Um and so um we have recommended staff has recommended uh changes to the targets um for each of those indicators and I'll run through the rationale uh with you on each of those. So on on 1.3 um staff's
092recommending a growth target in each area of I'm sorry of 2% in each area as opposed to 3% in ELA and math and 2% in science which was the previous growth target. Um the rationale for that is that the statewide growth from 24 to 25 was 1.8% in ELA uh and uh I'm sorry 1.8% in ELA, 1.8% in math and 2% in science. And while some outlier districts showed higher uh growth in that, um CUSD has a higher baseline proficiency level than many of those other districts, uh among uh unified districts in San Diego County, the average gain was 1% in ELA, 1% in math, and 1% in science. uh among a small pool similar at demographic unified districts outside of San Diego that we look at the average growth was or the average change
093was minus 1% in ELA 0% in math and and minus 1% in science and none of those districts attained growth of more than 1% in any area. Um, so while we work toward growth for all of our students in all of our academic areas, um, we think it's important to set attainable goals that reflect growth consistent with typical growth across uh, similar districts across the state. Um, that feeds into 1.4 as well, where we would recommend uh, growth targets of 3% uh, in each of those areas as opposed to the previous growth targets of 5% in ELA and math and 4% in science. Um and again statewide growth in those specific subgroups uh lagged behind the overall statewide progress that I referenced above. Uh and COD subgroup data had showed mixed results last year with
094declines from 24 to 25 for our socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup. Um and we recognize again the importance of accelerating growth for these subgroups which is why we would leave those targets a little bit higher than uh the total population. Um but we also believe in establishing attainable goals um consistent with dem uh demonstrated growth. Um and then finally in 1.5 uh we rep we would recommend a 2% growth target as opposed to the previous 3% target. Um we also uh recommend removing the cast assessment from this indicator. Um for the reasons that I I spoke about under 1.3 and 1.4 four, we believe 2% is an an appropriate growth target in ELA and math. Um, and then the CAST assessment is only administered um in grades um five and eight. This this deals specifically with our
095students in grades four to eight and looking at at progress over time. And because it's only administered in those two years, there's a gap of time in there that really makes it not quite make sense to um track um this type of what what we read what we believe is intended to be sort of annual progressive growth um that's made over time. Um so uh that's 1.3 1.4 and 1.5. I'm not sure if you're able to speak to this or if Rob would be able to weigh in on this, but what historically have we what goals have we had and been able to achieve in our district as far as these? I know we've had some changes in our success indicator specifically, but as far as um whether it's 2% or 3% or 5%. Um
096>> yeah, it's varied. Um I think >> like prior to COVID COVID, you know, >> yeah, I can't remember anything prior. >> I'm sorry about that. >> No. Um it's varied and and I know that um it's varied between 2% and mostly 2% and 3% I would say. Um we've had subgroup performance that we've always tried to call out because we know that there's that disparity or that there's that gap and we tried to close that achievement gap. So that's always been slightly higher. Um so it's varied between two and 3%. Um in the past um we used to measure the percentage though off of not 100%. We we used to measure the percentage and calculate the percentage off the total percent proficient and so that slightly lowered the target. Now we're recalculating these off
097of 100% um uh rates. So it it did ramp up um um the proficiency and the and the growth from one year to the next for sure. >> Trusty Emmery or did you have a follow-up? >> I do have a followup. I just you know I know that when we went through DEI and we were looking at closing some of the academic gaps, it was really important to us as a board that we, you know, set those goals accordingly. And I think that was very much part of our DEI forward together plan. And so I just don't want to lose sight of what that goal was as a board. Even though this is a different board, I just don't if we're having a hard time achieving our goals, I don't want us to reduce our
098goals just because we're having a hard time achieving those. So I just want to keep that in mind that our goal is to close those achievement gaps and also just continue to push ourselves. And I don't I see that your description about why is because the rest of the state is not it meeting certain goals or you know not able to achieve more than 1% but I don't think that means that we necessarily have to decrease our goals either. >> Did you have a comment? Okay. And then I'm going to follow up to her. So go ahead. >> Well that was that was kind of what mine was about. So, I actually I I think that one of the most important things when we're setting goals is to make sure that they're attainable, too. And
099I agree with you. I think shooting above that is commendable. And I think, you know, all of our teachers, no one's aiming for or any of our students are aiming for that 2%. Um, but I think, you know, there gets to be a point where, you know, we don't want it to also be discouraging. um you know for for some of those goals like oh man we never meet them because you know um I think 2% year-over-year is is a good growth. I think we had the same kind of conversation we were talking I know getting ahead of ourselves but um the uh attendance rate you know well if you're doing 5% every year eventually that ends up being you know compounded. Um so I I do think right now that the 2% is is
100good in a table considering we're already a high achieving. um at some point you're you're gonna hit a ceiling and I want to make sure that you know we're not um overextending our expectations but still maintaining high goals and standards. So I I agree with this and think it is done well. >> Um and I think you pretty much said everything I was going to say. Well there you go. Um and I and I do think um looking at the CDE um the trends throughout the state is typically 1 to 2% growth. Um so and we want it to be sustainable and measurable progress also so we have the ability to change our practices or or strategies as well and it enables us to do that and kind of talking about the ceiling effect because
101we're already our base is so high that um that there is an effect with that like you kind of mentioned there and I also want to say with the DEI plan that we put into place it was really to put in supports right? Strategies and supports to help and make sure that our we have equitable education that we're reaching all students. So, it was more for that piece as opposed to making sure that everybody is even though we want all students to achieve high but it was also to make sure that we are supporting all students. >> Yes. I I mean I would say both. I mean we we do have you know academic targets in there as well. Um but uh but yes, I mean the the the crux of that plan is really
102about the actions and supports that are built in to there that we that we hope will help us attain, you know, academic growth as well. >> And this was something that I had requested of Brian because when I um came into Carl'sbad, I I reviewed this and I said, "Where where do we get our percentages from?" Because typically they're grounded in something. And I I absolutely agree with you, >> um, Trusty Rebecc. We don't want to lower what we're wanting. Um, but we we also want to make sure we're having incremental growth that's sustainable. Um, there's the saying, you know, you eat apple a day keeps a doctor away, but you don't eat seven on Sunday. You want to do it a little bit at a time. And so, we want to make sure we're
103doing a little bit at a time so we can do well all along. But I agree, we don't want to lower our standards. >> So, thank you, >> Trustee Rolling. >> And one thing, too, that remember these are success indicators. the goal is um demonstrate academic growth and proficiency so they leave TK12 ready for college career. So when we're talking about a success indicator, how are we indicating success? So it's not to me it's not necessarily lowering the standards. It's how how we have decided what does success look like and so um to me 2% growth does look successful when again in a high achieving um in a high achieving and I was even saying last year you know I I think I asked multiple times staff are these are these achievable you know can
104we actually you know can we get there in order to um achieve success so I think it's important because I do think success breeds success as well so as you build on it over time I think that that's a um um that that's important that these aren't goals that they're success indicators. So, >> any other questions? >> Okay. >> So, is there any objection to 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5? We were >> Okay. Thank you. Uh 1.6. Uh this is not a significant change. Uh it just previously it said all students for some reason really this is a high school students um indicator. Uh so I just updated that on there. Um the 80% threshold uh continues to be the recommendation of uh staff. Uh we have um we've been above the 80% each of the
105last several years. Um which I think reflects uh strong work on getting our students uh opening those doors for our students to be ready for uh UCSU admission. Uh even if that's not the avenue they want to go down. Uh and and some of our students may not for a variety of reasons. uh and so I think that that maintaining that 80% seems to be uh effective in helping us focus um our efforts on that college readiness uh while allowing for a variety of pathways for students. So we would recommend that we uh leave success indicator 1.6 as is. >> Go ahead. >> Um how long have we been at over 80%. How many years? >> It's a good question. If you ask another question, I I'll pull it up here. >> Well, and I'll
106just I'll just say what my concern is is that um that and and again, I think that we do need to it's part of our our um graduate profile. It's part of our, you know, um what we strive for. But I do believe that our LCAP should be things that we are looking to grow and looking to um focus on in order to achieve success. And to me it seems like you know we've you know we've been in the '9s to my knowledge for >> 84. Okay. Okay. That was a different one. Um and um over time when we've you know we've hit that plateau like you were just talking about. We've actually removed those out of the LCAP to and again to we're not saying that we don't want this to continue happening and
107we did it let's say with the with the restroom cleanliness we had that for two years we were you know well achie you know achieving our goals or our success indicator we were we were having success in that um uh you know in that area and we removed it because we had other areas that we wanted to focus on and so I I would like to see us remove that from the LCAP but but retain it in our graduate profile as well as um in other policies and practices that we would continue because we have had it um you know we we set it at the and I will say we were when we first set the success indicator we were down it was like 70s and the other thing too is the state is
108not funding um A3G anymore so um we don't have additional funds that would go into um those programs at least that was what um Rob had said Um when I asked the question last year, >> yeah, there there was a an A to G improvement grant that the state uh put out several years ago. Um we did we we're on it's on its last legs. Um this year we've got I think we started the year with about 12,000 additional dollars. We've seen a significant growth in the A to G over that time. And remember that um that the district aligned graduation requirements to the UCCCSU uh grad requirements as well. Um, and so those th those things put together I think um helped. I think the grad requirements are really a key in helping support
109that and leaving those avenues um open for students because we give them a a pathway that is our it's really our core pathway and as and as you all know there are there are different pathways to graduation we've talked about in our grad requirements but um but that that being the primary the standard pathway um really does encourage a lot of our students um to continue down that road and that's again it I think it always leaves avenues open for students we want to keep as many doors open for them throughout their high school years as possible to be ready for those next steps beyond uh beyond high school. >> So, and I guess from my perspective, like you're absolutely right, back in I want to say 2017 2018, we were not nearly as high
110as we are in A3G. So, we did grow over time and we've kind of hit that plateau in this area. And so, for me, I think if we take it off, we still keep it as the standard graduation. We keep it in the graduate profile. It for me is appropriate. So that's what I would like to recommend. >> Trusty Verbth, >> I would like to keep it. I think it's important. I think it what is on the front page identifies priorities for our goals uh or part of our goals as as a success indicator. And I think um as the goal states, you know, we are moving this continuum from TK to to high school to get them ready for college. And I think it identifies that. I would like to see us move that
111percentage up. If we are improving, I'd say, okay, let's bump it to 85. >> Um I I um would like to keep it. I think it's fine where it is and how it's stated. Um, I I think it's a lot about access, too. You know, some students might not necessarily think that they're collegebound at this point, but they might change their mind later, and it would be a real disservice to them if we didn't provide them with um this and for us to keep our eyes on it. So, I I would like to keep it um where it is and as is as well. Any other comments? Okay. So, >> so I do object. >> You do object. Okay. >> So, I don't have any takers to move it to 85%. I take it. >>
112I I would I would just share. Trusty Verb, we we had we we got to 84% one year. We've generally been right about 81 82% over the past several years. I I I have back to 2122 right in front of me here. Um and we've we've sort of been at that plateau of 80 81%. Um I I do think you know growth is good and possible. Um, but I I do I am cognizant in this particular indicator of the the the access and the and the push that it gives students as well as the fact that that may not be the right path for all of our students. Um, and that's that that that's where I think our recommendation would be that that 80% mark um is um is appropriate. But again, should trustees agree
113that there's an a desire to push that, we can certainly jump on that as well. Yeah, I I agree. I think um keeping it in there um aligns directly with our goal number one. Um and instead of seeing it as 80% or higher, I kind of see the 80% as that bar and we're just not going to let it dip lower. >> So I think, you know, that's going to fluctuate like you said with the students who go in and out, but I think that that's kind of the a good bar to hold the line. >> It's a great >> everything where we are. >> All right. So I'm I'm hearing one objection. Are there any others before we move on? >> No. >> Okay. And from a process standpoint, I think that what we
114would be doing is bringing back noting the objection and bringing back the success indicators uh for approval in in April at which point then we would have a formal vote on uh on those success indicators. >> Okay. All right. Uh 1.7 advanced learners. Um this is an interesting one as well. This continued to push upward. Um this one uh is to increase the percentage of high school students enrolled at least one uh advanced uh course honors AP or community college. We call that HAPCC u by one percentage point from the prior year. Uh we did have some just from by way of background we had some discussion about this about whether perhaps this was another indicator that had reached maybe a plateau level. Um and then I pulled the most recent numbers and we have
115met for this year the 1% growth target. Um I was I was afraid we were like about like 02% but when you figure in uh students from trimester 2 and trimester 3 at Sage Creek because those classes come in and start later um and then also uh students at both high school all three high schools the four high schools that have taken community college classes. Um we've inched that number up. So uh we don't have enough data at this point to think that they're maybe there's continued room for growth and so we would continue to recommend leaving that growth target at 1%. Um, this I think is appropriate for all of our students to have that access and to push them into having that opportunity and experience to take higher level classes. >> Trusty Rawlings,
116>> thank you. um with the goal actually being college and career. Um and yet um and we've had lots of um feedback about skills-based learning and about workplace learning and um career pathways. Why do we only have career pathways um in uh goal three 3.2? and has staff looked at potentially maybe combining this so there is something in goal one uh a success indicator that measures non-ol um approaches to learning. >> Yeah, it's a great question. One of the things that we have talked about and and though I I don't know if everyone was here when we were having this conversation a few years ago about the the CCI the college and career uh indicator uh which is a state metric. Um I if memory serves there were a couple years where that CCI was
117one of our was one of our indicators and then and then trustees said well they the state was delayed and delayed and delayed in rolling this out. Uh and then they finally did uh last year I believe uh was the first year it was fully integrated in the dashboard and um we've continued to have conversation about whether um or to what degree that would be an appropriate metric. Um, but again, it's still at this point new. And I think that from a staff view, I I like that. I I like the idea of tying our metrics, and we'll talk about it in a moment as it relates to absenteeism to some of the state metrics that are on the dashboard. It it does I think there's there's some good reasons to do that. Um, I
118don't think at this point that that we had felt like we had a good enough grasp of what that goal would look like potentially to um to make a recommendation, but but yes, we've had conversation around those those lines and we'd be happy to continue if trustees have an interest in that. >> Trustee Rawlings. >> Um well, and my question is is under this particular success indicator um and uh we have it in 3.3 3.2 too um around uh career career pathways and work-based learning. Is there a possibility of adding that to the advanced learning piece? Because I mean, yes, a student can take honors, a student can take, you know, a college a college course, but isn't it just as important that they take a um let's say a welding class or, you know,
119something along the lines that's more trade-based? because we did hear a lot about that in um uh in our um survey. >> Yeah. One thing I mean what I'm I think I'm hearing you say is perhaps we could in addition to capturing honors AP community college perhaps we could capture um uh students that if we're looking for that higher that deeper level learning that higher level learning we could capture uh the students in our that that are pathway completers for example that reach the capstone uh course uh of a CTE pathway. Um, I don't know. I'd have to go back and do some digging with our our data folks at this point to to know what that number would look like. Um, but if if trustees are interested in that, I see some heads nodding.
120We can certainly we can certainly look at that and uh and see if that would uh help capture what you're asking for there, which is is equally valuable learning as well. Well, and I'm sorry. I just wanted to follow up because one thing on the goal itself and I've always insisted and you know we we do talk about college and career and it is college slashcareer. So a student doesn't have to go to college to have a career and that's something that we have always tried to um highlight that you know it's not that you have to go to college in order to have a career. And so to me, you know, to kind of go back um to us, to me it seems just as important, especially when the goal is college/career, that we
121have something in there that is that w is isn't that doesn't have to be collegebound. >> Um yeah, and and I agree with you, Kathy. Um or trusty rolling. Sorry, are we ca are we casual right now because it's a workshop. Okay. >> All right. I was just I was a test. You passed. Okay. So, um, yeah. So, um, no, I agree with you, Kathy, on that point. I I think it should be a different success indicator, not necessarily as an advanced learner success indicator as part of that, but I think to like I don't want to take away 1.6 because I don't want to get in the way of the possibility that a student might change their mind because kids change their mind, right? And if and they might say, "Oh, I don't want
122to go to college and I just want to be a welder." You know, that that possibility to could change. I know plenty of kids that have done that. So, um, but also and I think what this success indicator 1.7 also is highlighting, I I think it's really different from what you're talking about. So, I would h want to add it as a different one, but I don't know what that would look like, Dr. rocket because I don't know I don't know you I know you're going to bring this back to us but whether it's your it's the completers or based on their capstone project I don't know but >> yeah just just spitballing in the moment here I I would think I would think perhaps we want to look at a a growth target for
123pathway completers >> um not just participants we look at both those numbers when we share our CTE updates uh each fall we look at both of those numbers but really what what I think this gets at is that readiness iness and that sort of deeper level of learning. >> Uh and and that's what really you're getting after when you have your pathway completers who go through the the entire sequence of your of your course. Is there something along those lines? >> Is there some way that when they go through different pathways that they're actually measured um like you know it's not just that they're completing that pathway, right? So is there some do they get like >> diff yet? Yes. not or or some type of you know like in any profession like skillbased let's
124say certification or something yeah you you go through different certifications to become like a master builder or something like that so >> so so a pathway in and of itself represents a sequence of skill building right over time >> um uh most of our CTE pathways have some type of professional professionally recognized certification built in there >> um so that's that's one thing. Um I think from our from just thinking through the instructional lens about the conversations we've had over time um you know knowing that that the completers will have those opportunities to earn those different certifications whatever they may be um and and that really what you you know what you're after is yes some students will try a pathway. That's why our you know our participant numbers are huge our completer numbers are
125a little bit smaller because maybe a student tries something and they you know they think that that's realize that's not for them. that's that's okay too. Okay. >> Um but we but it is there is value in encouraging students to complete uh an entire course of study um as they move through and then they're reaching those that that capstone where they're having deeper level work-based learning experiences. They're gaining those industry certifications, those types of >> So when you're saying they complete it, they're going through all the certifications. So I guess like different pathways, you would have to define that for us. So >> being a completer would mean this, this, and this. >> Yeah. Okay. But Michelle, um, I did want to get clarification. So, so why why would you want to see it separate
126that how is a completing a pathway different than than um being enrolled in an AP, for instance, an AP class or a community college class? Because this doesn't even say you have to complete it. It just says you have to enroll in it. >> Well, >> that we're measuring here, >> right? But if they're enrolled in it, they're taking the course, right? >> Yeah. We we capture final numbers of of the students that have >> But that's not what we're measuring here, right? We're measuring enrollment. We're not measuring completion, right? >> Isn't that what it says? >> Well, he's saying the amount of students that finished the class. >> No, but my point is is that as a success indicator, what we're measuring is enrollment. We are not measuring completion. Number one. Number two, um,
127how do you see that being different than completing a an entire career pathway? >> Well, I I see them as different paths. So, I would want to know I would want to know the difference between the two. >> Okay. So maybe if so I just heard you say that you want a separate success indicator and I'm kind of saying I personally believe it could be combined because I think it's actually um if we're if we're trying to measure advanced learners or like you were saying deeper learners you know and maybe we maybe the title changes how is it different is is being at a community college one class or completing an entire pathway. So, a couple things I think they're one different paths, right? Well, because one is um if you're an advanced placement class,
128you could actually get college credit based on the tests that you take and the points that you get on it, >> right? >> Okay. So, >> but can't you get the certificate credit? I just want I just want to make sure we're having a dialogue rather than just >> I know, but give me a moment to to throw it out to you. Okay. Okay. So, um, for the advanced learner courses, like I think that's really valuable in that it it could lead to credit in a college course as well. And I want to know who how many students and the percentage that that is being available to because historically a lot of times like students of color aren't necessarily identified in those classes. And that's one effort that the district has been making to ensure
129that they are in those courses and because we want them on on a path where they have the opportunity to take to go to college, right? So for for me, I would want that disagregated in terms of advanced learners. However, if students are doing a CTE pathway, I think that's valuable as well, but I would want to see that separate from your advanced learner um data. Does that make sense? >> Um well, I have concerns um just because it seems like we're, you know, and throughout we're prioritizing college over career non-ol. And >> no, I think because we're separating them, we're not we're not doing that. See, and I see it as, you know, that we're um that we're again by by saying that basically honors, advanced placement, and community college is is one category
130that that has um that that has different value is how I'm seeing it. That you're we're seeing that that's that's somehow of a different value than a career pathway. >> Okay. Well, I think I think you're putting in your own feelings into that then. I'm sorry because I I'm not seeing it that way. I see them as separate things and that's why I would want them separated. I'm not saying one is better than the other because different students take different paths. Um, and you know, if that's what you're getting from it, then that's what you're getting from it. However, that that's not why I want that data separated. >> That then I I just I'm not understanding then why you want it separated. I'm still not understanding. But go ahead. So the way I see
131this is and correct me if I'm wrong Steph. Um that under this goal we're this is the focus on the academic growth. Um I agree I think yes it is. It says ensure that students students demonstrate academic growth and proficiencies. So they need >> so that is the result but through academic growth. So this is the academic portion. Um and I think that no student will know whether college is for them or not should they not try an advanced place course. So this is not even the completion. This is just try it. If it's not for you, great. >> Move on. It doesn't matter if you're completing. I that's why I do agree that we need to keep um the career pathways and work-based learning in a separate because I think that gives them the
132opportunity to then say that didn't work. This is the program. This is the path I want. But if they don't try, they won't know. Um and so that is how I see those. and the um the CTE pathways is a different they try it, they know, and they're moving on. So, it's almost a third option. I don't know if I would like that in here until I see, you know, some wording and things around it. But, I think the goal of this one, and correct me if I'm wrong, staff is to try to get them to just have a taste to see if it is appropriate for them. And sometimes just to have some success in that and be like, actually, I can do this. Well, and it's not it's it remember we're we're encouraging
133it. So, it's increase the percentage. So, we're saying we we really want you to do this where again it it demonstrates a priority towards college. And again, what I'm saying is is that you know again from from my perspective um uh you know um uh skills-based learning and actually what we're hearing from you know with AI implementation that it's the plumbers and the electricians that are going to survive this, right? And so I guess from my perspective, our goal is college and career or college slashcareer. And so and we've we've focused so much on college for so many years. From my perspective, I feel like we need to get a little more um uh we need a little get a little bit more um uh skills based that don't require college. >> I'm going to
134say yes. And yes, and I think you know like your child who you give broccoli to the first time and they don't want to take a bite, you know, you got to at least take a bite and so that you know you don't like it. I think that is the the purpose. That's how I see the purpose of this. You don't like it? Great. You tried, great. It still goes towards your graduation requirements. It still meets everything you need and then you you know, but at least you know. >> Yeah. And I think also some of those pathways require a level of education too, Kathy. So I I I >> most of them do but most of them are college requirement anyway >> and so I'm not again that's why I'm saying that to me
135they're equal there it's an equal footing and it's not one is one is more than the other. >> I think it's not necessarily equal. I think they're they're just different you know they're they're different. So, I I think it's good for us to have a lens on um CTE pathways and AP honors courses or students that are going to community college. I I feel like maybe you're getting hung up on the en word enrolled even though Dr. Brockett, you're sharing that it's students that have completed those courses. Yeah, I mean we look at enrollment right now, but ultimately we pull an end of the year which pulls the students that have those courses transferred. >> And is that where you're getting your targets from is at the end? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Not at the
136beginning to see how many kids are enrolled. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So maybe that word >> So maybe that's >> Yeah. Why Why is the Does the word say enroll that we're going to increase enrollment and doesn't say we're going to increase completion? If if if that's not what we're measuring, >> I don't know. We can certainly we can certainly change that. >> Yeah. But I think it >> means the same thing. But if you're getting hung up on that word, I think >> that was the intent. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But anyways, how do we feel? >> Could we change it? >> Did we go from enrolled in to complete? >> Sure. >> When we bring it back, we can have it changed. >> Okay. Because I think in the end, just like
137when we're talking about pathways, the key is completers, >> right? >> People enrolled >> the word enrolled. >> Yeah. >> Just to clarify, they're only able to change those courses within the first two weeks. So, correct. >> Correct. I mean, the the question is, you know, did they successfully did they pass the class or not pass the class? >> Okay. So that's but then you wouldn't measure that I get is that included in the 1% then if they passed. >> So >> and then what is the threshold for that passing? Yeah. >> So I I I would have to go back and look right now. I I I mean at this point if the student had the class transcribed that would have been we would have been capturing that data. Um which it to the
138point I I like the broccoli analogy. Thank you for that. Um, I I think that that's I I mean I think that that was that's the intent of this as I understand the the original intent of this is that you're you're not limiting the types of students or the demographics of students or the students who will go into who you would encourage to go into and try those advanced types courses. Um I I don't think the in I think that was the initial intent was to increase the number of students that have access to those courses. Um I don't know that there was initially an intent to capture and when I heard the conversation there and I mentioned the beginning in the middle I was thinking about a student that would drop the course for
139example that would not be captured in the number uh if when we pulled at the end of the year. Um, however, a student who didn't successfully complete a course would have been captured in this number historically. Yeah, I yeah, that would that would that would lower the percentage and we'd have to we'd have to do a little uh modification. I mean, I think we'd want to go back then and look at what our what our numbers historically looked like if we were peeling out students that perhaps didn't successfully for a variety of reasons perhaps complete those classes. >> So, I don't I myself I don't object to 1.7 as is. Um, you know, I I think Kathy does bring a good point. So, I I do think it might be a good idea if you
140could, if there's no objections, if you could look into um possibly a metric for CTE pathways and but I would want I would want to see it as a different success indicator, but I but again, I would want to see what that metric is and what it looks like >> and what it's measuring. we've done with some of our metrics, you'll see there's maybe two >> two data points underneath the same metric. We could potentially underneath the same success indicator and we could potentially craft it that way as well to capture both of those things >> for advanced learners if that's, you know, if that's what we're trying to capture. So advanced in a CTE sense, advanced in a in an academic class sense, and and have an one success indicator that includes those two
141things and has two data points that go with it as well. >> And I think another reason why it's good to have them separated is because you could have the same student in a pathway and complete it and also in an AP honors course as well. >> Correct. Right. Yeah. That I don't have a >> otherwise you would like double count them. Correct. >> Right. Okay. Yeah, >> Trusty, >> thank you. Um, what CTE pathways provide a certification because broadcasting does not. >> Um, yeah. So, most of most of them do. Um, and just off the top of my head, you know, uh, child development, for example, does CPR um courses. Uh our our biomed pathways also does CPR um for health care professionals specifically. Um our uh our building construction trade does an OSHA
142uh certification. Um >> uh the yeah the athletic training pathway is not is not technically like a CTE pathway. So, they gain super valuable hands-on experience, but there's not a I think they pro they do um they do first aid uh they do a first aid piece. Yeah, exactly. But it's a little bit different. So, yeah, most of them have some type of certification. I think what what um what broadcasting, for example, gets in that place is so much of that hands-on real world work-based learning experience. And I I don't know. I'd have to check with with our teachers to know if there's if there's a specific relevant certification to that or or really I think we've seen a lot of success with them doing the work and then being able to show the work
143for it. >> Yeah, >> they might have portfolios. >> Yes, >> I just going for it. I I would not be in favor of changing um to students who for 1.7 to students who completed um I think going back to the point that this is you know trying to try something on not necessarily be good at it. Um you know so I wouldn't if I am the minority then and if that is amendable then fine but uh I I think the whole point of this is not that they um succeed at it but that they try it. And so I'm gonna just >> So what are you asking? >> Just to leave it as is. >> Yeah, I want to leave it as is. >> Yeah, without the um completed with the change to completed.
144>> Oh, I think that's kind of the same, but I think it's semantics. I I again I'd have to I'd have to the I guess the clarifying question I would have as we look at that are we talking about successfully completed in that they passed the course or are we looking for the fact that they completed the course and didn't drop the course. >> So what have you been measuring up until this point? >> It it it would have captured any student that that took the class and and passed it >> and No, not necessarily. >> Oh, so they could have failed it. >> Correct. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. to speaking to the point of having the experience and having the access to that class. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> But what what
145>> well then then trust I'm sorry last. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to speak. >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. So then I would agree with Trusty >> on that point, but go ahead. >> I I think I'm agreeing with you as well. I just want to clarify so that I'm understanding. Are you feeling like it's important even if they were to drop the course in the first two weeks that they took the class? Because also with the broccoli example, sometimes if you encourage them to eat it a few more times and at some point maybe it's not their favorite food, but they'll tolerate it. >> Well, and I personally Yeah. 11. You have to try it 11 times. I think here the difference is honors and advanced placement compared to the community college because
146they have kind of a different drop pass fail. So I think that's where it gets sticky in in my eyes. I would hope that they our um counselors would encourage them to at least try you know further than that but and if they you know I don't know what the what we consider the um successfully is that above a C or above >> I would say that they they pass the course with D or above. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It' be interesting to see what those are what we've historically changes too. Trusty verbth >> is it possible to have both >> percentage that have enrolled >> and percentage that have completed successfully that way that will give us a very good picture that we're just not saying oh well 90% of this you know I
147I think knowing that they finished just just like any other course we want them to finish yes we want them to try the broccoli yes >> and to successfully >> and to and to to finish it. I mean, when my kids start on a team, I say, "You finish this season unless there's something horrible going on." Right. Right. You start a class, you finish the class, unless something horrible is going on. So, I would like to see both. And I don't know how the rest of my trustees, fellow trustees feel, but that's the whole picture for me. I I want to see, okay, if they drop, they drop. That's fine. But that's only part of the picture. >> Yeah. I We can go back. I'll have to go back to again our data folks and
148see what we can pull on that. But I'd be happy. I think it's a I think it's an excellent question to consider um that we haven't looked at because again I think I think I would agree with Trusty Amry that the original intent was really to provide that access. But I think it's an excellent point and maybe that's the evolution is to look at um how we're both encouraging enrollment also supporting success. >> Yeah. I I I appreciate Trustee Emry's point because um that clarified some things for me and I also I kind of like that idea, Trusty Beth. I think that's valuable information for us. So, and I think you said that within some success indicators, there's like a a two thing that you look at, right? Yeah. So, I trust you. >> And
149then with the advanced placement, would that also be paying for the test and passing the test as well or just taking the class? No, just taking the college level class is what we've is what we've considered there. Yeah. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Uh Okay. Sounds like we're good with 1.7. Are there any other uh suggestions? >> I I would say I'm I'm not in favor of um of 1.7 as is. I mean, if if we were to add the career pathways, I'm fine. If we do put a career pathway piece in there, I'm good with that. But I still wouldn't be okay with 1.7. Okay. Yeah, I think we have uh we have both of those notes up there. We'll come back around. >> Right. So, when we come back around, I could
150say that, but currently as it stands, I'm I'm >> Okay, that's fair. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Moving on. >> So, uh are there any additional uh recommendations for success indicators under goal one that trustees would like staff to consider? >> None. But I do have a question. Mhm. >> Um did my did the trustees would like to take a break right now or do you want to keep chugging along? >> Would you like five minute break? Okay, we'll take a 5m minute break. Okay, we'll see you back at 8:05 8:04. five and we're back. And Dr. Brockett, go ahead. >> All right, moving on to goal two. Um, success indicator 2.1 has to do with professional development. Um we have uh trustees last year um requested that we move the
151target up to 95% and what we do is um we uh survey uh our teachers following professional development opportunities and engagement to ensure that they're um relevant to uh their work to make sure that we're supporting the things that they do. Um, I know that there's been some discussion over time about about like kind of drawing a straight line between professional development and impact in the classroom. Um, I would caution that that's, you know, really challenging to do and there's not really a great metric for doing that. So, staff is recommending 2.1 uh remain as written and we'll continue to ensure that we offer high um uh high relevance and valuable professional development opportunities to our staff. And we saw that in the survey feedback as well that staff appreciates that when when they have
152that they want to continue to have opportunities like that. Any questions or comments on >> for 2.1? >> 2.1. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh Trusty Rolls >> and um and I've always appreciated this um this one because I um even my colleagues have said, "Oh, I want that in our LCAP." You know, that that's a good one. Um, but I did have a concern about this seems to be the only one that we have kind of an explainer and what I mean by it says provide professional development and targeting regarding effective teaching strategies that support a learning environment to engage all types of of learners and target and intervention needs of our schools. So, it seems to me like if you're saying that we can't really measure um the um the direct connection to the classroom,
153um shouldn't we just say shouldn't we just get cut to the chase and um and just say that um that we'll provide professional development that um that receives a higher rate of relevancy, a 95% uh relevancy rate. >> Yeah. I mean, I I to me um it it's it's a little bit of a semantic argument. think all of our professional development we certainly want to h help teachers build strategies to support diverse learning all those right you know so >> I'm not disputing that what I'm saying it seems to be the only success indicator that we have that kind of explainer attached I mean we're saying like A throughG we're going to keep we're going to maintain A throughG at 80%. We're going to um uh we're going to administer a student check-in survey and
154it's going to be this. So to me that one is kind of and I'm not sure that >> if if it almost seems like it's misleading because we're trying to connect it to the classroom but we really aren't. We're just we're measuring relevancy >> and I believe this was changed to include some of that language a while back. I don't know what year but my recollection was it was before what you were recommending very much um more direct but I do think as we um as we uh looked at our professional development opportunities there there was the ask that that we hone in and focus in on some of those um things that engage all students it was it was asked to be added in. >> But then would it then could we change the
155term relevance to be something? because it because to me it doesn't make sense and it's almost misleading a little bit the way it's worded because I mean when we talk about relevance can we say that 95% uh 95% will rate our professional development provides effective teaching strategies that support a learning that support a strong learning environment because that's what we'd be that's what what we'd be asking not relevancy But does it support uh teaching strategies and a strong learning environment? Because that's what we're really asking, right? It's not relevant. It's >> I think you're asking whether it's relevant to the teachers and how they're applying it to their classroom. Am I correct about that? >> Correct. Yeah, I I see what you're saying, Trusty Rawlings. I mean, the wording is is maybe a little bit
156backwards. the the relevance should be to that they feel it's relevant to building strong environments and doing all those things. We can >> that's perfect. I mean to me that that makes a lot of sense but to have the terms >> um because there's lots of other things that could be relevant besides >> learning environments and teaching strategies. There's much there's broad relevancy in teaching. So that's why I was a little it just doesn't the wording doesn't make a lot of sense to me. May I just ask if this was, you know, this was developed prior to me coming here, but I'm thinking that there's more than professional development than just for teachers in the classroom. Um, you know, that, you know, um, uh, speech and language pathologists, you know, go and take special training,
157but, you know, that is of course I I don't think what this is trying to hit here. Do you think that that is why it's worded the way it is or, >> you know, I don't I don't know. I'd have to defer to Dr. and I on that discussion that went on uh previously about that. I I think as I read it um I I agree that the wording is is a little bit wonky, but that I think that the intent is that that it's it's high quality, you know, professional development designed to support students and then the the measure is that teachers see that as being relevant to the work that they're doing. >> Yeah, I >> I think it's fine, but go ahead. I just seem to recall that the teachers were asking
158and we brought that as in as part of our discussion saying I think it was part of the survey where the teachers were saying it's okay it we want it to be relevant not just a checking of the box that you're providing it to us right >> well it I think the term relevant was um it used to be um I want to say um successful or or highly rated or you know um it the term term relevant had had evolved. But what I'm talking about is that and I agree with you um Trusty Emmery that um that professional development um goes beyond um if it's relevant, it goes beyond support a learning environment and um and engaging all learners because there's there's so much more that goes into relevant professional development. It could be
159classroom management, it could be um it could be behaviors, it could be I mean so there's lots there's more to that. So to me, the wording just is too narrow when it comes to relevancy to um all of our um all of our folks. So it didn't make a lot of sense to me when I was reading it over. So I wanted to bring that up. I I think it's fine as it is. Um you know, I'd be open to a change, but I I see it as you know, the support a learning environment. And so that touches on all things, but it's not necessarily, you know, and we're talking about professional development, not necessarily, you know, that's provided by the district, not necessarily services that are, you know, sought out for conferences and things
160like that that teachers do outside of what we provide. So, >> no, my understanding they do they um conferences are part of the professional development array, isn't it? >> Yeah, it depends. We we don't I mean if a if a if a teacher on their own goes to a conference, we're not surveying them on the relevance of that. Um really what this refers to is is kind of uh either district supported or or district directed professional development opportunities. >> Okay. Any other objections? All right. Okay. 2.2. >> All right. Before we wait into 2.2, I want to remind us that we're we are here tonight just to talk about the goal the uh goals and success indicators. And success indicator 2.2 two is a little bit tricky, right? Because this this the uh forward together
161plan um and next steps could be a whole and and will be a whole discussion in and of itself. Um so really what we're focusing on right here is that we um are transitioning. We're we're in year three uh of our forward together strategic plan, a three-year strategic plan. Um we do not have a a new plan or next steps at this point. Um Dr. director has been working with his committee to um gather feedback as has been done on an annual basis um to provide to the board uh along those lines. Um and what we've had previous to this year is um specific targets around uh achieving the actions uh outlined for each of the specific years in the forward together plan as well as uh achieving uh specific data targets a percentage 85%
162of the data targets that were in there. given that we are reaching the end of that three-year cycle and we haven't yet had an opportunity to um engage uh with trustees in terms of what the next steps look like on that. Um what we're what what the focus of year 3's work has been especially with our forward together committee is is understanding what are our enduring commitments. Um and and those commitments and and we'll again have discussion about this at a later date, but those commitments may form some ongoing document. They may be commitments that we decide to uh to capture in some other way. Um but what we've what we've heard over time consistently, for example, is the power of student voice. Um and and having opportunities and structures and systems in place to
163hear from students and be able to respond to those needs. That's a that's a practice that we have um we've instituted and that we believe in and that we hear feedback from families and students on uh and staff that's valuable. So that's just one example, right, of a of a of a bigger conversation that we'll need to have about where we go uh with um with our forward together and and how we shift that goal. So what the really what the uh goal that we're proposing at this point would be to um to as we as we uh wrap up the third-year work and think about what we do ahead would be to identify what those ongoing commitments would be. What that what the form of those looks like again is a conversation for another
164day. Um we we recognize that trustees have elevated this forward together work to uh to you know a key uh LCAP metric. Um but we're also just in a little bit of a a transition period with that that we don't know exactly what that work will look like moving forward. So um our proposal at this point would be to identify what commitments uh we intend to make moving forward um and and use those as a springboard for you know establishing some practices. Um, you know, again, not not writing the plan as we sit here, but but thinking about one thing I know that we've talked in great detail about is like I mentioned is is how we empower and capture student voice to help um guide our uh actions and responses uh with school culture
165and climate. So, um that's where we are with 2.2. Um again, I know there there could be a lot of discussion on that, but I um I I want to hopefully keep us focused because we could be here all night. I I want to keep us focused on just the fact that we we don't there's there's a there's information we don't yet know about where we go with this. So, we want to uh leave some uh leeway uh to uh have a meaningful uh goal, but also to have some uh leeway to have ongoing discussion about what that exactly looks like. >> Sure. >> Questions? >> Um yeah, can you just clarify for us again what the I know those timelines are kind of overlapping but not well. um and what those would be for
166when you know establishing a new um you know the targets around those and with the LCAP timing and all that. >> Yeah. So we um I I think what we've talked about at this point is uh is bringing back kind of our end of year well we're going to uh uh talk start talking about kind of our year-end uh progress and everything in May. And we've talked at this point about bringing back that conversation in May, which kind of gives a chance to wrap up um some of the year three um actions around that. Um that doesn't necessarily I mean it does give some time potentially to go back and and sort of revisit some of the things that that are you know even the success indicators in here. Although we usually kind of again
167sort of go in that sequential order of setting our success indicators and moving forward, but we can come back and and and revisit those. the final LCAP does not get um submitted uh until the end of June. So there is there is certainly some time in there if we wanted to add some further clarification at some point in the future. >> Okay. So what I'm hearing you say is that you're going to bring back this information in May for the DEIB stuff. That's our our plan right now would be yes to give a like a wrap up and and you know some suggested next steps >> and and I've been kind of keeping track of the work that we've been doing with that. So I just want to make sure that when you bring it
168back just to refer to the comment that you made earlier when trusty verbth mentioned DEIB. You said there are also some academic growth targets that are attached to DEIB. >> Correct. >> And I wasn't really sure about what those were but I'm probably just missing it. So, I just want to make sure you're going to bring those back as well in >> Yes, absolutely. Yeah. >> Okay. Awesome. >> Anybody else? Uh, Trusty Rawlings. >> Um, so I'm uh I I guess I'm a little concerned about um this being so kind of wide open. And in many of our other success indicators, we, you know, we say we're going to grow by x amount or we're going to have these things um be um you know, at a percentage rate, that sort of thing. So I
169understand that we had the implementation piece and when I you know when I look over kind of the action items under the forward together plan it is create a team administer um uh receive board direction on development um to continue to review and align those types of things but I didn't see like grow the sense of belonging by 5% or whatever from like to have baselines and then to grow. So the plan has been implemented like it's more of a um uh the implementation piece and the and the developmental piece it has been done through the plan. But I guess I guess where I'm coming from is I'd like to see um I would like to see us looking for for growth from the baseline. I guess because I think the plan by implementing everything
170we kind of set the baseline now how can we grow from there? So, personally, I would like to see this. Um, >> I think that's what he's saying that they're going to be bringing back. >> See, that's not what I'm hearing. So, I'm not hearing that it it seems like we're just going to have a continuation of the plan or the or is it going to be here was our plan and our intent is to grow certain aspects of um make sure there's metrics noted in that is what it sounds like. Attach some meaningful. >> Well, but okay. Show me where those would be because that's what personally I would like to see. >> Okay, >> that be the success indicator on the LCAP that we would do certain things as far as Okay. So,
171okay. So, there we go. So, um >> uh do we know if that one was met or not? For instance, >> that's what we'll be reporting. >> Okay. Yeah. So, from my perspective, let's say that was met. Then I would want to say let's reduce it by another 5%. you know, for the for next year or to, you know, like we've done with all these other um success indicators where we're saying we want to grow by certain amounts that in other areas we want to reduce. So, I don't want to just take this plan and then add to it. To me, I want to build on it, you know, right? And maybe add some different metrics, but from what you're presenting here, that's what it seems to me that we're just looking at just kind
172of creating a new plan or, you know, another three-year piece rather than growing on what we've already established. I mean, I think I think it's it's at this point we haven't received direction from trustees about where uh where to go with that. Uh and we are at a place where we're again we're sort of capturing the end of that year three um of the of the existing plan. Um not knowing what that's going to look like moving forward. Um we we that's how we tried to is tried to thread the needle here and capture um capture actions that we knew were we were going to take. Um, but I you're correct there. We don't have necessarily ongoing metrics at this point. I think the appropriate place for that conversation would actually be in in the
173plan itself, if you will. I don't think necessarily that the the individual metrics would go on the LCAP um uh you know uh front page here, but rather that that we would have that conversation about what we wanted to continue to do uh along those lines as we move forward and that and that the goal at this point would be to establish something and and move forward that I as vague as that is I know that's that's what our recommendation is at this point. Well, and for me, from what I understood with this strategic plan that we had for three years is now that in what you wrote here, establish ongoing commitments and just from my conversations and understanding is that these practices are now going to be embedded into um you know the different
174areas and what we're going to do and where we're going to see those growth. and then you're going to share us share with us the metrics. But I think before that even happens though, I think the plan needs to come back to us to show what's been done, you know, within that plan, >> what hasn't been done, what we need to do better, >> right? And then um and if there's some things that we need to add because there were some things that were taken away from that when we originally proposed it. So, you know, I'm wondering if um when that plan comes back, then we can have those conversations because I I really want you to walk us through what's been done in year 1, year two, year three successfully >> um and kind
175of share with us um the areas of growth and need and also >> where parts of those plans plan is going to be embedded into the different things that we do. >> Yeah. I I would agree with that. I mean that and again that that being work that we haven't yet done I think is where we're trying to capture something that's >> broadly inclusive enough here to capture what we intend to do. whatever format or specific indicators are within that uh that work moving forward. >> And there'll be dollars that will be attached to those, right? What's been spent, what hasn't been spent, right? >> Yeah. >> Can I ask a question now? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, a couple times, Brian, you mentioned elevating student voice. Is that um one of the main um
176goals of what we want to continue? I you just mentioned it a couple times this evening. >> Yeah. I mean I think from a staff perspective, it's one thing that we've seen. We've built some consistency around hearing feedback from students and responding to that feedback. Um and that's been done through kind of a variety of venues. One of which is is the No Place for Hate committees at the schools. That's the framework that No Place for Hate provides is that it it's it's designed to hear feedback and then um and then respond to that and have students be engaged in that. Um we've had student panels um at at at some of the schools on their own, but also through our forward together committee each year. Um that's given us a really powerful opportunity because
177it it cuts right to um you know the the the experience that students are having on their campuses um and and whatever the feedback is from them. It's super valuable for us to be responsive to that. I think for us that's that's a definitely an ongoing commitment that we'd like to make as a staff whether regardless of of what we do. I think we've seen the value in that um in engaging our students. We've got amazing student leaders um who have a lot to share. Um and we want to continue to cultivate that. >> Yeah, I agree. Um I guess when we get more information, I guess what I'm really getting at is if you look at goal two, it says align student learning to state adopted standards supported by materials, instruction, and technology in
178a fiscally sound, safe, and clean environment. So, I guess we have to wait to see what we want to continue to implement and if it's still align fits underneath goal two or if maybe we I don't know if we move it to goal three. I'm just I guess we just don't know where we sit right now. And it to me right now if we're are we going to continue trying to um align with student learning to state adopted standards supported da da da da or is this something now where we're going to be engaging more with student voice like you're saying? So should it shift to goal three? I don't know. >> It's a good question. I don't recall the discussion about where it landed in goal two in the first place, although I assume,
179you know, uh, really had to do with the safe environment and and supportive inclusive environments. I I don't disagree with you. I think it it could actually hit in a variety of areas here. Um, yeah, and it's certainly something to consider. >> Well, because I kind of think bathrooms need to come back. But so if we're talking about shifting things, >> anybody else? Uh, Trusty Rawlings. >> Um, I just have concerns about the wording here. It doesn't to me it doesn't fit in a success indicator and that um I mean I recognize we we basically said we're going to implement over time 50% I think it was 70% 85% and then 100% completed as far as the implementation phase. But I guess from my perspective, I thought that was going to build a baseline and
180then we can say that, you know, this is how we're building on it and to improve on what we, you know, what what our commitment is to inclusion, to equity, to, you know, these things. So, um, so that's I guess I'm confused with the wording here as a success indicator. I'm totally, you know, I completely agree with you, Michelle, on um on understanding the growth, what what has been implemented, what hasn't, those types of things. But then, you know, where does it go from there? And how does the wording the current wording of this success indicator fit into that? Because I I don't see it. >> So, well, how I see this with the DEIB plan is one, I I do want to see it come back. I see Dr. Brockett looking at the clock
181so I'll try to be quick about this. Um is that um I think it needs to come back so we can actually see uh what's been done with fidelity and what we need to improve on. But I also see it as not, you know, that it's actually pulled out of here and that it's actually an ongoing commitment and and something that is part of our program and part of our instruction, part of our health and wellness, part of, you know, and our professional development. And it's a part of our instructional practice. And it's something that's on the face of our website that we honor it, >> right? And that we value it and that we take teachers through the training and staff and everything >> because >> And that we're building on those trainings, right?
182>> Absolutely. Absolutely. It's not a one and done. >> And it's never stagnant because we're >> a public education institution. So, >> we're continuing to grow and be better. >> But um >> So, are you saying you do want it taken out of here? is that >> well I I don't know yet because I want him to bring it I want him to bring the plan back. I want to see >> um and what I'm hearing I mean >> I I wanted to see it come back and I've been having those conversations but you know he said it's going to be coming back which is great. So, I actually want to see um and how it's reported on in terms of all the pieces, right? >> And also because I know some parts of it
183were taken away when it was originally proposed 100%. >> And I and I feel like some of that needs to come back, right? So, um I think when it's presented, then maybe we can go into more of what that conversation is, but but I think it should be really ingrained into our district and our practice. >> Okay. Okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. Um, trustee COC, >> I I totally agree that it should be just kind of embedded in all of our systems. I really like looking at it that way. I'm I'm curious if you have any thoughts on how we >> if we leave it in here where it is forward facing how we would make it quantifiable like the other metrics and >> maybe it's are we meeting or exceeding these >>
184I don't know how we would word that so I guess >> well I I was going to have um a request um later at the end of this. But I also think that when we go through the plan that there might be some areas that we might say, okay, that is something that is truly measurable and not necessarily a practice that's ingrained into what we do every day, right? So um you know it might you know if we look deeds like that th those types of things are more measurable, right? So, but I want to see what that looks like as we go in deeper into the plan and it's um shared with us. >> So, what I'm hearing then from you is that the verbiage in 2.2 as it stands is kind of more
185of a placeholder right now until we >> That was my understanding. >> Okay. >> Yes. revisit it and then sort that out and that we would at that point either decide we wanted to >> reword that where it's something that's measured >> maybe add another success indicator >> or add another one or maybe it doesn't on this >> p however after we get there. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, I like that. >> Okay. And just from a historical perspective, the technology plan started in the LCAP. The special ed strategic plan started in the LCAP and the um well the the the CTE plan started in the LCAP and then it you know and then it's evolved to where we took out some measurable pieces of the CTE stuff. So a lot of our um a lot
186of our big picture you know overarching cultural um strategic plan started in the LCAP. So I and that's what I had thought. So when I'm reading this, I'm going this doesn't make any sense to me that this is that. So if it's a placeholder, I'm all good. But the current wording right now, I would not be in favor of to standing. Okay. Okay. That's why I want to make sure that that was >> and I think that's what you were saying. I don't I just want to verify that come back as like a standalone. >> I I appreciate an term placeholder. I think that's that's accurate. >> That's fair. I didn't notice that until just now. >> Okay. >> And thank you and I'm all good. Andy Rolling, thanks for we're good for now. Yeah,
187we're good for now. >> I just want to say sorry really quick. Thank you for sharing that because that is really helpful to see how the past historically has implementmented going forward. >> And like I say, it doesn't stay in here forever. It kind of, you know, we we put the focus in on it, we prioritize, we make it happen, and then like you said, it becomes part of our our overall systems. Right. And that's and I think that that's >> to me that's what LCAP should be doing. Right. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. Off to 2.3. >> 2.3 student mental emotional health. Um this is uh you know an area that a number of our uh stakeholder groups uh spoke to. Um we would like to continue to uh monitor that uh through student
188uh perception surveys uh that will be administered four times throughout the year. Um we have uh set a previous bar of 82% favorable rating uh and we suggest uh maintaining that. um our our site teams, uh counselors, teachers, administrators continue to get out areas where they see students reporting lower levels uh of feedback on that, whether it's um school safety or whether it's um you know uh connection to to school. Um and we think that that's appropriate and we'd like to continue that. Any questions at all there? >> Oh, go ahead, Trusty Rollins. And this is another one I have concerns about that um um and I'm wondering if there's a way to um change up how we gather the information. Um again, we heard a lot about screen time, a lot about um uh
189people um uh you know, just too much on screens and using the computer. And then also too, I do recall that, you know, our um our response rate has not been great. and that I'm wondering is there a way to um uh is there a way to like an advisory or in um different uh places where we could have it more in person almost like a focus group to where you know it's not just checking a box. It's actually students having conversations with other students and and and having it be um uh you know more of a facilitated conversation than a computer you know survey of for five minutes. >> Yeah. Well, I'd compare it to I'd compare it to the conversation we had earlier about screeners. The the Kelvin survey one, I I will
190say, you know, I appreciate the the thought about screen time, but the Kelvin survey is brief. It it takes about five minutes and and it's a quick way to capture, you know, feedback from a lot of students all at once. Um what the what the teams will do then is identify they can identify students that are reporting for example bullying and harassment and can and can follow up directly with those students. Um and so that's kind of an important component of that. So I think that what you're suggesting is important and it's important part of it. It's it's sort of the next layer beyond uh capturing that high level sort of screener if you will of of what students are are feeling or reporting and being able to move beyond that. >> But I thought
191we heard that um that students would like ignore it and not and not respond or or wouldn't be or wouldn't be um uh as honest as they might be let's say in front of their peers or in front of you know actually talking to a teacher rather than just on the computer. Yeah, that's a great the the participation rate we have addressed. Um we we actually have had high very high participation rate um in the last couple of years. Um we focused in on having our secondary secondary was where it tended to be a little lower. You know, students kind of see the thing and sort of ignore it. Um and um and so we focused in on having them do that at a set time. um whether that's during an advisory period where we
192tell them when the survey is going to launch and try to capture like during the class at that time to do that. Um I don't think we have an indication that students aren't being honest. Um you know to the degree that you know we do uh have our counselors or our uh uh teachers do some follow-up with students to check with them. Um you know certainly that that show displays responsiveness to concerns that students are reporting. Um it's I guess it's always a concern that they might not be telling us everything that that we want to know or that we're looking for to support them with. Um but I don't know that there's a there's a perfect answer to that either. >> Well, and I mean we heard at um our last board meeting that
193there is a lot of stuff going on that we're not that we weren't aware of or that ar isn't being captured maybe in a Kelvin. So that's why I'm trying to figure out is there are there other ways to get responses from students so we are, you know, maybe finding out about this stuff early on and that it's actually reflected in what we're trying to um what we're trying to capture. >> Um go ahead. >> Oh, no. I I was just going to I was going to roll back to the comment about student voice and the ways that we engage with students. I think that's a part of that's a part of that conversation, too. and and we're working with students and they you know as as we know secondary students sometimes aren't telling us
194all the information and we've got to uh dig a little deeper and find ways to do that and and I don't know um you know I think this this particular methodology serves a purpose and it maybe doesn't get at all of our questions or things that we need to do. So, just to follow up on that and and I know you're um on a linear path and you want to go through each one, but I feel I I feel like I kind of have to skip over a little bit to kind of um share. Okay. >> Yes. So um I I'm I agree with what Kathy is saying and a lot of what we are hearing in the thought exchange survey I would say across the board from every group is that there are issues
195with bullying behavior um you know vaping in the bathrooms um bathroom issues like um and cyber bullying I mean it it's across the board and I would say parents are voicing that teachers disrespect you know that students and um so I'm wondering if like for 2.3 that maybe what you're really measuring there is school climate and culture not necessarily school safety and then I'm wondering if we should skip down and add a 2.5 because I was going to request this but I think it kind of falls into this conversation to add a student safety and behavior success indicator and where we are actually looking at our safety practices and protocols within our schools. also disagregating our information in terms of um student groups that you know how often they're disciplined, how they're disciplined, um how
196it's being reported, you know, all of those things I think are really important because you know what we're seeing from every group from the thought exchange is that there is a concern around behavior and so I think we really need to capture that in a success indicator. And I have some ideas of like how we can capture that. So it's a true metric, but um I mean you you all might have better ideas too, but um also looking at you know our safety protocols and how we're training our teachers and staff to also interrupt and disrupt situations that are happening at school. is something that we're often hearing is that there are racial slurs on campus and um they're they're not necessarily being interrupted or disrupted. So I I want to make sure that that
197training also is being provided. But, you know, I think that metric um or that indicator uh would be really beneficial and maybe changing 2.3 to school climate and school culture or school climate and culture. >> I like that very much. And and also I'm thinking back on previous board meetings where we've talked about the student mental and emotional health and and safety in that relationship of feeling safe as opposed to physically safe. Having that distinction there I think is very helpful >> for determining how to >> address the the different issues because they're not the same. >> Right. Right. And I and I think of a lot of what we were doing in DEIB is a lot of PBIS which is the positive behavior interaction right or intervention support. >> We need the negative but
198I think we also need to take a look at how we are extinguishing some of the behaviors that shouldn't be happening in a school environment as well. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Uh Trusty Rawlings. Um, that being said, and I I totally agree with that because again, we're hearing all this stuff out here, yet our surveys are saying everything's fine, you know, and that's where I'm concerned about it. And so, piggybacking on that is do we need 2.3? >> Yes. >> For and for what reason? If I mean, number one, we're measuring mental health on a screen, you know, which I again I I think is a concern. Um and then I also think that um um it to me it's more isolating being you know being from on a survey um where you know
199and I think people are moving more and more to again having conversations face to face with each other to to find out really what's going on. And so from my perspective I'm not to me I don't think we need 2.3 and I would um I would object to it based on the the new success indicator I would object to 2.3 if we can have that. >> Yeah. Go ahead. And then I'm going to >> as as someone who uses those screeners, I I would say that and and I think when you're we're touching on two different things here. When we're talking about getting off screens, I think they're not for things where we're trying to pull a lot of information really quickly from a lot of people. I think yes, you're right. We need to
200look at other ways. Maybe not here. Um I find these as really quick snapshots um and not the only work that teachers are doing within the classroom. They are I believe they are having those conversations. I I think um when we're pulling out you know specific trends though within schools I think these are really good snapshots for um the larger you know school community and you know for us here to kind of see how everything is going. Um, you know, a lot of that is not necessarily centered around I don't remember all the the Kelvin survey ones, but you know, like do you have a trusted adult? You know, that's not necessarily something um that would respond to I think what we all agree we need to get out here. But I think for a
201quick check-in and um like I said like yes and I think it is still there's still value in it and and again I'm not saying that the teachers couldn't use it in their classroom. I'm just saying that and you know that at a at the board level that we're going to mandate this happen and that what we're trying to get out of it because to be honest with you I have felt that the results out of this has been a very rosy picture and I think reality is is something different. I mean to be honest with that that we're getting these responses and it's a favorable response and again everything looks rosy and it's not and so I'm not sure that's why I'm I'm concerned about the success indicator because I'm not sure it's measuring
202the success >> right but how would you know that if we didn't have that data right so this is why getting multiple metrics is important because then if we're getting conflicting data we could say to the staff hey um what's going on with this survey because we're hearing all of this and it's not matching. So, what is wrong with this and what needs to be changed about this? I think it's important to get climate and culture surveys of schools, especially for school leadership and and district leadership because that really gives them a pulse of what's happening on that site over overall. So, aside from student safety and behavior, which is a little more targeted view, um when you're looking at climate and culture surveys, it's more of a broad view on how the school is
203doing as a whole and how students are feeling as a whole. And also multiple metrics is really valuable because um and I would say any teacher you talk to is going to tell you that because or administrators because I think you know the more information that you get it gives you a better sense of what's really out there and also you know what surveys maybe aren't the best surveys or what has to be changed within that survey right go ahead trustee verb beth Thank you. Um, you've written, "Add a new success indicator 2.5 on safety practices and protocols." Is protocols does that include what the consequences are, what the discipline is? Because we've been hearing people asking us what what what are the consequences? >> I said student safety and behavior. I didn't say protocols.
204Yeah. >> Even though we would probably look at our practices >> within that. safety practices, >> Student safety and behavior. Yep. >> And I would want to change 2.3 to school climate and culture. If trustees agree to that instead of school climate and school safety, you know, looking at it more with a bigger lens since we would have 2.5, which is looking at student safety and behavior. >> And are you getting rid of the student mental health, emotional health? >> Uh, no. I'm keeping that. >> Okay. So, you're just I see it here. >> Even though I do kind of feel like that fits into student wellness. >> There is some overlap. >> Yeah, there is some overlap and you're going to get that. >> Yeah. >> And I guess from my perspective saying that,
205you know, an 82% favorable rating it um because I agree with you. I think you need the I think you need the information such as do you have a trusted adult? Do you have that? But to to equate that and and to me it's not targeted enough either because you're saying overall in the district we have a 82% favorable. Well, what if at one school it's 20% and the other school it's 80% which gives you an average. And so to me I I just don't think that this this gets at what we're trying to get at number one and it's too broad and vague to where I I very much agree with your um with your added one. I just don't think that this one is necessary to as a success indicator. Again, I'm I'm
206I'm not saying we don't use it. I'm not saying that that it's not a valuable tool. I'm not saying that as a success indicator on the front page of an LCAP, it doesn't do a lot for what I think we're trying to get at. So, that that's that's the reason why I'm not in favor of it. >> I think what what I'm hearing you say is it's not really a great assessment. Kind of like we're not supposed to ask our kids, "How was your day?" Because what's the answer? Fine. >> Perfect. Yes. And so you're you're giving the 82% favorable. Do you feel safe at school? Yeah. >> Like maybe it's the questions on the survey that need to be honed in a little bit so that we're asking better questions and getting better data.
207>> Yeah. Who writes the questions for the Kelvin data? >> So we take them from a they've got a pool from different vetted surveys. Okay. >> Um, and you know, as I'm thinking about, >> do you look at the chicks data too when you were >> Yeah. Okay. >> We haven't used that as a metric per se, but we do look at it. You know, for example, under bullying and harassment, we ask students about how many times uh how many times they've been bullied um based on their gender uh gender identity, sexual orientation, how many times they've been bullied based on their religion. um uh any other any reason uh at all uh ethnicity, race, ethnicity, national origin. So, we ask all of those questions to try to kind of get at at some of
208the different things that are happening. Now, I mean to to case in point, those numbers are all over 80% favorable for so students saying they have not been bullied for those reasons. as was mentioned earlier that's that means you know for example we've got 20% of students who are saying that at one point they were >> um so again the I think the data as it's presented we can I'm happy to kind of dig a little deeper but the data as it's presented provides that that map and and invites >> school sites and and counselors and teachers to dig deeper >> yeah and it and it probably is 80% I mean I what I would do is look at the 20% and find out because you're not going to have 50% of fights in the
209district. Hopefully you don't have that, right? Because that would be insane. So, but um you know, so you would want to look at you know who are the 20% what's happening and dig into that. But that that might also help with your information that you're getting from 2.5 as well. But then shouldn't we shouldn't our metric be we want to reduce um bullying or you know students that have identified of being bullied by 5%. To me that's a better that would be more of what we're trying to get at that's a success indicator than the the favorability piece right because you're right we want to get at those 20%. the the you know and and like are we equating I think one of the questions was do you have a f you know do you
210have at least one friend at school um and I I think it even goes into you know do we equate that as that you feel like you belong because you have a friend at school I mean that's the part that I'm not sure you know that when we talk about favorability that part I'm not sure that's a direct correlation so to me I think the the what we're measuring isn't getting at what we want get at. >> Yeah. So, so what I'm hearing you say and what I'm wondering is maybe 2.3 Dr. Brockett, >> maybe the questions that you're pulling in the Kelvin survey is more about climate and culture and then maybe the information regarding um specific, you know, things that are directly affecting students is um 2.5. And that's just one other piece
211that you could add to in terms of the metric in student safety and behavior. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense, Kathy? >> Yeah. As written 2.3 I do object to because I I want to I want to focus in on that 20%, not the 80%. And I I And so to me, I want to see a reduction in >> the bullying, the the lack of belonging, those types of things instead of >> what you're saying, Kathy, is bringing that what you're asking. Okay. down to 2.5, but making 2.3 more about climate and culture of the school. And when they when they choose the um bank of questions from the Kelvin survey that maybe the questions are focused more on climate and culture. Does that make sense? >> Okay. Once I see it, I would
212be the the current form I'm not in favor of. Okay. So, I can say that. >> Yeah. >> Does that make sense what I'm what I'm wondering? >> I think so. Okay. Or >> sounds like 2.5 would be a lot of data that we would gather from Aries in terms of expulsions, suspensions, bullying, how and and then that would also require a level of ensuring our administrators are entering it correctly. We're tagging it all the same. >> Yeah. I Yeah. I and I would suggest again, you know, as a starting point, I'd be interested to go back. There is a school climate there are school climate metrics under the dashboard as well that might >> maybe that could be part of 2.3 though, >> right? That that might be telling for us as well. We
213can we can take a look at that and come up with some ideas. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So, I want to go back to 2.5 um before we went back to the wording that Michelle was suggesting stu student safety and behavior. I still don't see consequences or discipline in there. I know we've kind of been talking about some other things, but this is something that the community's been asking us for and I think identifying it on the front page. Can we do that? >> Yeah, I mean, we can. I I I think I what we're going to have to play with is what's an appropriate metric for that? Um, at the moment, I'm I'm my wheels are turning, but I'm not necessarily coming up with what I would consider to
214be appropriate metric for that. I do think it's something that we work on in terms of, you know, consistency in in follow-th through expectations that we have um for students across the district. Um but I it's we're going to have to think about what that looks like in terms of capturing something. I I don't think there I'm not I don't think I don't know that there's a perfect metric for what I'm hearing in the conversation here. Um but we can we'll we can play with that and bring something back to trustees. >> Yeah, I think there has to be some thought around it. And when I say behavior, I am talking about like discipline and stuff. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Could we also get some information on effective discipline because I've you know I and
215effective consequences because I have you know there have been you know kind of a you know one-sizefits-all on some of that stuff and sometimes those consequences don't impact the student. They're like, "Yeah, sure. I'll I'll sit in a classroom, you know, whatever." You know, so it Well, yeah. I mean, sometimes it's like, "Oh, I don't have to go to school. Cool." You know, and and so and so I do think if we could get some information on, you know, effective, you know, has that actually changed the behavior? Has that actually improved the circum the the situation? you know, um because we can do discipline and consequences all day long, but if it's not improving the situation, >> I don't know if that would necessarily be part of the success of the >> No, I'm asking
216for that information as so we can so >> you want to do that at the end when we request information. >> I I thought we can talk about it now as far as you know, if we could get that information as they're de, you know, as they're developing this success indicator, if we can get that information along with that so we can make uh good choices. >> Okay. Can I ask uh Dr. Norman, what are your thoughts around some of the >> um I do think that it's a community concern. We've heard quite a bit from um from our community on that. It is difficult because every situation >> is dealt with differently based on the student um the infraction um what's happened to the student before. And so there isn't one clear line. We
217do use ed code and there are restrictions to what we can do especially on certain offenses and when all of us were going to school. Um you could have one infraction and get a consequence that is no longer the case. And I do think it would be great for um >> Dr. Brockett to weigh in on that and it to inform the board inform the community on on how that works. um because then that would help with a lot of understanding because I do think people get frustrated because we're playing by a rulebook that they don't know and so the more we can share the better >> and we're also a progressive discipline district correct so that has to be kind of explained as well and what that looks like. So >> um but yes
218we could request that information. >> Okay. Uh 2.4 >> 2.4 for uh student wellness. Uh again, another area where we've been working with uh our subcommittee, trustees Rawlings and Verb uh to um update uh board policy uh 5030 on wellness. Uh last year trustees identified uh a desire to update that policy um with uh with measurable targets for goals related to nutrition, sustainability, food delivery efficiency, weight times, health promotion and education, and physical education. We're going to be getting back together with the group uh next week uh to talk about some uh potential uh updates to that board policy and what some of those uh potential metrics might look like. Um given that we haven't done that, we haven't completed that work yet. We anticipate completing that before the end of the year. Um at
219this point, what I would recommend is that we um we adopt that policy, which we anticipate doing later this spring. um and then uh use the opportunity to establish baseline data. Um I know that sounds a little bit amorphous again, but it's it is kind of an approach we've taken in the past as well to help us set that baseline, know where we want to go for establishing um uh goals in the future. Um and without knowing specifically what we're going to uh bring back to trustees um in that board policy at this point, that's that's where um that has been left a little more open-ended this point. Oh, trusty rolling. Sorry. Um, so I'm a little confused. How is this different than last year? >> Because we said we were going to develop baselines
220last year and we're still saying we're going to develop baselines this year. >> Well, we can I So, I I guess my my um when I thought about this and looked at it, we because we haven't yet updated the policy. I think I believe that last year's goal and I can let me just pull it up here real quick was to uh um establish so that yeah the targets will include measurable guidelines for nutrition sustainability food efficiency delivery. So so you're you're correct there in that in that the the policy is to include these measurable guidelines. What we don't yet have is what those measurable guidelines are going to be to in order to know what our baseline targets are on that. So it's possible it it's perhaps similar to the conversation we had around
2212.2. We might want to consider uh having this if there's an objection to it as it's written. We could have it as a as sort of a placeholder for further conversation once we complete that work and bring it back. there may be a necessity to have some time to establish those baselines and perhaps those are those baselines have already been identified and we can establish growth targets at that time. >> Go ahead. >> When are we expected to have that updated information and report back to the board on that new board policy? >> I would hope to have that back uh either in uh our May meeting or our first meeting in June. uh give us time to meet with the the committee. I I've met separately with the subcommittee uh members. Uh we're going
222to come back together with our full committee next week. Um then have some time to do some make some refinements on there and then bring forward a an updated board policy for uh for consideration by the whole board. >> Trustee Rollins. So if um so if we end up doing what you have described here um would that mean that the success indicator from last year would be not met for this year when it comes down to evaluating whether we met the goal or or whether we met the success indicator or not? >> I I as I read as I read and understand the goal from last year it's to update the board policy and identify things that would be targets. I I don't know the metrics for that. I I don't know that I completely
223read it to say that we would have we would have um numbers to those things. I but >> but doesn't it say baseline as well and that so it just seems like we were supposed to identify baselines this year and that you're saying that we're going to identify baselines next year. I'm just saying that this has happened with other items like this where it seems like we're we're basically saying we're doing the same thing and it doesn't progress us down the road. >> Yeah, that's fair. >> So I'm I'm concerned about that. I I was disappointed when I saw this piece after all the work we've kind of put in and the lack of of question you know we've asked lots I know both Gretchen and I have asked tons of questions and we haven't
224gotten those answers to be able to like you know the wait lines at you know at the lunch line if we could have if we know what that is we might be able to say hey we're going to reduce that time by five minutes that that would be a target but we haven't received any of that information either. >> Okay. Um so um so what I had thought of and we we brought it up in our meeting a little bit is um you know um and again it's a bigger project. I didn't know I wanted to ask for this, but I and I did ask for it in our subcommittee meeting is is that and what would the board think of of um uh if we were to establish a three-year strategic plan around wellness
225um in the district and I even think that could include um that that it could include uh mental health as well. But um obviously the students are very concerned about parents are very concerned about this. We've had lots of meetings and you know the um the information I'm just not sure a policy change is going to get to what we're trying to get at. And I do think a three-year strategic plan similar to the the technology plan to the DEIB to some of the other things that we've been able to develop we have really improved systems and that's something that we talked about in our subgroup. And so I I would be more in favor of that than kind of repeating establishing baselines establishing baselines on this one. Are you wonder are you proposing potentially
226pulling it out or keep it in and do a strategic plan? >> I'm what I'm saying is that we that that part of what you bring back to us as a placeholder would include um uh establishing and partially implementing a three-year strategic plan on on this topic on on all the a you know the weight lines, the nutrition, the physical activity, so mental health. So that's what I would like to see happen rather than just establish a baseline when we were supposed to establish a baseline from last year or that by the end of this year we should have had baselines. Therefore we would be having measurable targets. So I'd like to see us do a three-year strategic plan. >> Okay. Um, I would want to see what that is because I think this wellness
227indicator is like about physical health, not mental health. But I mean, I'm always open to supporting a strategic plan around mental health. But also I think I read in the rationale that you were waiting for board policy 5030 and I think you said um wellness will be updated in the spring accordance to the >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I thought there was some change with um BP 5030 or there's going to be a change. >> That's what we're working on. Yeah. Okay. That that's the the current success indicator has to do with updating 5030 to include >> some metrics around those areas that are listed there. >> Okay. So once that is updated then you will have the metric for the student wellness. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> To create the basin. Oh, I see. Okay.
228Okay. But what I'm saying is our current one also says we're going to establish a baseline. So we we should be further along. >> Oh, so our current board policy also says >> no our current uh success indicator on our LCAP says baseline. So that so >> right. So we're behind on where we're and so in my view it >> you know it would be at least partially unmet by the end of the year if we're going to say that we're going to establish baselines next year. >> Yeah. So that that's what I'm getting at is that we would it would be an unmet success indicator from from for this year if we continue with what it says on the current page. >> Yeah. I mean I I do find that concerning. Um I just
229don't know what is what the strategic plan would entail. I would want to I would want to know what that proposal is >> and and it we wouldn't necessarily write it but it would be you know in my from my perspective it would be based on all the work that we've been doing in the wellness committee because we've met three times now and as a subcommittee. So, so we've had student input, we've had So, my thought would be is that we take all that information that we've gathered. Hopefully, we get a lot of our questions answered from what we've been asking about and then at least provide some parameters to staff and then staff would bring would bring it. So, the >> input been around physical health or has it been around mental health? >>
230I mean, it well it's been the food delivery, efficiency, weight times, um health promotion, the policy encompasses a lot. >> Okay. Does it encompass mental health components? >> Not a mental health representative. >> Okay. No, I guess it is. >> So, I guess if you're including that, I want to know like what that proposal is, you know, like what you're thinking. >> Yeah. I mean, we would it would be more giving staff parameters and then parameters and then they would bring back the specifics similar to the the DEIB. We kind of we did some broad parameters and then they came back and gave the specific >> because we were talking about student wellness and you kind of threw in mental health. That's why I'm wondering like how you're >> and again I threw that in
231as a way of of if we wanted to broaden it to be more because if we're talking we're going to commit three years to this it would you know it could also encompass some of the things that we've been saying because the other thing too is is that 5030 also has at least three other policies maybe even five other policies that it it relates to and one of them would be um uh student mental health. Yeah, I mean there's other not 5030, but then um there's other policies. I don't know the numbers, but there's other policies that relate to it. So, I guess there's there's multiple policies that that uh relate to 5030 in our current in our current um uh board policies. Um when we implement a strategic plan, does that typically involve more
232dollars? >> It it has typically involved some identification of expenditures. Okay. >> You know, depending on what the focus is, it might be expenditures that we're already making, right, or planning to make or it might be new uh new expenditures based on the the specific actions. I think what I'm hearing here is just a specific request to bring back a an updated success indicator that that moves us farther down the road in this project, if you will. Yes. Yeah. >> Yes. That that we can work on between now and April. >> Okay. >> Well, and then and again the I would like to see it be more than just the update of the policy that we would be looking at a strategic plan. So it's more of a one and done. I think that's a
233that's a an action that we can capture as as an idea. Uh but doesn't necessarily wait what >> I mean it would be similar to what we've done with the technology plan with the special ed plan with the with the DEIB plan that that the success indicator was to develop the plan. >> Okay. >> And then to implement over time that >> the only con you know the only clarification I would want to have is what what does that mean to the current success indicator? Are we not are we scuttling that and bringing back a strategic plan or what >> what would that entail? I'm kind of wondering if, you know, maybe we can focus on bringing back a metric for that and and kind of putting the strategic plan on hold right now just
234because there's a there's a lot of things happening in our district right now and I think we really need to focus on um supporting all of our students right now. And I I I'm wondering if maybe that's something that we could look at down the road just because there's there's a lot going on and and I think that there's a lot that the staff has to handle as well right now. I >> I agree. But can can we say why there hasn't been any just I mean even measurement and weight times you know food delivery efficiency like why is that not a metric that we've been able to to kind of meet or procure? Yeah. Yeah. No, it's just really been part of the work of of developing the policy and and we haven't completed
235that work yet. So, at this point, that's why we don't have those together. Um, and and certainly it's our intention to do so by the end of the year. >> So, that is metrics you're planning on bringing back when you come with the board policy 5030. >> We can do so. Yes. >> Okay. >> And that was something that was expressed, you know, multiple times by staff and students that they want us to decrease weight time. So, it's a great example of a metric that we need to have. That is a good metric. >> Well, and go ahead. >> I'm sorry, Laura. >> We're failing. My son tells me he cannot get lunch at school. Period. He He would not have time. The bell rings and he doesn't have time to get lunch. So, >>
236well, and that's what I wanted to say too, Michelle. I think I mean this is the second year in a row that that nutrition and food services has been the top of the list for students. And so I don't, you know, that's why I think we do need to have more of just a, you know, kind of a oneanddone solution that, you know, I recognize we have a lot going on, but a lot of students want this to be handled and that um and even parents want it to be handled and and teachers, you know, I mean, we saw and we saw just the small improvements that we did with the the salad bars that I mean, I was fighting for those salad bars for three years before we before we got them and people
237really like them. And so I just I I disagree that that that >> I'm not I'm not saying not to do a strategic plan and I'm not saying that it's not valuable or important. I'm just saying that we need to be really good about prioritizing where we are right in this moment. >> So that that that is what I'm trying to express. So I'm not trying to take away from a strategic plan. I could see us doing that later though. And I'm not taking away from the importance of this. And it is disconcerting that we don't have a metric for that. They should have a metric, especially if it hadn't been done last year. Totally agree with you. I'm I'm just I'm not trying to take away from the value of this. I I'm just
238saying maybe maybe we wait a little bit and give them the opportunity to bring back a metric around board policy 5030 or whatever that is. Yeah. And I very much agree with you all of that. But I think we really need to have some metrics there so that it can be measurable because then we can give instruction in what we want to do going forward with with all of the many needs in the district >> and and we've asked the questions. We've said, you know, how many students are getting lunch at school? How many students are, you know, how long are the wait times? You know, what are the offerings? you know, all the So, we've asked the questions, we haven't received them >> and well, and we haven't received them, so it's hard to
239provide that um additional input. >> All right. Um, we talked about 2.5 already. >> Yes. >> Is there any uh additional requests under goal two? >> No. >> All right. Moving on to goal three. >> Oh, wait. >> Sorry. So we are hearing about bathrooms still problems vaping just you know vandalism kids not use I can say my kid doesn't even you know use bathroom till he comes home right so multiple kids say that I wonder if we should bring something back about the bathrooms so I'm just throwing it out there I know we don't want to have this long laundry list that goes on to two pages but >> um we still are having problems with our bathrooms so I'd to hear from my fellow trustees what you think about this >> quick quick
240comment on that. Um one I I do think we we've had a shift off of where we had the success Nick here before which was around cleanliness >> and what I see are two things that stand out to me. It's access um and um and repair of bathrooms like for example when the locks are aren't working in the in the um stalls or whatever it may be. Um, I I I'm certainly eager to hear the conversation. I would suggest that those are things like we mentioned before, they're not not not the LCAP is not necessarily a catch-all for all things, but all the feedback that we get is good. Um, and that those are things that we can we can and need to one talk to our administrators about about what the access issues are
241because we hear like I see if you've seen the feedback there, they're closed at lunchtime. I can't access this, I can't get to that. Um that's that's an an issue that we need to discuss what the what the limitations are, what the challenges are with that to to um to ensure that there is appropriate access. And then the second one is working with Dr. NY's team in maintenance and operations where we have you know repair issues um and ensuring that you know the the staff that's responsible to site is putting in work orders and then those work orders are getting followed up on. I I I'm not sure. Again, it's we're we're here to have the discussion. I'm not sure I would suggest that either of those belongs as an LCAP metric, per se. >>
242I think that there are things that we absolutely need to follow up on though and ensure they're getting taken care of. >> And so supervision, I think, needs to be included in that because obviously things are happening that people aren't seeing when they happen. And so >> when it goes back to it goes back to the conversation about what what are we looking at in terms of like discipline and behavior, I think I think a lot of the bathroom issues that I saw percolate up actually aren't bathroom issues. They're they're behavior and supervision issues. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Goal three. >> Okay. Uh goal three. uh parent education success indicator 3.1 uh around our parent university participation uh and um uh and feedback uh about uh parent university uh relevance. We do
243not recommend any changes on that. We want to continue to uh do that and and we want to really continue to be consistent. We've had a period of transition I think with um with the retirement of Miss Echelman who ran our parent universities for a number of years. Um we've we've uh captured those a number of ways. Uh and now with having uh Miss Cobb in as our student services coordinator. Um we we've got just sort of a uh vision for how we'll continue to implement parent universities and we would suggest continuing with this. Um we heard from our parents that they want to have opportunities to engage and we think this is an important one to continue with. Any questions on 3.1 at all? Okay. No. >> Uh 3.2 two uh career pathways and
244work-based learning. Uh the success indicator itself uh has not changed. What what we're recommending at this time is a change in the metric. Um and what we have had over the last couple of years is we've been reporting a metric of the total number of work-based learning opportunities um that are that we were capturing from our students. Um and um as is indicated on um uh on the rationale there um we've done a great job with that. We've um we've we want to shift at this point from uh reporting on the the aggregate number to the number of unique contacts we have with different students. Um the reason for that is uh that we uh we want to shift that uh because we think again similar to some of the conversation we've had already that
245we've established a really high and sustainable level of total uh opportunities. For example, in our CTE pathways, we've established an expectation that each class, each student has at least three work-based learning opportunities over the course of the year. And our CTE teachers uh and staff have done a great job with that. Um, we've also expanded opportunities for all of our students, including by adding the guidance tech position to focus exclusively on college and career readiness. And that was uh through the generous funding of CEF. Uh, and that will continue. We've partnered with our PTSAs to support consistent offerings. But what we see right now when we pull the numbers that we're capturing is that uh just about 49% of our students are accessing those opportunities. And so what we want to focus on now is
246a shift. Uh we want to continue keep the 2% growth but not have that 2% growth be on the total number. We want the 2% to growth to be on the number the percentage of students who are accessing those opportunities so that we ensure that we're having contact with all of our students in those areas. Um that will uh you know that will keep our number I think high and growing. Um uh but more importantly it it's going to shift our focus to ensuring that we're having contact with all of our students in that area. So really the goal the same just a shift in in metric that we think will be valuable for us. Any questions at all? >> Uh Trusty Emry. >> Oh sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Um sorry were you
247saying the that 49% was that just at the high school level? >> That that is just at the high school level. we we will still maintain at the K8 level that all of our students are are receiving, you know, are are having those opportunities that are aligned to our continuum that has been developed. Um the high school level is where we specifically want to continue to get at um those opportunities. >> Questions? >> Um actually I had one quick question. Um >> can you define what is unique student contacts? Yeah. So, another way to put it, although I hate to use this term because it's it's used in a different way in in education, is unduplicated student count, if you will. >> So, in other words, we we when we pull our data now, 49%
248of our students are are we we've captured as having work-based learning opportunities perhaps through their CTE class or perhaps they showed up at an employability skills workshop and we captured that. Um, so, so 49% of our students are showing that they've done work-based learning. We want to increase that number. >> Okay. I was just wondering what that was. Okay. >> All right. Um, moving on to 3.3. Uh, graduate profile attributes. Uh, staff recommends uh modifying the target to be 90% or higher for each of these attributes. Um, these are cap uh rather than the 2% year-over-year growth. Um, these are captured as a part of a a survey, a student perception survey that we do that has questions that are aligned to their perception of their ability to display the graduate profile attributes. Um, and
249we've established a really high mark for student perception. Um, we think it's important to continue to focus on those graduate profile attributes um, in this way. Um, however, we with all of the attributes at this point being 90% or higher for the current year and some as high as the mid90s, sustaining 2% year-over-year growth uh might not be sustainable long term. Um, so we want to uh strive to have all of our students demonstrating these attributes, but there's there's natural fluctuation in those numbers. Uh and so we think that establishing a 90% threshold and really helping to maintain the focus on it by keeping the goal but also having that be at a reasonable level uh is appropriate at this point. >> Any questions on that at all? >> Yeah. >> Uh Trusty, sorry. Uh
250not so much on this, but just wondering on any I know not on the um uh middle school or high school um progress reporting um but is any of this align with any of the like report card comments or any of the kind of the scoring at the lower levels? >> You know, that's a a great question. I don't think at this time that there's that there are specific indicators of graduate profile attributes. Obviously, you know, when you look at that holistic elementary, for example, report card, you know, there are certainly components of that that are aligned, but not specifically in these terms. >> Called out. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Trusty Rawlings, >> thank you. Along those lines, um we're saying that they're demonstrating the graduate profile, but it's self is it selfidentified as
251demonstrating. So it's kind of to your point where it's you know if the teacher is identifying you as being these things that's one thing but but by by self-identifying is that really demonstrating? >> Yeah it's a it's a good question. I mean I think I think again like a number of the things we've talked about this is perhaps an imperfect uh measure but but serves as a proxy for trying to get at that. Um it's a little bit challenging. I know that, you know, for example, at the elementary level, um, there was a lot of work done to really develop a strong standards aligned report card. These are not per se standards. They're they're attributes that that we've identified as a value for uh, cultivating in our students uh, that complement certainly the standards and
252the things that they do. And and I I don't, you know, certainly there are other ways to get at that. um there are portfolios things like that but um in terms of a capture that helps us you know have at least a high level view I think this this serves its purpose. >> So for three through so so for third grade fourth grade and fifth grade is that is that measured by the teacher or is it all measured by the Kelvin? No, it's all measured by by their responses to uh certain questions on the Kelvin. >> Okay. Wouldn't it be, I guess, more um uh more reflective of what we're actually doing to be uh maintain the percentage of students identifying uh attributes of the graduate profile at 90%. Wouldn't that be more appropriate? >>
253I I don't >> So, you mean to add in selfidentifying, >> right? >> Rather than instead of demonstrating >> because it's because it's to your point because it doesn't, you know, because when you're demonstrating, you're actually kind of being evaluated by someone. You're not saying, "Yeah, I'm a I'm a lifelong learner." >> So, it be who identify that they demonstrate >> students identify, right? That makes more sense to me. >> Change that. >> Yeah. Okay. I was just going to ask, were you were you here when they made that success indicator? I'm just like wondering because I feel like third grade you kind of have to explain all these to. >> What do you mean? >> If you if you're a third grade teacher, you might have to explain what they'll be like, well, what's
254an ethical and responsible citizen? You know, I mean, you kind of have to explain it to the kids in order for them to actually take this. >> I didn't come up with it. Let's put it that way. >> No, no, no. I'm just wondering, do you know why this metric came into being? I mean, what was the purpose behind it? >> Was it to support the graduate profile? to support the Yeah, it was to support the graduate profile and it was a way of trying to >> make it more than words on a page was is my rec is my and so but I the the way we got at it I I don't think I ever was in favor of to be honest as far as you know doing a the Kelvin survey piece.
255>> So there are attributes that we want students to have. >> Yeah. And I think there was, you know, an there was an indication from the board at that point in time >> to measure some other things that are nonacademic that are um important skills for students to have and um but yeah, we we are asking students their perception of that. >> Right. Right. Um, we've had lots of conversations in the past of can we, you know, ask teachers to evaluate this in some way or put and you get it gets much more into the weeds and um I see Miss Fuentes back there. I'm sure she'd be loving another discussion about elementary report cards and engraving the graduate profile into that. But no, it it becomes much more difficult when you're asking teachers to
256assess these things. >> And I'm not saying that. I'm just saying >> understood. >> I'm just saying like >> just to give an idea >> are we getting >> the survey results with some fidelity for like third grade four >> just to give an idea. So just to give one snapshot the under effective communicator and collaborator for elementary students there are two questions that kind of capture that are that are identified to capture that one is I listen carefully to other people's points of view >> and the other one is I can clearly describe my feelings. So again, >> okay, >> perhaps imperfect, but but those are kind of elementary appropriate questions that sort of get at whether the student views themselves as being an effective community. >> What are the two questions you have
257for ethical and responsible citizens? >> Great question. Ethical and responsible citizen. >> And and to answer your question, I do think at the third grade level, especially third grade teachers are walking them through this process. They're taking it as a class. there there's a little bit of dialogue that's going on there and and potentially even fourth grade. >> So, ethical and responsible citizen is uh I care about other people's feelings >> and I get along with students who are different from me. >> There we go. >> All right. Okay. Uh moving on to 3.4. Chronic absenteeism. Um we are recommending uh a modification on um 3.4. So we recommend aligning this success indicator with the metrics on the California school dashboard for chronic absenteeism rather than the current 5% reduction targets by gradespan. Um we
258all recognize this is an important area. It was the lowest area uh on our on our dashboard um this past year. Um and so we we want to continue to get out chronic absenteeism and do it in a meaningful way that show that we can demonstrate progress. Um so we uh appro we believe that this is appropriate to align the success indicator with specific attainable metrics um that will move the dashboard district's dashboard indicator in a positive direction by reducing chronic absenteeism. The CDE uh defines a 3% reduction in chronic absenteeism as significant and for us a 2.5% improvement would represent meaningful progress moving if from today if it we started today uh moving us from the orange indicator to the yellow uh indicator. So a meaningful step forward on the dashboard measurement um and
259a continued improvement uh of 2.5% would further move us into the green band uh again representing meaningful and attainable uh improvement in this area. So, similar to some of the academic targets we talked about earlier, um what we were really trying to capture here was something that was was grounded in what we felt like uh was an important goal, but also that was attainable and and was in line with uh some of the things that we saw in terms of of of meaningful rationale for why we were trying to get after it or or or what we were trying to grow. >> Questions at all on that? >> Yeah. >> Uh Trusty Rawlings, >> thank you. Um, will we be getting information on the um on the reasons um for um absenteeism and um and
260what grade levels are higher than others? >> Yeah, we can certainly continue we can continue to report you know some of that. what we don't what we don't necessarily what we haven't at this point uh you know captured uh in a quantitative manner is really the reasons for absences that are sort of leading to the I mean we we have that data available but really again that's one of those things that we we dig into not at at our higher level uh in general but more at the site level when they're following up with students and families and those things we can certainly try to grab some of that data and report that as well um in addition to continuing to share information at the grade level span. Um, we just felt like it was
261appropriate for the the success indicator here to tie that to something uh uh like the dashboard would be valuable to us. Yeah. >> May I >> Yes. Sorry. >> Thank you. Um to to kind of piggyback on to that um you know if we're trying to increase over time um would it be feasible to follow up with >> um what different strategies are being implemented um if if any to you know yeah >> not keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result but you know what other um things we're we're adjusting. >> I think in the short term we can certainly provide maybe a Friday update to trustees about what we're doing related to uh absenteeism especially at the sites where they're you know have higher rates. >> Great. Thank you. And what's
262and I'm assuming that they share those with insights what's working and what other Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Um are there any other requests under go three? >> Okay. Now's the time. I I want to just take a moment uh to recognize uh my colleague Dr. Nye for his outstanding Oh. Oh. Oh, and help. Okay, perfect. And Miss Aras. Um now's the time we're just going to run back through real quickly here. um uh what we captured and make sure that we um we are clear uh with how we're going to move forward. Yeah. Can we make that to like 150% or something? >> Okay. Um and and you know, it's it's funny as you jump through this uh work. I think one of the things that I recognized early on is the
263is this is the shift from consensus to objection creates some areas here where we might have a couple of things that we're looking to respond to in terms of trustee um requests uh or objections that were raised along the way. So I do want to acknowledge that um and then uh make sure at least that we're exploring the right things. Um so we did initially have a request uh to remove success indicators 1.1 and 1.2 uh and explore other universal screeners. I think that as the conversation went on what I actually captured was um and I and I want to clarify this because I think this was trusty Rings um is it is it to remove or is it to revise to better capture the progressive growth and progressive performance? Uh, in other words, a
264better a better metric for that success indicator uh as opposed to removing or >> Yes. And that's what I heard that um trustees agreed to. So, other trustees than me. >> Great. >> Oh, wait. So, we're removing it because I don't >> No, no, no, no, no. The revised the revised, not the remove. Yes. Yes. >> We're removing the remove. Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Um, so we've got that. Now, we've got revised success indicator 1.1. We'll bring and 1.2. We'll bring back revised success indicators uh at the April meeting. Yeah, I and I kind of I thought you were just gonna bring it back um what that could look like because I don't I want to see what that looks like before >> I I do think I think what I'm envisioning under our current
265format here would potentially be in in in an area like that having Yeah. having what we suggested >> and having a revision and being able to make some decisions. Yeah. Yeah. Um, then under 1.7, it looks like we want to potentially add a workbased learning success indicator. Uh, maybe combine 1.7 and 3.2 or look at pathway completions or certifications. And then continuing on 1.7, we wanted to increase the percentage of students uh to include both enrolled and completed past one advanced honors course. So, we're going to need to pull those numbers. Um, and again, what I if if that's capturing kind of the discussion that we had, it's a little bit it's a little bit messy right now. But again, uh, to President Ward's point, I think that what we would what I would envision
266is, um, taking that feedback, bringing back some some options that speak to that feedback and allowing um, trustees to view those alongside the current recommendation in April if that's appropriate and agreeable to everyone. >> So, a possible 1.8 then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yes. A new success indicator 1 point. Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Um it looks like we're going to revise uh we have a request to revise success indicator 2.1. Um just it I think the verbiage uh on that needed some clarification. Um so we will revise that and bring that back just with a little greater clarity about what the intent is um for that professional development. um 2.2. Um so there is a desire to um report back on years 1, two, and three. And as I reread this now,
267I think perhaps what I'm envisioning is uh in fact whole using the placeholder when we report out on the plan and and make a suggestion, a recommendation about next steps, we would alongside that bring a success indicator. uh perhaps um I did hear some discussion as well about whether a an ongoing success indicator on this was warranted or whether we wanted to now sort of embed that that's a conversation for a later day. Um but I think if we bring all of that back together, maintain this as a placeholder for now, then we can certainly have that conversation at the appropriate time. So we'll uh we'll work with our team on that. I I will say that that what it sounds like to me is for now when we come back in April you'll see
268the same placeholder success indicator on that unless I'm okay >> that was my question. Thank you. So, I mean, I guess how would that work as far as timing goes? Because I know we have a specific cycle of our success indicators and to add actions and services and then would it be a separate agenda item when you bring back the the forward together plan or how does all that work on the on the timing? I I think that what we would what we would do, we're going to be talking about the LCAP at I think every one of our meetings for the remainder of the year. Um so so it will it will not be problematic to we'll already have the agenda item to to discuss the LCAP. We'll just include that. >> I'm more
269concerned about the the forward together plan as it relates to our timing and the LCAP. I yeah I mean I think that I think that what we would need to do at that point is to uh determine whether it was appropriate to continue to maintain a placeholder and we had some more clarity perhaps about what was in there. >> When would the results of the forward together plan be on the agenda? >> Oh again sorry we're planning for May on May. Yes. And then then it would be determined by June whether there whether it's going to we're going to have a success indicator or not. And that's when we do our final approval of the LCAP. Correct. >> We have and we have two cracks added in June. We have a June 10th energy. >>
270I'm just saying we're going to have to we're just going to have to make some tight need to make that decision during that May 27th meeting when we bring the LCAP. We'd want to get direction from you. Um we'd make it an action item as to whether we want to continue to have it on the LCAP or not. We can make that. >> Okay. So, we would have to be prepared to at least have some pretty close to final language at the May meeting when we have the when we see the forward together plan. Is that correct? >> Or whether you want it to stay on the LCAP or not. >> Yeah. >> But we would have to have language that what it looks like. Okay. >> We will have language for you. >> Yes.
271>> Okay. >> All right. uh under 2.3, it looks like we have a uh a desire to revise the the I think the title of that success indicator to really talk uh specifically about uh student mental health, school climate, and school safety. Um I'm sorry, no, that's what it reads now. Sorry. Change that to uh school climate and culture. Um and then clarify that to include emotional safety. Um and then finally a adding a new success indicator under uh under goal two to talk about student safety behavior >> and behavior. >> Yes. Okay. Um 2.4 uh again uh same uh couple things. Um one is uh we initially talked about sort of a placeholder to bring this back. I did hear under that though a desire to ensure that it whatever the placeholder is even
272represents progress from the current the current goal that's in there. So we can reword um that to ensure that we're capturing that. Um and then um similar uh on 2.4 for also um a conversation about uh potentially establishing a three-year strategic plan um based on uh the wellness committee uh work. Um and that is certainly something that we can discuss as a potential um a potential success indicator as well in line with what was discussed or an action. Yeah. Or Yeah, that's true. Or an action. Um >> yeah. I think we're on 3.3. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Oh, moving on to 3.3. Yes. >> So, moving on to 3.3. Um, just changing the wording there. Um, clarifying that this is students selfidentifying these uh characteristics um and making it uh to say that
273they're identifying those attributes as opposed to um demonstrating I think that's a good clarification. Uh the new success indicators, um I think we've uh captured 1.7 which we talked about. Um 2.5 uh we talked about as well. Um and you know truthfully I can envision perhaps bringing back um maybe a couple of ideas that we can that we can share around 2.5. Again, as I shared earlier, I don't have a really clear idea of what that's going to look like at this point, but I would love to um uh throw some ideas together with our team and then have some further discussion around that. Um and then last but not least, we're we're getting down to um some other priorities um here that um that we would uh that trustees would like us to consider
274um as we develop actions, services, and budgets. So now now for you know clarity sake these would be um ideas that you would like us to continue to look at. Um uh so we do have a couple things that we've captured already and we are happy to capture uh additional um items that really fall under the actions and services piece um that help us get after these goals. Um so we uh had a request already to provide some additional information regarding effectiveness uh on student discipline practices. Um we had a request to bring back additional information uh on access and repairs uh to restrooms. Um we have a request to bring back additional information on reasons for absenteeism and absenteeism by grade level. Um, are there any other specific actions that we would like to
275investigate um or cost out as we continue to develop our LCAP? >> Um, could we do site also, grade level and site, >> so we could see what's happening at each site, please? And I and I can add in there just to just to add some clarity around some of the things that we think about when we think about this. Um obviously we have uh we've utilized up to this point one-time dollars to support our MTSS teachers, for example. Um we we already plan to um cost out you know what that continued um service and action would look like uh moving forward so trustees can be informed about decisions as we look at um budget the the LCAP budget obviously is a is a subset of our larger overall budget. Um so we will be
276working in unison over the course of the spring to look at those things. Um we'll we'll look at that. Um it was mentioned earlier ongoing counseling um support. We already plan to um look at um ways costs and ways to continue to fund ongoing counseling support. So those would be a couple things that have come up through these discussions previously as well that will yes MTSS counselors. Um >> so my >> uh the the one about absenteeism because you already provide us in our Friday report the attendance based on school site um uh student groups >> and I think grade level I think you do provide us that. So are you talking about chronic absent >> I think what I'm hear is chronic absentism. >> So chronic absenteeism is the data that you're going to
277provide us cuz you already give us attendance information. Okay. Just making sure >> um just around the student discipline just to you type there just to be really specific on some of the things that were called out um you know the bathroom behavior um the uh bullying the racial slurs and then also is concerned with some of the technology use or misuse I should say um you know some of the things being access cyber bullying you know and all that. So, just to kind of call out some of the specific ones within that student discipline um that we've heard as some of those kind of heavy hitters. >> I would also like to add um uh I guess uh respect towards teachers and adults. >> Uh that seemed to be that was brought up a
278few times. Um and >> um and even you know >> um I I think you know even being physical with with teachers and other adults on campus as well. that was um part of what we saw as well. >> Yeah. >> And officers. >> So I'm I'm wondering Dr. Brockett just because I'm thinking of like when I was a principal in terms of our like to get all of that disagregated like that. I'm I I think what we need to start with is maybe looking at each site's um you know their safety plans and what that looks like and then >> sorry to clarify I was I was not asking for it to be disagregated but just to be included just to make sure that we're capturing some of the behaviors >> right is that
279that was my understanding >> considering okay >> yeah not disagregate that would be a lot >> okay yeah >> so to make sure that okay Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm wondering like what that would look like. >> Yeah. Like I said, I'm not sure yet either. Um I'll have to get the team together and and talk about what, you know, what would be meaningful, what's what's what's capturable, what's meaningful, and what's the, you know, what's the success indicator one, and then what actions go with that that are that are intended to get after that. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> I had a couple questions. >> Okay. Yes. um when you were talking about actions and services that you said you were planning on moving forward with the counselor, you
280know, continuing the counselors, contin to be clear, planning on costing out and and >> Oh, okay. >> and and bringing that information to trustees for consideration. >> Thank you. And so that then um are there any recommendations that you're going to bring back to us that you that you think you would be um asking us to cut from actions and services that we had last year? I I don't think that we've we've fully considered that at this point in time. That's the heavy lift of the work that we'll be doing between now and the May meeting is really taking a hard look at at actions and services. Um making some assessment on our own about what um you know what the dollars are that we have available, what the needs are, what the what the
281goals are that we've set and and how best to get after those. Um, and there's always going to be trade-offs, but um, I I don't think we are prepared at this point to make any recommendations specific to those. >> Okay. And then you would have, let's say, where grants existed for this thing and it doesn't exist anymore. So, the dollars would need to come from, let's say, um, uh, would need to come from general fund, those types of things because I know that there were some grants that have expired. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then one last thing, um the questions that we had asked around the wellness piece, can you make sure that all the trustees get um the answers to those questions as well? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> All right.
282>> Any other requests for consideration as we move forward? Again, we'll be talking about this again, but this is not it's not it's not your last chance, but >> Well, I'm just going to go ahead and ask my annual question of MTSS for high school. So, can we just get some dollars on that too, please? >> Thank you. >> Look at that as well. >> All right. We ready? >> Okay. So, are we done? >> I am done. If if you are done providing input to us, we're going to move on. Thank you. Thank you all, by the way. Appreciate the input and the conversation. >> Yep. >> Thank you. We now move on to agenda item 4.3. Trustee requests for information from staff. Trustees, are there any requests for information from staff that have
283already been discussed with the superintendent and have been recommended to bring to the board? I have a couple. Um, I'd like information for uh around a proclamation around bullying and hate related behavior to come forward and if you could share that information with us. Um, it sounds I also had a request for the DEI forward together plan, but that looks like it's already coming. Um, I'd also like information on um clear rules for safe and responsible ebike riding, >> information on ebike enforcement by the c by >> point of order. >> Um, do we do we have to find out if there's any objections from uh trustees for the information? >> Yeah. Really? >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Because it's if if it's comes to the board, it has to be um that
284the board has to >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, proclamation. Is that okay? Any objections? Is that what I'm asking for? Objections? >> Does anybody object? >> And and I can't ask questions. Correct. >> Yeah, we can't ask questions. >> So, >> okay. No objection. >> All right. No objections. Okay. Next is um I'd like information on um clear rules for safe and responsible this is the whole thing so let me finish please for safe and responsible ebike riding um also ebike enforcement um with the Carlb police department and information on unsafe or disruptive behavior at school or in the community within a board policy for ebikes. So I would like some information around that. Does anybody um >> no objections? Okay, great. Thank you. >> Any other? >> Oh, yes. Let me
285continue with the script. Okay. Oh, I forgot this part. So, I'm going to say it. This is but pretend it's before what I requested. As a reminder, trustees are prohibited from having a discussion tonight. So, there you go, Kathy. Um, on these items, per the Brown Act, when making a request, please indicate the purpose of the request and whether or not the staff has provided an estimate of how long the request will take to accomplish. Um, part five, adjournment. Um, it is 9:51 p.m. and the special meeting is now adjourned. Our next regular meeting will take place on April 15, 2026 at 6 p.m.