001You guys want to see? kind of wrap up All right. Thank you everybody for joining us. Uh today is September 16th, 2025. Uh we are here for the purposes of a public board business meeting. Um I want to welcome everybody and thank you for joining us. I also want to give another welcome to Annie Romano who is our new board member who will be joining us for her full board first full board meeting. So thank you Annie for taking on the commitment. Thank you. Um, I also want to just um make some uh welcome um announcements to um to some of our folks in the audience. From our classified associations groups, uh we have buildings and grounds. Uh President Leo Compo, child nutrition, we have President Tanya Slaughter. From transportation, we have Audrey Benali. Um
002with SLEA, Salt Lake Education Association, we've got President Mike Harmon and Vice President Chelsea A Costa. Thank you for joining us as always. um with the Salt Lake Association of School Administrators. Um they're represented by Tom Luthie um who's the principal um over at Northstar and they are represented tonight by Nicole Palmer. Oh, I see you back there. Thank you, Nicole. Uh for joining us this evening as well, representing SASA. Um with that, we'll go ahead and move on. Point of information. Yes, Tom Lury is the assistant principal at West High. Oh my gosh, I totally messed that up. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um sorry, Tom. Uh moving on, uh we have our pledge of allegiance. And I'll go ahead and lead us in the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United
003States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Right. Thank you for joining me in the pledge. Up next, we have our recognition. Uh we're really excited to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month with a performance that Emma from our communications team is going to introduce to us. Emma, thank you. Hello and good evening board members. We're so excited to have with us tonight the Folklorico Dance Group from Northwest Middle School to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month with us. Thank you so much for sharing your talent and passion with us tonight. Here's a little bit about them. In 2022, Northwest launched its very own folklorico dance group under the direction of Jessica Thompson. Among the first students to join were Jaden Camarina and Jasmine Serato, whose passion for
004folklorico only grew stronger, even after moving on to West High School. Both students continued to dance and deepen their connection to this beautiful tradition. Jasmine in particular has dedicated countless hours to practicing and choreographing her own dances. She even traveled to Mexico to purchase an authentic focal outfit, including the traditional shoes, so she could fully embrace the art form. Last year, Jasmine reached out to Northwest with a heartfelt request to choreograph a dance for their c 2025 celebration of Northwest. She has since spent many hours teaching and mentoring the dancers you'll see on stage today, sharing not just steps but the cultural significance between behind excuse me each movement. Tonight they will present Lenegra choreographed by Jasmine Serato and performed by a group of talented Northwest students. Please join us in celebrating their hard work,
005dedication, and vibrant spirit. Enjoy the performance. [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Applause] Yeah. Heat. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Yeah. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Applause] All right, Northwest students, thank you so much. Let's give another round of applause. [Applause] It's always great to have our students sharing their talents and their heritage with us. So, um, thank you to all of us for participating in that. I know it means a lot. And congratulations, Miss Seminario is a wonderful group of students at your school. Um, moving on to our consent agenda. Um, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to move the consent
006agenda as posted to the action agenda. Second. So, you want to move the whole consent agenda to the action? I'm sorry. Do you want to restate your motion? I make a motion to approve the consent agenda as posted. Second. Perfect. We got a motion to second on the table. Any discussion? I have a question, please. So, regarding um exhibit 3B1A, uh the Salt Lake City Police Department contract and purchasing, uh I have a request or a question regarding whether we have any data or outcome evaluations on the effectiveness of this program. So, let's turn to Dr. Leon Taylor who works with our SRO's as a police department actually. So, Oh, that's new. Well, I'm describing a role rather than giving you a new one. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, everyone. Uh, in terms of causation or
007correlation, we have not a mass data to support that. But what we do have is we can pass on data that shows the number of instances in the kids who have flown flowed through this program. So, and that's one thing that we can in terms of the future. Okay. So, currently, if I'm understanding correctly, you just have the basic measures of data of kids going through the program, but in the future, you could include an outcome evaluation trying to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools being used. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Do you have any other questions? No, that's my only question. Okay. Any other discussion or questions regarding the consent agenda items? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and start with Roll call vote with board member Williams. Bryce Williams, yes. Charlotte Fe Jefferson, yes.
008Ashley Anderson, yes. Nate Salazar, yes. Annie Romano, yes. Ryan Jensen, yes. Amanda Longwell, yes. All right, that motion passes. Thank you, board members. Um, moving on to our request to speak. We did not have anybody sign up for our request to speak. So, we'll go right into our reports agenda, which is um the update on construction progress. Um so, this was a request that was made um from board members to Dr. Grant and board leadership about having more consistent updates regarding our high school rebuild. So, Isaac, I see you walking up. Uh the the floor is yours. Good evening and thank you. Um, I provided a letter that I don't want to go over again. Um, so I'll just hit a couple highlights for you. Um, work is underway on the temporary fields for West
009High School. Um, a key request from the community has been uh, and I'm sorry, West High, uh, we've been working on the Glendel track and field and the city partnership for the baseball and softball field. Both of them are underway. Um, we actually uh worked with SLF to uh reach out to the community and we had a community meeting a couple weeks ago to show them the plans and get their input for that facility. Um, based off of that, um, the the only input, well, the main input they said was that they would like to see lights on that field similar to what Rosland Heights has. Um, with it being a westside facility and it having uh turf fields to allow uh for times after for uh daylight savings. Um we again with SLF U
010they've set they had agreed to helping raise money for uh the Glendale track and um they have recently set their ad hoc committee together and they've set out some uh agendas and and plans. They've been waiting for us to provide actual detailed drawings so they can use those to uh print out and take those to potential sponsors and share those ideas with them. Um, initially there has not there was not an a set amount of what they were going to raise for the the discussion has been somewhere in the $600,000 range. Um, but that has not been said, an actual dollar amount hasn't been set for that yet, but that's part of the ad hoc committee and the Salt Lake Education Foundation that will be doing that in partnership with the um the Ron McBride
011Foundation. Um, as far as the baseball and uh softball fields at Rosewood Park, those projects are underway. Uh, we uh completed the agreement with the city and it's going through the recording process, but we have an agreement to start the work so we can get the infield uh torn up and replanted this fall so it'll be ready for spring ball next year. Um, the Highland fields, those are obviously uh we've talked about that those will uh happen next year. Uh I'm excited to tell you that Wasatch Tunnel, we're about 90% complete on that. Uh really it's uh just some small projects on the outside, cleaning up the grounds and and getting things reset for that. And then also installing some frames inside the tunnel so they'll be able to hang artwork and change that out
012and people won't be able to mess with it. And then um the high school rebuilds and community input that we've received recently. We've uh want you to be aware that we are setting up several meetings with the city and other elected officials to talk about those concerns. Um those are scheduled for the uh 23rd and 30th of this month. Uh so hopefully after those meetings, we'll be able to share additional information with the community and uh with everyone involved. Um I do want to say that we're appreciative of the input. Um it is um difficult for a lot of people to understand the processes that have happened up to this point, but we appreciate the input and we'll do everything we can to try and accommodate as much as possible. Thank you, Isaac. Are there
013any questions for Isaac? Amanda, I got one just great job. Um, and then question, but I just wanted to point out like the Highland Park elementary lot that was reported, redone. Um, I'm there regularly and substantial improvement as to what it was. So, just want to say that it's recognized and seen. And then it was nice to see that with that um repour of the the sidewalks, there was a part that was actually quite hazardous that we have to get salt to make sure people weren't slipping and falling. Um, and that was phenomenal to see that that was restructured to hopefully mitigate those injuries. Um, so thank you. Um, and then you were talking about um, somebody wanting lights on a field like Rosland Heights. Was it the Glendale track and Yes, I'm sorry. The
014Glendale track and field. They were requesting that there be lights on the lacrosse soccer area of that. That was the community input from meeting. Okay. So is community because I would just say recommend as you've been hearing on the Roslin height site the concern one of the concerns that hasn't been as expressive as to others but the lights has been a concern that was expressed. So um I'm curious with the lights at Rosen Heights or wherever else they're going to be. I would presume there's a capability like in any home that if they were putting up 10 bulbs and it's too bright for the community then they can take down a few bulbs to make it not so bright. Is there that capacity with these holes? It it's not as simple as that but there
015they are directional LEDs. Um and there is a way to um dim them a little bit. Um, but there there's certain ratings that it's required to the candle measurement on the field is required for the play. Otherwise, it causes some glare or not being able to see that coming at you. Um, but again, we'll work with the community to make sure that they're aware of it beforehand that we do the test and make sure that the because we we haven't done the final uh directional test up at Roslin Roslin yet. We'll be doing that here pretty quick when sure the community knows that's happening after dark and they'll have plenty of time to know about that and it'll be 2530 minutes after dark that we test those and get those set. Um, but it's not
016as easy as just pulling a bulb out. Um, but yes, there are ways that we can mitigate some of those concerns. And I think that would be good to communicate to the the community is even if it's not as easy, there are ways because there's obviously a lot of strong concern if you're in your backyard and you want it to be a dark night and you're lit up like the 4th of July. And and I mean the the other agreement that we have made with Rosland Heights and we I assume we would do the same with everyone else is that we would set standard times and we would enforce those stringently so we don't have issues at you know after normal hours that would cause those concerns. Perfect. Um and then just not going into
017the specifics you skimmed over just my question overall with your update. It was very detailed. It was wonderful. Do you have any concerns with any of the timelines or um what was expected versus the potential outcome of any of the long list of things that you're working on? Um the the biggest concern I have right now is uh Bryant Middle School the roofing uh we had a couple parts backorded. We're still waiting on those and that's not completed yet. All of our projects uh you know everybody asked when I work at the district, oh you get the summers off and we said no that's our busy time. So, our goal is to have things done before school starts. Um, and it there's always a project that extends a little bit, but I feel like we've
018done very well this year on that and uh we're just making preparation for next year now. Wonderful. Thank you. Y actually um yeah, I have a couple of questions. So, as you mentioned, SLE was directed to fund raise for the athletic projects required by all the rebuilds. And I'm curious when a dollar amount will be determined for field use because SLF was asked not to contribute only to the Glendale track, but also the temporary sites for West and Highland. And so, my understanding from our board meeting was that total contributions would be a lot higher than $600,000. So, I'm surprised to hear that number even though we have seen some cost savings collaborating with the city. Um, so when will we know the that SLF is attempting to fund raise and their progress toward that
019goal. So, they they met uh I'm kind of talking out of my my realm here because James obviously is the executive director of that of the SLF, but um I I was involved with conversations with the McBride Foundation and they were very excited to partner and come up with ways that the $600,000 range that I threw out there came up in that conversation. Um, but again, it comes back to a a bigger conversation with that ad hoc committee and James leadership of saying, "Okay, this is what we think is doable and this is our plan." Um, some of the things that they've been waiting on from us is number one, the drawings, number two, a final cost to kind of say, "Okay, this is the or an expected cost. We've given them a rough range.
020Um, but again, that that'll be a timing thing with working with Dr. Grant and James to figure that out. Dr. Yeah. board member Anderson, when we presented this, the only part that's left was taking up was working with the McBride Foundation on the Glendale Field. I would say that we should listen to that meeting again because I that doesn't seem accurate to me that we know the McBride Foundation has partnered for the track and it was insinuated that other partners would be sought and so to support the development of fields these temporary fields I actually we may need to because I don't remember that conversation um in speaking just quickly with um SL's director James he didn't remember either And uh I remember I'm happy to pull the time signature u because then in a
021subsequent conversation it was further asked that we get some updates from the foundation on their total as well as their progress because in subsequent meetings we additionally directed them to fund raise for other progress for projects sorry and board members expressed concern that the foundation was being asked to shoulder too large a burden when they had already been asked to subsidize athletics. So I'd be very concerned if other fields are going by the wayside when when so I'm happy to pull the time signature for that but I do have a couple more questions with my time. Um the second is you address a little bit the community input. So we received a lot of community input at the open house and also elected representatives you know sitting here as well as our you know partners
022in the city council as well as the state legislature have received concerns from the community and compliments from the community to be fair. um when they are seeking a response, is there a preferred way from your point of view that they can find frequently asked questions or is it just tune into board meetings? What's the best way for people to see evidence of their feedback in action? The most active place is our website uh for the bond projects. Um we actually hold weekly meetings with our communications group to talk about those things and try to give them an update and get those on the website. Um, and then these other meetings, we'll uh work with them to update those as quickly as possible as well when they don't line up with those other meetings. Um,
023but that generally that's the best way uh to reach out and let us know. That's really helpful. Thank you. And um the last thing I did just want to offer a thank you on behalf of the Wasach School Community Council where many parents had some great feedback about the tunnel improvements. I understand there was like a rain hiccup and we were solving that. But in general, people were very happy to see that there was a lot of action on that after, you know, many many questions and and many a lot of confusion about who owns it, who stewards it, and all of that. And they were very appreciative of your work to set aside funds to manage the tunnel improvements. So, thank you. Thank you. I'll pass that along to the team. Sure. Yes. I
024a question. I was not able to attend the public meeting that was at at Glendel, but I heard from a few people that um they they felt a little surprised um that this was the first time they had had a chance to give input um on the field, you know, on the field use, the temporary field use by West High. And um I'm wondering going to be any other public input um sessions um just so we can hear from the community and um I know we can't please everybody and we can't um cater to everybody but to let them feel heard um is there any more are there any more planned? Uh there are none on the calendar right now, but we did tell them that we would um take their input and work on
025that and then uh reach out in some way. Um if that's another meeting, we can do that. Um or um we did hear in there that several of the people that attended said, "Look, the only reason I knew about this was because my neighbor told me, but we actually had the community learning center and their staff. They delivered to every door around that community uh to make sure that specifically the people buted up against this property knew that this was happening to ensure that we don't have continual issues that uh you know unfortunately we we we fell a little short with the Rosen Heights community and we need to do better and that that's the intent of it. So I would say yes we will be getting back to them but there's nothing on the
026calendar right now because we needed to um well number one I'm looking at the budget to see if it's really lights are doable that's a really expensive thing that the plan was to put the infra from the go. So if that was ever decided to happen in the future, but initially the budget was how do we get the field that we need as quickly as we can um so we can deal with next spring's uh sports. But we heard him. I'm we're looking at the budget to see if that's doable and and we'll come back to you come back with more information. I have another question. um for cost purposes which which is more expensive the grass or the um astroturf. So astroturf is more expensive upfront but the cost of labor and maintenance of
027a normal grass field is more expensive long term. Um and the other challenge is is the benefits of astroturf over lawn is that we we have the field to use nine t months out of the year rather than six months and then having to re refurbish the field or the complaints and concerns about safety that we've heard about soccer field at east and things like that. Okay, thank you. Then we have Brian. Oh yes, on your um report and I would echo it's really wonderful to have that itemized breakdown of all of the projects. I mean it gives me appreciation for everything that you're managing as well Isaac. So thank you. Um, under playground surfacing and equipment, you talk about PIP roll coats. Can you tell me what pip roll coats are? Yes. I'm sorry.
028Pour in place. Uh, PIP stands for pour in place. It's basically the soft rubber uh soft fall system that we have at a lot of our buildings right now. um it was the latest and greatest years ago and it it still has its purposes but it does require a lot of maintenance. So we're actually investigating some other options that are less expensive. Um but to maintain that especially in our um climate we have to uh do a surface over protective service surface seal over it to make sure that it lasts the the length of the lifetime. Well that helps me and I think it probably helps some members of the public as well. under that um you give a breakdown. You've got the 2024 25 um schools that you were doing that with and then
029you have the 2025 2026. Underneath the 2024 25 it's saying completion by end of July. So, I'm assuming that all of those have they been completed without having the list in front of me? I I believe there's one of them that we're still waiting on. Okay. Um but that's why we break that down by fiscal year because we do we do the best we can to line those out to have the 24 25 done before um the end of the fiscal year. Um, and then the others we have to get on the schedule for this fall to make sure that they're on early enough for next spring for them to get them done for the next fiscal year. Okay. I was just trying to make sure because it said just end of July and I
030thought it probably meant July of this year and not July. Yes, July of this year. Okay. And then the other one, the 2025 26. Um, those are scheduled to be completed sometime this coming year, but you're saying that six of them are already done as well. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh, thank you so much for all you're doing and for the hard work of your team. Uh, just a quick question on, you know, behalf of parents and community members. Um, that was alluded to earlier. I was just wondering what um you know mechanism your communications team is using to receive input and organize that input from parents or community members on I mean there's so many capital projects right now but yeah are you are you referring to specific capital projects or
031just I'm just saying in general um because I know there's a lot of input from Rosland Heights from Glendale but also from Highland and West with these new um builds and designs that have just been shown. So, I'm wondering what you have in place for each project. Maybe it's separate or is there a catch all where they can choose which project they want to give input on? So, um the high the high school builds specifically, they're they're a little more cumbersome in that um we presented to the board of what they were. Um generally, the design portion of that is internal. We found out this year that it's uh there's a portion of that we work with the city on now. Um that hasn't happened in the past. Um but as far as per uh
032input from individuals, it's mostly at the public meetings with that we've held over the last year. Um we've had three or four three at each of the high schools um that we present. We gave drawings and and invited people to come and talk talk about those. Um other input that we've uh ways to input or uh to respond on the bond the bond page projects but those are spec project specific other other projects uh for example the Wasatch bridge uh tunnel not bridge tunnel um that's been a long time coming uh as Ashley mentioned it it was a there was it was unclear who managed it who was responsible for certain things how to get it done what was appropriate what wasn't so that that's been a cumbersome conversation of about three years talking about
033with the ele with the school the the community and then with the school district and the city to finalize and get that done. So each one's a little different the bigger projects but mostly have been the public meetings that we've held to present what's designed so far and then take feedback from that but it's not necessarily reaching out to individuals saying what do you think about this specific item. Okay. So, um, just a followup for a working parent or guardian or somebody in the community who does not make the meeting, is there any followup that they can do like a survey or any email that they've been given to direct their questions? Jason, we have set up a specific email for questions about construction. It's actually very easy. It's questions slcschools.org. I manage that every
034single day and reply to everyone that comes in. Thank you. Thanks, Jason. Are there any other questions from from Bryce? I don't have any questions either. No, I think appreciate your time. Oh, sorry boss if you had any question. Not on this. Okay, thank you. Um and thank you Ashley for that. Um moving on to our discussion agenda. Um the first item there is strategic plan for student achievement revisions. Uh Dr. Ruiz, I believe this is uh your presentation to to share with us. Well, I actually don't have a presentation. We updated the documents and the link. We created a new draft or proposal for your review. Are there any questions? I have a couple questions. Um the first one, I apologize I didn't ask in advance because I just received a message right before
035our meeting that I thought a change had been made um to the CTE requirements because the way the strategic plan is written, it excludes IB students who are unable to complete two CTE requirements along with receiving their IB diploma unless specific classes are offered which currently are not offered at West. Has there been any attempt to make sure the strategic plan does not exclude IB students? Okay, I'm going to defer that question to Dr. Hall. Do you have any answer to that? Is that the same question on the original memo? Uhhuh. I asked before and I thought it had been resolved and so then she pointed out to me right before the meeting a constituent like I thought that this had been addressed and it was still there. So I just wondered what the plan
036was. I'm trying to remember what the percentage we said uh the percentage of students that would complete that requirement is because across the district I believe that we looked at that and determined that as a district strategic plan while IB students in specific programs the larger one at West and the smaller one at Highland um would have to make some choices around that it isn't 100% and we would be able to ensure that a sufficient number of students were able to meet that requirement even if they were not IB students. I think it says all. So, I don't know if it'd be helpful to look at the document, but I think it says all students. And so, I would be curious about how we would um adjust that. I like that. Page nine, students will
037complete at least two credits of advanced or career CTE coursework. And then the next objective 3.4 says 100% of students on a career college pathway ensure all students who go to college also have stackable credentials. 75% of students be pathway concentrators, take 2.0 credits in a pathway. Okay. So I don't know. So is the board suggesting that we lower that from all to a a lower percentage? is that I'm not as an individual. I'm saying that I I don't support an aspect of the strategic plan that would exclude some students when it's meant for all students and it causes anxiety. I've shared before that these requirements are going to change our support for the IB program. So, I I just want some clarity about what changes should be made, you know, by the group. May
038I follow up with a question on that? So it says all students will be on a college or career pathway but then under that the submetrics are 50% of students will be completers meaning they take three credits and 75 will be concentrators who take two credits. So is Dr. Hall Thank you. I I couldn't remember it was 75 or 85 but I I thought I had a five. We set those numbers so they don't exclude students and we're able to meet those thresholds. Um, but I think getting on a college and career pathway, in fact, the IB is considered one of those pathways by itself. To clarify, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where it says students will, and it does not specify an amount, complete two CTE credits. I'm not sure
039where that is. Objective 3.3. If we go on 3.3, if we need to reword that so that it it better reflects what the superintendent just read. Um that would be the intent. Yeah. Dr. Yeah. I was just hoping to use the rest of my time for additional questions if that's amendable. Um The the other concern I had about the strategic plan was I was a little bit surprised as I shared via email that there was some work being done on a portrait of a graduate where this strategic plan right now culminates in the state board of education's portrait of a graduate. And so I took the liberty of reviewing um some of the meetings that happened in January 2022 where the board actually voted against an RFP that included the development of a portrait of
040a graduate. And the rationale for that vote included an a request for an update on the USB's portrait of a graduate which I haven't found any evidence that that occurred. And the rationale was also based on some board member frustration that the board had been excluded from potential actions. So I just wanted to say the other thing that's come up in the interim of our last discussion of the strategic plan and now is that we seem to kind of be working against ourselves like it was very specific in January 2022 that the strategic plan student and student achievement plan would both be braided. This was a word used repeatedly with a portrait of a graduate and board members were really clear. They wanted first to know about the USP's portrait of a graduate. So in
041our last meeting, I couldn't have predicted that this work I didn't know was happening was happening. And I think it's really important that if we are intending for this plan as presented to culminate in some type of portrait of a graduate that's different than the state expectations that we also consider discussing that before we advance amendments because they would necessarily be impacted by one another per that discussion and past votes. Now, now that you've said it that way, board member Anderson, I remember that conversation. It was because of the RFP. I remember that there was significant um conversation about not hiring an outside committee to come in and to do this work. And subsequently, we did not. So, it was um I think that conversation was around that RFP proposal. I'd have to go back
042and review that and review my notes as well. But and I did I spent a good portion of the weekend listening to the meetings um because no one had recalled it and it was as you point out partially about the firm, but it was also about the lack of board member input in a potential portrait and the lack of board member input in other aspects of what was being called a like threepronged braided process. And so I think just it seems like some work is happening which I'm sure has the best intent for producing you know great outcomes for students. But I would say it's important that I think we learn from what happened in January 2022 that when work happens that's all related and the board's only informed about part of it. It's hard
043to make an informed decision. So, if we're actually working toward a new portrait of a graduate, I think it would be wise to take several steps back and first fulfill those steps on updating the board on what is the USB's portrait and is there board direction to work on a district district specific plan. Yeah. Can I clarify a couple of things? Um, so the memo was our first effort to communicate with the board that we have intentions to develop a portrait of a graduate of some sort. um in reviewing our current strategic plan. Now before I go into that um the other point to that is that the development of the portrait of a graduate is going to take multiple years and so it wouldn't impact the current iteration of the strategic plan. Although we
044know that our current iteration of the strategic plan is a living document. So, it's not going to be impacted this year, but we're going to be making adjustments from year to year that we'll bring to the board based on our data, based on what we learn, based on goals that we have accomplished. And so, we need to build on the next um the next goals that we need to work on again informed by our data. And so, that was our first communication with the board. We didn't want to move forward in developing anything until you had that knowledge. Now, as a point of um a little bit of context for the board, last year USB hosted an institute that brought together five to six different districts. And they did that um as a way to
045help districts, included urban and rural um districts, as a way to help them develop their own uh portrait of a graduate. They understand that the the USB portrait of a graduate as it is is a lot to be able to implement in a given district. So they are using that more as a model to help us go through the process to develop our own. Now in that institute, Salt Lake City School District sent a team to learn about the process and what all of that entail. and districts were able to share not only the process that they've gone through develop their own or where they were at at that time in the process of developing the portrait of a graduate. So you'll see a variety of portrait of a graduates according to the context and
046the students in each of their districts and what their communities and stakeholders value is important to their communities and what they determine a future ready vision for what a graduate should have in terms of knowledge, skills and dispositions um should be. So that's kind of what I understand as far as what we've done to this point. Now we've come together and they taught me kind of that process uh that they went through last year and from that um we determined to continue these conversations. Right now if we were to move forward we're still at the ideation brainstorming stage. Uh from there you have to go through a design process and then community input. And so there's a lot of steps. Um and right now we did share in the memo kind of a tentative timeline
047that will have full implementation potentially in 2028 or we could use it to inform the next iteration of our strategic plan which will be in 2029. So that's kind of where we're at. I just wanted to clarify some of those points because I don't have a lot of the background history um on the RFP and what those conversations uh were at the time but this is our current thinking right now and kind of what we are considering um with developing. Yeah, I guess what I the comment that I wanted to make kind of played off of Ashley's concern around the CTE requirement and the language, but I I just wanted to I guess emphasize and clarify that we need to determine what the conflicts might be with IB. program and then changed the terminology in
048that section to eliminate the conflict. And so I what I was hearing and very valid I feel is let's start with that IB piece and determine if and what conflicts with the um CTE requirements and those 3.3 and 3.4 And then we look at the adjustment of the language in that section to not create turmoil with a certain student population. We want to help every student feel like they've got an avenue that they're not going to have a consequence for because they're pursuing something different than I think is what I'm hearing, which I agree strongly with. So until we can answer that question of what's the IB conflict with the CTE requirements. We can't necessarily uh ensure that we're comfortable with the language in that CTE section. I think board member Anderson was explaining that
049well that because of the structure of IB, there's less room to take CTE courses unless there's specific ones that fit into their schedule, which they may or may not be interested in if those are the only ones available. So, I think she was concerned, if I get this right, more with the goal that said all students should take two um but less concerned with the goal that said 75% so that across the district we'd have this goal of trying to increase the number of students who would become concentrators or completers in the CTE pathways um but not place undue pressure or unfair pressure on students who might may not be able to meet that expectation so I think it's editing the goal Um but my piece would be with data because this will still overplay
050overlays and special education in that like let's throw out rough I'm guesstimating I don't have any data facts but if it's only impacting 10% of the students through the IB conflict but we're saying only 75% versus all then we als we have an additional 15% of students there that um are not um supported in that success because it's a lower percentage. So which can also indirectly um cause students with disabilities, especially more complex students to um not be supported in successfully accessing that piece. So that's where I was excited about the all I see the conflict with the IB, but I would hate to lower it to 75% if we really don't need to drop it 25%. Um and then we have kids that are at risk typically that are then are not supported to
051access the CTE pathways. So resolving one too ambitiously could then cause an issue with different population of students that that's my concern. So find the data. What's our what's our IB student population, the percentage that that encompasses and at least try to that percentage closer to what's necessary to not cause a conflict with IB and not too big of a gap that we leave out atrisisk students. Yes, I get what you're saying on that. So trying to I just don't know. So what we've done with these goals is we've raised them from the current state of where students are. I think I'm going to get this wrong, but somewhere around 20 to 30% of kids are concentrators. And so we're raising the bar, but not all the way to the top yet because again, this
052is a five-year plan and we're going to keep growing this. So I don't know that it implies that we would press harder to support kids um and particularly kids from certain subgroups from participating, but rather we saw that as a bit of stretch goal already to get there um because the current number is so low across all groups of students. If that makes some sense on that one. No, I follow you to I'm there with you. I just to just summarize, let's just I guess in simple terms, we've got a lot of generalizations going on and I think that the thing that the board talks about a lot is being data driven in our decisions and isn't um there isn't concrete data in that in this discussion tonight I guess is my point. I hear
053that it's a stretch goal so I can get behind that piece as long as it doesn't cause a conflict with the IB program. So thank you. Any other board members want to weigh in on either the topic of ID and some of the conflicts and pressures that we're we're hearing from board members or any other questions relative to the revisions that presented to us. I wanted to look at the first pillar. And to begin with, I really appreciate the work that's gone into this because as I look at the strategic plan that we're looking at for the strategic plan for student achievement, we're now at 14 pages instead of 32 or whatever. And I think that that makes it a lot more accessible so that we are able to well access what it is that
054we're really striving for. Having said that, when we go down to pillar one, educational equity, access, and student support, if you go down to goal one, objective 1.2 schools will will provide opportunities for students to fully engage in enrichment and extracurricular activities through the elimination of barriers. Okay. And then it goes on. I mean, I don't want to read it. We can all read it. My concern is I mean, I have received letters and I just received one a week ago from a parent at East High who who was really concerned with children that are coming from Glendale and those areas to participate in sports and the amount of connections they have to go through to get buses and to get back and forth and all of those things. I just want to make sure
055that when we're creating these goals and these objectives that we're looking to see that we're really going to be able to support it. Um because the examples that were be were being given to me and this parent was a parent of a student in our neighborhood but who was trying to help a student over in the other neighborhood get access to these programs. Um, so it sounds like there's been a lot of work going into this and that it's a living document as you mentioned. Um, I just am curious as to um a little bit of as they've asked earlier of some of the data sources used to reach these stretch goals. um to for example like even the transportation as is there's always transportation needs that the district is unable to fill and then
056as board member Jensen points out if we're trying to increase participation what strain will that put on transportation so I'm just wondering um a little bit more about the process I guess of where you're coming to these members okay so again I'm going may have Dr. Hall or Dr. Taylor come and share a little bit about the process. Um I was not part of that process so I can speak to it but some of my colleagues may a little bit that is on each of these metrics we looked at where things are now. Yeah. That we could measure and then actually because data doesn't tell us what the what the aim should be. We tried to find an aim that was doable with what we're doing and what we're trying to accomplish. So again, they're
057kind of stretch goals and that's one of the reasons we made it a working document too that either some of them we may meet sooner than 2029. Some of them and then we'd want to adjust things. Some of them we might not get close enough there. Um but the idea was to try and hit something that was a ways out but achievable. So I guess my concern is that if we have this vision set forward for students and you know staff and administrators to try to work towards this strategic plan. Uh if the scaffolding is not able to be in place, if we don't have the funding to meet those goals that it will be considered um you know not viable. Yeah. Not viable or maybe not realistic to work towards or even maybe people
058do work towards it but it's setting them up for failure. So that's just my only concern because I I think there probably are some places where we are and the data shows that we may only be able to grow one or two%. just due to so many conflating factors including transportation and all these other things and other indicators maybe we can grow another 20%. Because we're increasing resources and staffing around certain things like CTE but my general concern is just the the data which you can't necessarily have but you could maybe extrapolate a little bit on what these numbers look like. Any other comments, questions, feedback? Seeing none, we could go into round two. So I saw Brian first and then Amanda then Ashley I would just follow up on board member Romanos what I
059was trying to get at there because I think it's laudable when we are establishing these goals and objectives but we really do have to consider how we're going to accomplish it because what we don't want to have is a part of our community feeling like well you have this lofty goal that is unattainable just because of physical challenges and all of those things. So I just don't want to build into a strategic plan frustration from the beginning and then well that's fine. I won't take more time. Um, I am going to repeat myself from another time and then another comment and goes back to HR. I'm still going to do a plug for adding Apple to our strategic plan because we've got the general education type support, but we don't have the special education dedicated
060support and special education is still a part of our district. Um, and I haven't said it before, I'm not gonna like jump off a cliff for it, but The other strategic plan in this living document um would like would be a really great aspirational goal is um 100% staffed by school start. I know we we there's a lot going on. I know there's a lot that feeds into it, but um we still don't have special education paris fully staffed in our classrooms. Um this impacts our students educations. This out our teachers. This causes a lot of um a lot of problems. And so, I mean, that's that's a topic I want to plan on hitting on another time, but we've got to get to the point that we're figuring out how to be staffed from
061the start of the school year so that um all of our kids have an opportunity to um have a quality education from day one and not wait to be staffed. Ashley, sure. I think again it's important just that we modify the CTE requirement and it sounds like there are some other things that people are hoping to modify. So it'd be helpful to capture those and then present a revised clean copy that we could be confident in approving. And I just wanted to reiterate my former concern that again I realize any attempt to create a portrait of a graduate comes from a good place of wanting students to succeed and having a good picture. And I think it's just procedural that now we're at least a few steps into what's been identified for us as a
062multi-year plan that wasn't directed by us and which could be completed before the expiration of this strategic plan. So I do think procedurally it's important that the governing board direct whether the district consider a specific portrait of a graduate and a precursor to knowing whether that's the right direction to go would be receiving an update on the completed USB portrait that was requested in 2022 when that work was still underway. And I think placing those items like in their original braid as it was mentioned before would help us know we're making amendments that are working toward some towards some overall goal that we all mutually understand what that is. Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Ashley. Um, I'll just use a a couple my couple minutes for a question for you, Dr. Grant. Um, just kind of hearing
063the conversation. Um, I know that, um, there's probably some urgency among district staff and district office staff. I think among us as board members, too, about getting a plan in place, you know, that we can start working towards. Um, and I'm just wondering, you know, kind of where you're at right now based on the conversation. Um, because I know it's on our discussion agenda. We could take action tonight, but it sounds like there's still some lingering questions, but I do wonder. I don't think we take action tonight. Um, there's some pieces here that you're raising that would I think take much more of a revamp than we have presented to you as a board. When we talked about this before in delaying a vote of the board, there was a general agreement among the board
064that we would continue to work on these goals even though they weren't yet approved. So, um, these are ones that have been approved in past years. We've reshaped some of the language and some of the metrics, but it's not a wholesale revision. So, we're continuing along the same path. We've currently got implementation teams in place that are working on each pillar that are doing the things that you're raising around considering the resources that we're putting toward that looking at the logistics challenges of meeting some of these goals and things like that. So that's what those teams are doing and meeting regularly and um Dr. is overseeing that with an implementation tracker with all the subsidiary steps that we have written down about ways we're going to make those to those goals. That's more an operational
065document. We shared that at least a draft version with you some months ago. So I um we the there's clarity around the change to the CTE goal. Um, board member Longwell, I'm not quite sure you want us to revisit our as we looked at how to where we should set the metrics. We weren't thinking of let's exclude this many students and set the bar right there. So, you know, 8% of our population is IB students. Therefore, we're going to set us at 92% hit the bar. As I mentioned, we were looking at where we are right now and what seems achievable in five years as a goal of that way. So with that one, I'm a little unclear about what direction we're being given on this to move forward. I don't know what to present
066before you next time actually is an alternative to what's there now. Um, and then also these questions a little bit about the resources. I'm not sure again what to present to you in iteration or a next conversation about this that might be useful. Yeah. Can I add something especially because this is our first time if you remember when we share the tracker this is the first time we're adding the resources. So then our action steps, our objectives, all of the pieces are aligning with the resources. So this year we're learning what resources we have that will make the goals achievable and that could inform what we bring back next year um when we adjust the goals based on our data. But we need to go through those resources this year to see what is achievable
067versus what may take a bit longer or how we need to secure some of those resources to be able to achieve our goals. Would it be possible that um the next time the strategic plan is presented maybe with a CTE adjustment? Yeah, um would it be possible to also send over maybe this is a separate question but the operational plan as well so that we can have a little context towards the tracker the tracker. we can with the understanding that that's a document for staff to manage, not a it's not managed for the board. And so I say that because it's constantly being changed in the draft changes and um what's happening to try and meet these goals constantly changes. Yeah, I I say that just um as that would be a tool for us
068to feel more confident in that there are action plans in place and resources and things being evaluated that do impact the strategic plan. But um from my perspective, it's it would give me more confidence in approving the strategic plan knowing kind of what's going on in the background with the implementation teams and the tracker. Bryce or Charlotte, you have anything to add? I see some other hands floating up. No, I think the conversation has been good and um understand that our role as the board is to is the overall you know establishing the goals and where we want to be and it's the role of the dis district staff to implement those right so but it's nice to see how they are doing it and then Brian I'm sure you have a little bit of
069time on your two minutes I saw your hand up too Anything else you want to add? In response to your comment, um, Dr. Grant, um, I think one of the things that will also help us here is, I mean, we have some transportation reports that are coming up and it will be interesting to see what in those reports as well. We're looking more in those reports at um getting kids to and from school, right? I'm not sure I understand quite the problem that you were describing there that would inform what we bring back to you about transportation. Two transportation we do. One's about general transportation and how that's gone. Okay. And I guess and the other more directly about special education students. Okay. So that transportation. Would there be a part of that where we
070would be looking at how we're facilitating like extracurricular activities and getting the students there? We could add that. I mean, that um that actually has not come up internally as a barrier that we've seen. So, hearing from a constituent that there's a problem would be useful because otherwise we're not seeing that as a barrier. to the goals, but we can bring back information about what's done that way. Constituents that have raised that concern and I'm looking over at Charlotte and I think Charlotte may have had I don't know you seem to be kind of affirming. Yeah, I I've heard things like that. Yeah, I have as well. transportation to opportunities. Well, often times after school they will stay for practices or games, right? And then they can be transported to wherever they need to go
071if it's an away game or etc. But then getting home from that is the question at hand and that will require other transportation. Maybe UTA is available, maybe it's not. That type of thing. Okay. So around athletics, yes, that's what Okay. Um, um, I'd just like to comment that from what I've observed um, for some athletics practices, there are school buses that are provided for students to return from just regular practices, but often the scheduling for those buses um, may be slightly out of alignment when students are being released from those sport activities and that leads those buses to be um, largely unused. Like in my personal experience, only two students out of um practices with maybe 60 students that are using those resources. And so it might be possible to um structure that in
072a way that provides more efficiency and would allow buses to be allocated to other areas or increase the use of the current buses. I don't have data on that, but that's an observation. It helps us a great deal when those are sent forward to us because we actually don't have any specifics right now that would help us think about reallocation. Um, okay. If unless we hear those directly then they then we don't know where the rub is on all of this. I was I was that's helpful to have um but that's helpful to false. Thank you. thinking about that. Um, well, I I think we've kind of reached the point of needing to move on in our agenda. Is there anything closing? Yes. Uh, and I don't I'm not sure I'm clear about what we
073should bring back to the board regarding portrait of a graduate. Dr. Grant, what I was going to suggest is we seem pretty clear on CTE and the two elements that are coming from Amanda and from Ashley. There's questions that you had noted in our discussion. And I'm hoping that offline so that we can get moving on to our next agenda items that that clarification can be managed. Okay. But also shared out with the rest of the board. And so hopefully by the next time we agenda this that we have a more clear understanding about what's being asked and what we should be presenting. Okay. Does that work for you? Does that work for the rest of the board? All right. Sorry. to answer your question that the superintendent asked about portrait of a graduate. She
074didn't only ask about the strategic plan and he was mentioning we could talk offline and get clearer about what the request is that you want brought back. Okay. Thank you team. Moving on to item number two. We have the diploma proposal. Dr. Well, it's nice to be back here again. I think this is our second or third third. Um, so board member Romano, it's nice to have you join the conversation and Mr. Goodwin, nice to have you join the conversation. Um, this has been an ongoing and evolving conversation around graduation and what that might look like in the future for the Salt Lake City School District. So, I just um want to bring our our new members into our conversation. Right now, in uh Salt Lake City School District, we require 24 credits for a
075student to graduate in specific areas. That's the state minimum. They um set those areas and set those requirements. Yet, in our schools, students can earn eight credits a year, which would be 32 credits in four years. Oh, sorry. What's happened here? Oh. At least it's not power. I charged tonight. So, okay, there we go. Thank you, Mr. Quz. Um, and if a student is attending um LDS seminary, then they can still earn 28 units without taking classes outside of school at all. Um, we also know that last year about 80% of our su seniors had less than a full schedule, which when we think about the opportunities for different things that they could be taking, um, CTE classes or music or wood shop or a language. I mean, lots of different things that they could
076be doing with those um, periods of time that we have wonderful, highly, highly qualified teachers ready to bring them things that will move them forward. And we also know in our district, and I've got a slide about this later, that at least 43% of our seniors last year graduated with more than 28 credits. So, in our previous discussions, we have, as I said, continue to evolve this concept together as a district um with with you as the board and we have talked about a couple of things. We've talked about having um districtname diplomas for 24 credits and schoolname diploma for higher credit diplomas. That didn't really seem to be something that people um thought was a great idea. So, we we know that that was a a thing that we brought to the table, but
077perhaps we wouldn't uh continue with. We also talked about having a separate diploma that might have some recognition at the district level for students that achieved above average. And so that's one of the things that we'll talk some more tonight again with the recognition or the remembrance that school recognitions which sometimes are very personal to the school would remain in place. And then of course we would still have all of those state or national recognitions. This would just be a recognition that the district would say we as a district choose to recognize students that achieve X and then we would fill in the blank for X. So just to come back to some of the not current data but current data as of last year from our graduating seniors. Um this is a chart that
078shows and and we've looked at this before. Um if you were here in previous uh meetings that in our three comprehensive high schools we have um at least 56% of students across our three high schools earning 27 or more units to graduate. And in fact, um, in at Highland High School, more than half of students earn more than 28 credits before they graduate. And I present that for us to think about the idea of what would it look like if we raised graduation requirements. And so I appreciate board member Longwell's, you know, concern about a stretch goal. What is a stretch goal when we think about what this might look like? Whether it is for increasing the number of credits for a diploma or if we're talking about a diploma of distinction where we're saying
079this is a student who does more. This is where we kind of currently are at. Um which is a really heartening number. I mean when you think about it um I think it would be well I just I think that that it is really good to see how many students in fact even earn um more than 32 units. So they have taken classes either before high school or on the side of high school or through an online program. We have a lot of stu students doing a lot of learning in this district. I'd also uh like to bring this slide for forth for forward to you. This is the average data or the sorry the current data for last year as of last year for grades 9 through 12 across the district. And again, I
080bring this to you because one of the um elements of a diploma of distinction we have discussed has been a GPA requirement that students would complete so many units, but they would also have a GPA above a certain level. So again, in keeping with the idea of a stretch goal, we need to know where we are so that we know what a stretch is. And so you can see here that across the board our district average um for GPA is 2.51 and our uh school with the highest GPA is Highland at 2.9. And so I have highlighted the line there for a 3.0 and a 3.5 knowing that an unweighted GPA the perfect score would be a 4.0 which would be a straight A average. So that just uh hopefully sets a little context for
081where we currently are as we enter the conversation. Now we were asked to bring some recommended options forward to the board this time. So of course the way I see it, it's always three and that's because I grew up on schoolhouse rock and three is a magic number. So there we are. But the uh first option is that we leave the graduation requirement the same that we just say 24. Um the second option is that we decide as a district to increase the graduation requirements for all students to 27 or 28 uh as we look at that data, one of those but but 27 units um by adding three units of elective credit. And the reason uh we talked about in the study session that we would leave that as elective credit is that leaves
082it very open for students who want to take anything from a CTE class to an IB class. So everything that we've talked about tonight would not be affected by the idea of adding three elective credits because those could be any credits that the students choose to take. And then um we have also as I said talked a lot about you know what might happen with students that would need a 24 credit option. Um and so we have looked at at some other um opportunities or options. For instance, having an IEP team specify that there would be a school named not a district name but a school named diploma 24 uh credit option if that was something that was appropriate for a student. And then um of course a diploma of distinction option that would require
083students to complete and again this is a a fill in the blank as I look for input from the board. Um completing 28 units or 29 units which again would be additional electives um because we have we have really decided that as varied as our educational program is specifying those units um might impact some students programs. And so just adding electives with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. And again, Highland at um an an average of 2.9 um 3.0 would be a small stretch goal, but that's also a goal that we could continue to look at or that you could say right off the bat might be a 3.5. So those would be the options that we have. I'd also like to point out that they're not mutually exclusive. um that you could have a
084combination of for instance one and three or two and three. Um you could you can m mix and match a little bit. It's kind of a a gan animal. One one doesn't prelude the others. And we'd also like to remind you that these would go into effect for the class of 2030 at the earliest no matter um what change was put into place so that nobody currently in school would be adversely affected by this decision. I was also asked to bring back some information about stakeholder input and some options for that. So, we're going to on the next slide take a look at our draft survey and some focus group questions. And we are looking at uh doing a survey for parents of students in grades 7 through 12. And for middle school, because those
085would be the students who would be affected by any change that we put into place, we would be asking parents to consider what effect that this would have on their student in middle school. And while high school students that we would assure them this this is not going to affect anything um for your student, but we would like to have their input because they are currently living the credit and GPA journey with their student. Um, we have also considered uh if the board would like us to to move forward with a survey uh for students in high school already. Uh we've talked about students in middle school, but right now at the beginning of their eighth grade year, a lot of these discussions about credits haven't started to happen yet. And so we feel like
086asking the questions about a diploma like this or a diploma of distinction or a raise in the graduation requirements would be most appropriate for students who are currently in high school and are speaking that language of credits. Um Mr. Goodwin, we've also talked about um before you were here, we talked about you when you weren't here and thought that perhaps there would be um some opportunity for focus group questions to go to high school um the government classes, maybe SBOS's that you might help us um bridge some of that and again assuring them that as you sit in high school, this doesn't affect you, but perhaps being able to get that student level data um in addition to a possible survey. So, um I included a survey in the board packet, but as we always
087continue to uh refine and go through different conversations as we're looking at surveys, um I placed on your chair today and I'll also attach in the board minutes for the audience some revised survey questions that uh Dr. Patrick Jeff and I have uh looked over and discussed. And I just kind of want to talk about the format of the survey so that we can think about what is asking in my first draft. Of course, as you always know, um I put too many words and so we have removed many questions. Um I also if um executive director Chapwin was here, she would assure you that she always has to tell me to you know kind of bring it down and just make make it read like a normal document. So um in every draft I
088uh I work towards reaching that goal. So the structure of the survey and it's it's relatively the same for both a student and parent survey. The par the parent survey is directed to your student and the student survey is really directed to you. And that's that's one of the major differences between the two. But the the rest of the format is very similar. So of course there's a background that sets up what it is we're asking about. And that's this exploration of changing requirements for graduation or and or the potential addition of a diploma of distinction. And then um we asked some just background prior knowledge questions. You know before before we gave you this definition, how familiar were you with graduation requirements? And are these options clear? And then uh for the parent survey,
089we ask them about their student and then of course if they're in middle school, we say please please as you think this might affect your student in high school and where does your student attend. Then we talk about some overall preference and one of the things that uh Dr. Jeff and I talked about was the order of answers. So some of the subtle shifts that we've made you might notice um are to to start our questions that rank whether or not you are choosing an approach uh so that the status quo is first. So status quo is keep everything as they are and then raising minimum credits and then creating an optional diploma or not being sure yet. And in placing that um initial status quo answer first that helps to eliminate a lot of
090the bias that we might um feel from answering that question. And then we ask them how strongly we feel about that because that's another good data point. um you know if if I really think we should keep requirements as they are but I'm not sure what we hope is that as they go through the rest of the survey and they respond to the questions that ask them to consider other aspects of this that that might help inform how they're thinking about that as they move through. So the next section uh goes to perceived benefits and concerns. And again, one of the changes between the one that was in the board packet and the one that you have in your hand today is moving that status quo or the um the the concern about change to
091the first answer. I'm concerned that it would increase stress or reduce time for other things. And then the ones that indicate what might happen. We have one about the graduation, two about the diploma of distinction, whether it's motivational, whether we think that people might um view it as worthwhile. Then we ask about the students uh schedule. Would there be an impact on what they might need? And then um whether or not they think that if there was a diploma of distinction, their student would try for it. Um we're interested in what parents think is a reasonable GPA for a diploma of distinction. And this speaks to is 3.0 enough of a stretch goal? Is 3.5 a higher goal? Um 3.75 or or if they're just not sure what that might look like. And then we'd
092like to know what would make that meaningful if we did a diploma of distinction. What would they like to see? And perhaps it is all of these things, but are there some that are more important to others? That would I think that's a question we've not asked our parents before. Um, and I think that that would be a great uh question or an answer for us to also know as we look at things like the seal of biiteracy or the seal of civic readiness. Um, same thing, are we placing those recognitions in all the ways and places that we could so that students feel recognized for that accomplishment? And then, um, one of our our last sections is communication and planning. again an ongoing um area of improvement for us to make sure that we're
093communicating with our families and parents. Um, I always like to ask how are, you know, what is your preferred communication method as we continue to come out with things like parent square and our our new website or whether that's live with the counselors as they um transition into high school and you know when should we start this like when when should students start to hear about that? Then after they've gone through those questions, um this is kind of a oh there's a word for it in comedy when you do a kind of a slap back to a joke you told at the beginning of the routine. I can't remember what it's called right now, but we come back to that and we say, "Do you think raising the minimum credits for graduation is a good
094idea?" And maybe at this point they might say yes or no. And that might be different than the question that we asked at the beginning. And then we asked the same for that diploma of distinction. Is this a good decision or is this not a good decision? Um what do you think on a oneto5? And then just some optional background that we're asking parent. Do they uh parents does your student work or do they have um sports or clubs or other timeintensive activities? Um that that is something that we'd like to know. And then of course we always do an open answer for anything else that we may have missed. I won't go through the student survey because again it's very very um similar in terms of that. But you'll notice that if we choose
095to use it than it is, how familiar are you? What sounds better for our school? What do you think about adding a diploma of distinction? So that the student would be taking it for themsself. Again, even though it wouldn't affect unless, for instance, the board directed uh the diploma of distinction to happen earlier, but certainly the increased graduation requirements would not in uh influence that. And then the last page, it's page eight. And Mr. Mr. Goodwin, this is where, you know, these are a draft and if there are questions that um our SPOS's feel would be important or relevant, these are just suggestions, but it's the same kind of information. This is what we require. This is what we're thinking about. And then just some focus group questions that we would love to get some
096feedback. And whether that would be they record it with an AI taking notes and send that to us or if somebody takes notes the old school way with a pen like I do. Um you know, however, however that works for them that we would be able to get some of that background. Um our timeline for all of this would be our our hoped for timeline that we've discussed in the past is to be able to finalize these. These would go out in a Qualre survey. So, we'd be able to send directly to parents and then we would um like to see that opened on the 19th and then keep that open for about 10 days and then if directed to use a student survey, we'll do that through Canvas and we'll open that on the
09722nd and keep that open for um for that school week. And then hopefully we would be able to have some of those SBOs's hold those focus group discussions. I know this is a a busy time getting school started, but um if if we could if we could get that student feedback, we'd find that very very val valuable to have. And so if we could have that back by September 30th, then we would be able to have all of this data um kind of a drop everything and analyze and be able to bring that back to you on the 7th. So with that being said, President Salazar. Thank you, Dr. Hall. Let's start with questions. Bryce, Ashley, Annie, and so and Boss. Okay, let me make sure I got this right. Amanda, Bryce, give me everybody.
098I saw Annie. Um, Boss and then Charlotte as well. No. Okay. All right. Well, let's And Brian, thank you, Brian. Sorry, that was a quick one. It's an important topic, so that's really good. Um, Amanda, you're up. All right. Um, I was looking at the questionnaire. I did a quick scan before the meeting started and I noticed there was a a question difference on the parent versus the um student stakeholder. Um, and it seems like the question would be good for them to be the same. It's question number 15, page three on the first section or set which is the parents one. That one says, "What GPA feels reasonable for a diploma of distinction?" Where the student one says on page six, "If a GPA is required for distinction, what feels I believe the gift
099would be better for both." I I should have carried that forward. Absolutely. You have a lot of information you're going through, so it's the ideas are phenomenal. Appreciate that. The more eyes the better. Um and then like I guess the other that I was as you were showing the average GPA at the different school locations and your different concepts of sticking with 24 credits versus going to 28 credits, but then there's also this conversation about the GPA overlay um with the 28 credits to get that diploma with distinction. I guess um well rolling back, it sounds like really tonight's more about like the stakeholder input conversation because the other uh requested board action would be direction on recommended options, but the this conversation is going. We're holding on the recommended options until the stakeholder input's
100coming in. That was my understanding. And so it's really about the stakeholder input piece tonight from my understanding. But as we're contemplating these things, we're waiting for the stakeholder input to come in. One of the things I was kind of chewing on was if we do a 28 credit with like a let's say a 3.0, so they've got like the um GPA recognition. What I feel like there already are GPA recognitions out there. like you have honor society. Um I know that's a short version of it. 0 and higher and then there's different chords. I don't know them off the top of my head. Um so if we're going to layer that in maybe that would be a third option or we just simplify and say 24 and 28 and the GPA is kind of
101recognized through already existing mechanisms. So just throwing that out there something to contemplate. Absolutely. I have to say absolutely I mean and and I think that that is a great way to look at this you know and and you'll remember that our initial diploma of distinction was credit based and then again as we iterate we brought GPA in but you know and so it's like is it a this and a this or this plus this are we are we making a Hershey's bar or a Reese's peanut butter cup I mean like we can and design that um Ashley was really good about um is like pushing for um that will help add more perspective as we're narrowing it down. So, it'll be exciting to see that piece come in. But that's all I had. Yeah.
102Um so, I do know that we are tonight focusing on the stakeholder piece and I want to see what information comes back from that. I think that's valuable and important. Um but I do want to go back to the the first piece around the three options as well. Um the way that I kind of see it is that we are looking at two different things. We are looking at whether or not we are increasing uh the credits required and then the piece about the uh distinction uh diploma as well. Um, again, I do want to um see what comes back from the feedback from the surveys, but I'm also starting to hear uh from families already. And um I am in support of um before we get data again, I want to acknowledge that or
103get feedback. Excuse me. I am in support of the the extended the distinction. Um but I am not in support of increasing the credit requirements. I think it can do a lot of harm to our families and our students and I hear that specifically from my constituency. So um where we are right now and I probably will stick with this is that I will not be supporting the increase in credits. I sorry for um for graduation for graduation. Yes. Just go right on down the row. Um the first thing I want to say is just thank you so much for responding. I posed some questions about the structure of the survey and I think that in combination with Dr. Jeff, you really did reduce a lot of the bias in the questions and improve the
104clarity and I think this second pass is very strong. It's exploratory. It seems like a really good way to hear from the community about what is a very complex topic. Um my only note which is related but unrelated is that it's my understanding there's still a lot of dialogue about weighted GPA at West. This is not about weighted GPA at all but as questions about the GPA. So my guess is those things will become, you know, entangled in some way in some of the feedback you received from West as that remains a conversation happening in the community. But again, just above all, I wanted to say thank you for such a quick turnaround on those edits. Um because it helps me to feel really confident directing that stakeholder input could begin and that we'll get
105really good information from this. Thank you. Thanks, Ashley. Um I have Annie and then Brian. Uh yeah, thank you. I agree that the revisions were really great. I had some notes on that and I appreciate that um you you changed the order and made it as neutral as possible. Um I my primary concern with the discussion of diploma is the increasing of credit requirements for graduation. And I also would not support that given the constituency I represent. Um because of the ELLL learners as well as um special education learners and parents. I'm wondering how this will be presented to those populations as I think it's very important for the parent populations of um to be engaged. Um, so I'm wondering what languages this will be translated into and how would it be distributed to make
106sure that you know all populations within the district would be able to access it. We always uh always do it in Spanish and then um other language we we can do it in other languages. um with this short sort of a turnaround I can guarantee Spanish and then um we may have to with a slightly shorter turnaround. So for instance on the 19th we would be able to put out English and Spanish and then like on the next day we might be able to get the rest of the languages. So we might not have the full amount of time but we do have five target languages that we um always attempt to get things out to parents with. Yeah. So that that was my main concern that all five of those target languages would be
107included um for the surveys. Yeah. Thank you. No, it's a it's a we're such a diverse district that that's a really critical concern for us when we think about parent feedback. Thank you. Um I just have a couple of concerns that students have already brought to my attention within my community. Um although I do hope to bring a wider um group of concerns later once we've had those conversations. But um the first I have about three things. The first thing would be the diploma name. Um students have expressed concerns about like adding versus subtracting from what we have currently and that having the district name on the 24 credit diploma might sort of subtract because it's less personalized. And at least from what I can tell, the national standard seems to be that your base
108diploma would always be the school name diploma. And so, um, students have some concerns about that, although I would say that they are supportive of, uh, adding some form of an honors diploma, um, also with the school name. And then secondarily, uh, shortened graduation window cases for students such as, um, students trying to participate in technical internships that are unrelated to the school that might not be included in those elective credits. Um, or students that are trying to do some sort of year abroad and still graduate what would be considered like early, only doing three years in this school system um, and still being able to graduate at the same time as their peers. Um, It seems if 24 credits was uh with our eight credit per year system, 24 credits is possible in three
109years. But if the credit requirement was raised across um both uh diploma options, then that would no longer be possible and would seem to require that students packet classes or complete them outside of school hours in order to still graduate within three years if that was necessary for the path they're trying to take. And then in terms of surve survey accessibility, um how would student surveys be distributed to ensure student input? Um like what methods are being used to send those out? And also um just that students do have a strong desire to be included in that conversation. So I think it's great that they're being pulled. Great. Thank you. And and I just agree that we have heard and and the other board members heard loud and clear from their constituents. So the district
110diploma name um in terms of this proposal is off the table um would be the the the first you had several things in there but the two I want to address quickly are then we would put the survey out through Canvas and so when you logged into your Canvas dashboard it would pop up and say click here for you know the opportunity to give input on this topic. Sounds great. My question goes to I guess bias and I guess it would be direct well to you you're presenting but into board member Anderson's concerns when I look at some of those revisions um it was did you know I mean there were to me when we started looking at this um subject. We were looking at what other districts were doing and we have Granite that's
111right next to us that is a similar demographic. We have other districts throughout the state that are requiring um more credits. I'm wondering should because I don't know how many people in the community understand that there are school districts throughout the state that are saying we feel that it's important to increase electives and I'm sure they have different explanations but is that something that they should be informed about and does that create a bias? So, uh, just to bring this back in, Vice President Jensen is referring to when we look across the Wasatch front, the Salt Lake City School District is the only district on the Wasatch front that is still requiring only the minimum of 24 units for graduation and is one of six districts out of 42 in the state. And so that
112that is another reason that we we raised this topic. um you know, as a as a flagship district, as the capital city district, what what are our requirements for our students? What is it that we hope for our students? And and so I I think that's a very valuable question. I just wanted to give some context to to the background for those of you who weren't here for the early presentation. I appreciate that. I for me as a member of the community, I would want to be made aware of what was happening in other districts and other districts that are comparable to the district where my child is attending to have that sense that um the district that my children were in were reviewing and trying to determine what was um what was the benchmark
113um for a solid school education. So would that sound something um Vice President Jensen would that sound something like um we are uh exploring ch changing the requirements for graduation to be more in line with other districts on the Wasatch front. For instance, Davis district requires this many units. Granite district requires this many units as kind of our sandwich districts. Well, to me that is valuable information, but I raised the question. I don't want to be building in bias, but to me that's providing information that they can go out and do further research. Yeah. Context. Sorry, I'll take my um and then I'll get to second round. I know I've seen Bryce and Annie go up in Charlotte. We're still in the So, you haven't had a chance to speak first round. So, I'll count
114you next after me. That's all right. And then we'll move the second round starting with Bryce and Annie. Um, and now I just completely forgot. I remember now. Okay. Um, I'm wondering Dr. Hall and even Dr. Grant for could that context be placed not necessarily as a question, but kind of at the head of the survey. You know, how you always have a description of what the survey is, what we're trying the aim that we're trying to get to. And I'm wondering if if that context could be provided there that's what yeah that in that opening kind of that opening frame is is that what you're referring to yes okay perfect I'm I'm done now Charlotte okay we'll move to your first round okay so another piece of context in why we're considering this is
115also to encourage students to seniors to go to school to to go to school and not just say, "Oh, I've already gotten all my credits. I don't need to go to school." So, it's a little bit about that absenteeism and truency senior year. I don't know if we want to mention that in the I mean, that's probably not I don't maybe absenteeism since that's a board goal. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we'll move into our second round of comments. Bryce, you had your hand up in the I just wanted to uh provide some clarity around my comments earlier. I think they may potentially have been misconstrued. I think some people got it, but my support would be that someone who earned 24 credit hours could still receive a diploma. I'm not against exploring other credits
116for other um achievements or things of that nature, just that someone who um earned 24 opportunity. I just want to make sure that's clear not only for those in the room but for the public listening as well. Thank you. Yeah. Um to echo uh that I would just say um given graduation rates and our student population that we already are trying to reach for many students it's a reach to get to those 24 credits. So that's why I would also um prefer to have just a diploma of distinction. Um, from my background and consideration, I don't know. I mean, it may matter to some parents the context of different districts having different graduation requirements. Um, but from a college admissions perspective, um, college admissions officers aren't comparing districts oftentimes with what graduation requirements are, but
117they will compare an honors diploma versus an honors diploma. They will comp GPA they will compare course loads. So from that perspective I don't think the information of what other districts is doing is particularly relevant. Um but maybe to some parents it would be um I think we just focus on what is necessary for our our population. Ashley. Yeah. I just wanted to respond to Brian's question. I saw him look at me. I do think that adding more context we add, the more bias we introduce because we we've been told why we think this is a good idea. But the question is kind of philosophical. Is the survey meant to be exploratory or is the survey meant to persuade people about the logic of doing this? Well, we've been presented with the logic of why
118to do it and now we want to know in a very open way, do other people think things about that that are different than us absent some of this um context. And I can see your But I just have a different attitude about what the survey is meant to show us. And I also know that survey design is not something I'm an expert in, but it's something that, you know, Dr. Jeff is an expert in. I would assume like in designing how we get the best Dr. Hall. Yeah. And how we get the best information from people. Yes, of course. and why, you know, why we want to ask them this could result in some contrarian responses that it almost dares the respondent to say, well, I don't care about other districts. I want to
119do what our district is going to do. And I think there's some risks that are presented in like the known literature about this field, which is very different than, you know, educational outcomes or things we regularly look at. So, I would say I'm would be very cautious about adding more beyond what has been very, you know, well edited by Dr. Hall and Dr. Jeff. Um, I I just happen to think about how we, you know, during elections, you'll get a pro and a con before your PE when people go to the polls to vote on on a ballot initiative, they get a pro and they get a con and then they think about it. It it helps them have a more um informed um vote, but they're not voting in the survey. So, yeah, I
120defer to the survey experts, I guess. Thank you, Char. Um well, it seems like we've had a pretty good discussion. It doesn't sound like there's too many edits going to the actual language of the survey itself, um or the delivery methods to it. Um I guess Dr. Superintendent, what would be your next steps outside of what's already been outlined in the presentation? I don't think we take a formal vote to move this forward. No, I think we have some differing opinions too on how to do an introduction. Um, and I do think maybe the pro and con might be a nice way to go. Our reasons the reasons to like this, the reasons to question it. I don't know if that's helpful. I do worry about people So, why raise the credits when there's no
121reason anyway? I don't know. It'll be hard to find out from folks. Um, but if you don't mind us working together as a team to come up with the best given your input and going forward, then we'll do that. I'm fine with that. Just fix that GPA question. I will. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. a good one. I I'd like to reach out to you and get some next steps for some focus groups if that would be okay. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Paul. All right. Our next agenda item is our board committee assignments. Um Sam, do you mind pulling up that on the screen um so that board members and the public can take a look at what we're looking at as well? Um so while Sam's doing that
122um so with Annie you joining our board um it it means that we have to reook at our committee assignments. So there's a number of committees that uh board members participate participate in and are assigned to. Um obviously um specifically board members are tasked with participating in the board finance committee and the board policy committee. And then of course there's a few others like human sexuality, our representatives of city council meetings and so on. Um in light of some of the issues that we faced with uh with your predecessor Annie, um I had been participating in the board finance committee uh which is a little rare for a board president to participate in one of the two committees. Um so we would certainly want to take a look at that. Um and also just you
123know plug you into the right spots um on these committees that make sense. And I know some board members have also raised the question about potentially um working participating in different committees and what they're already on. Um so that's the the context for why we're here right now. Um talking about committee assignments and making sure that we're assigning these out um in the best way possible to move our work forward um on on these committees. So um with that um I would open it up for discussion. I haven't heard specifics about who might want to change their committee assignments. Um but I know speaking for myself that I I think it would be best to follow practice um and move off of um the finance committee to make room for um our full board that
124we now have. Bryce, I um want to make a comment. I don't want to I'm not necessarily advocating for a change, but I just want I'm thinking ahead. Um so I have I love being on the policy committee and I'm not advocating for moving. I do want to say I'm the second most tenured board member and I've not had an opportunity to be on the uh finance committee. So, I'm thinking as um elections take place in a year and a half, what that might look like because I still have another two years. I'm just saying that I haven't had that opportunity. I'm not advocating for moving, but if it's in the best interest of the board in the district to stay or to to move, I'm just putting that out there. Notating for one or
125another. I know that was something that you brought up um when we reconstituted these committees last time. Um and so, I mean, I think we're in a We're open to looking at all sorts of changes. So, I appreciate your feedback there. Um, I would be open to um taking that spot on the policy committee and having Bryce take your spot on the finance committee. Um, I'm also open to um filling in where the previous board member was. Um, can just be plugged in to the committees they were a part of. That would make things really simple and straightforward. Bryce, how do you feel about Annie's proposal? I'm fine with that. I not just long term. Are there any other potential or suggested changes that board members might want to or share? I would be open
126to also participating in the Salt Lake Education Foundation Board Committee if that were open for discussion just given my um history with education foundations and nonprofits. Yeah, for sure. Any and I mean historically um board leadership participated in that and on that committee. Um Bryce um elected to to want to stay on that committee because of his previous engagement as a select board member. Um and so Bryce, I don't know how you feel about that as well, but um just throwing it out there. I would like to stay um on that committee. However, committees change again down the road potentially stepping off Yeah. And um Annie, it'd be because of our opening law act. Um we not allowed to have more than three board members participating in any one committee because we would be violating
127the court rule. Um would have to follow different. So that's fine. I'm fine with how Thank you, and thank you, Bryce. Um any other thoughts or potential suggested changes? I just want to clarify that I didn't miss here. So it would be this shift between finance and policy but then the other committees that are currently assigned to former board member Bade would be okay. Yeah. I mean absent that I have no other suggestions. Okay. Um well the let's see the traffic. No well you'll be on the policy committee. Um but the traffic and the traffic safety and wellness committee. They don't meet very often, right? And is the traffic one only as necessary or is it is it by monthly? It's a city committee that we sit on that we attend. So that run by
128us Sorry, I missed you. No, you're fine. I just want to put some clarification on some of these. It does state by monthly. Um I have not been um notified or invited to attend um ones outside of the finance committee. So, I think we might need to revisit some of these to see um how they're functioning with board members that are to be on these committees if they are occurring. Um so, I can kind of fill you in outside of that this meeting any on kind of my experience on that regard. So, some are more um regular than others. So, it's getting used to those nuances and I'm still getting used to it as a new board member as well. just sorry. Thank you. Oh, go ahead. Okay. Like I haven't used my time yet.
129Otherwise, I'm in support of what was stated as far as um the different recommendations and then everything else being you taking over board member prior board member Bates seat on the other one. So, just for that verbal input, I'm in agreement with that as well. Um There is also the human sexuality committee and I was just going to mention that they they do look for parents to be on that committee. Um and in the past if I'm they've had trouble having finding parents I don't think they I don't know how it is this year but um you being a parent you might it might be I could possibly consider that as well. Whatever to whatever I was just gonna say um this would be the second time that I started that committee and then we
130kind of kicked off of it, but if that's something you want, I'm happy to um I'm pretty neutral. I would be happy to serve on that committee, but it's not something I Oh, what I just wanted to offer a point of information about the human sexuality committee that it's overseen by Dr. Hall's department and it's it has statute attached to it. So Annie and her role would not would be attending because it's a board assignment, but by statute a certain number of parents have to participate and sometimes it's just challenging to find a dime that a lot of parents participate, but that they do follow all of the rules in terms of making sure we approve the committee as required by statute and that it includes the right number of parents. It just is a
131question of whether we optimally get their voices. And to that end, of course, it's great when a board member who is a parent, you know, serves a dual perspective, but by statute, they're not serving as parents. So, I wanted to provide information on that. And I also wanted to thank Amanda for raising that the traffic committee is not meeting, especially as we hear so many concerns about rebuilds and transportation and traffic safety. I think it behooves us to reach out to determine why that committee is not convening as there have been many times since I joined the board that other board members have raised. Ensuring that committee meets would reduce a lot of concerns that we hear from our community. So I don't know why I see Isaac as coming to tell the tale of
132what I've missed. And I certainly don't think anyone has made an error here. I just think we continue to kind of ask what's going on with that. What's going on with that? And it really would behoove us to make sure, especially during this tumultuous time for traffic and transportation that we kind of know where that's at, but that's not a proposal per se. Sorry, I kind of invited myself up. But the transportation advisory board meets uh monthly. Um and then every the second week they meet in conjunction with the bicycle advisory committee. Um the board itself only has one member from the district on it and I'm I'm the representative that is doing that currently. Um I did inform the committee or the city that interested parties from the board to participate in that. Uh
133that was just done last month though to inform them who who had asked and there should be an invitation coming for those and is that sorry this traffic safety and transportation committee that's listed on this thing is the same thing or is that so these committees listed for the board? Yeah, I think there's some confusion there because the trans transportation advisory board the city one then then we have a transportation safety committee that's run by transportation um and I'm I'm not clear and maybe that's the one that's I think that's the one we need to visit iron out so not the city one the transportation committee it's an internal transportation safety yeah transportation and safety committee that's through the transportation department Um they don't meet by monthly though. It's basically on a quarterly right now.
134So if there's a if we need a clarification tell me and when was last clarify that the board question come up a few times it over different information each time. So let's work on that. I've been on the committee since January, so if they're meeting quarterly, I ain't been part of it. I'll get back to you on that. I thought that they were using it on a case-byase basis, like when a school is having some transportation safety issues, then they convene. And Jennifer Newell is part of that as well, but I could be wrong. That that's the transportation advisory board for the city. Oh, the one that I referred to. They they meet by monthly once with Jennifer once well Jennifer attends but it's through the transportation department. Oh no this was a this was
135a there's there's an ad hoc safety discussion for Glendel and Mountain View. Yes. Um with the city and Jennifer's the one that's been and that's not this committee either. Okay. Thanks Charlotte. Um well, I think we have a pretty clear understanding minus transportation and safety. U but for now, I think we should move this forward. Um this does require a vote of the board to reconstitute committee assignments and I know that we've kind of gone in a roundabout way of doing this, but I appreciate the discussion. Um so I would appreciate if um the motion to move this to action would include um the changes to policy and finance committee being that Annie will replace Bryce on the board policy committee and Bryce will replace me, Nate Salazar, on the finance committee and that um
136Annie Romano will take on um the infamous traffic safety and transportation committee and wellness committee. I'm happy to make that motion. Um, I would move that we send to action a reconstitution of board committee assignments, sending um board member Williams to the finance subcommittee, Annie Romano to the policy subcommittee, and additionally adding Annie Romano to the traffic and transportation committee as well as the wellness committee. Second that we've got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll start with a roll call vote with Charlotte Ferson. Yes. Ashley Anderson, yes. Nick Salazar, yes. Annie Romano, yes. Ryan Jensen, yes. Amanda Longwell, yes. Rice, yes. Excellent. That um is on the agenda. We'll revisit it when we get there. Moving along to our next agenda item, we have minor property line
137adjustment. Um Dr. Grant, I'm not sure who's planning on presenting this. Is it Alan? It's our executive director as Okay. Sorry, once again. Um, so the county uh received a report from FEMA several years ago to uh address several issues along the Jordan River, the properties that they're responsible for. And um as they were dealing with those challenges, uh they there's quite a few property issues from Utah Lake down. Um, and one of those was our property line um along Beardsley where most of our facility staff were at. Um, the fence itself, the property we're on was an existing property that the district purchased and we moved into. The fence line was on the uh Jordan River property, the county property. Um, And in they proposed to us to to uh leave the fence line
138where it's at and turn that property over to us. U and by allowing them to have an access point from the north end of our property onto the Jordan River Trail um off of Beardsley Place Road, we end up with a little bit more property than we had before, but it it was a good compromise and deals with dealt with the property line issue and um allows them to get the access they need to deal with the FEMA requirements that they have on the property. Um, so we've been working on this for almost two years now, a year and a half. Um, but this was the proposal to adjust that property or to leave the property line where it is and trade property uh to make up for that property line difference. Amanda, I think
139you basically answered it, but my broad question would be, do you have any concerns with this requested action? No. Um, I think we end up with more property and it deals with a pre-existing condition of the property before we purchased it. Question. I have one. I didn't think of this until just now. Um, you said you've been working on it for a while and we're just hearing about it now. Is there like a procedural way this normally goes or it's reached our agenda because this specific interlocal agreement that was drafted by the county? Is there information especially for relatively new board members about how something like this would normally come to the board and why it would require our specific action. Um my understanding is that the board is the only the only entity for
140the district that can approve property changes or giving up or receiving property. Um the the reason it took so long is the county proposed this to us and then the person that was in charge of it at the county left and so it was about six months of back and forth trying to figure out who was in charge of it now. That's why it took so long. But this was the tunnel. Exactly. It wasn't because there was, you know, negotiation over such a long period that we're missing from it's this is a novel situation. Yep. Exactly. That's really helpful. priorities. Any other questions? Seeing none, and understanding and knowing kind of the significance of a of a decision like this, Isaac, board members, um we do have some preferred language for a motion to move
141us to action. I move that the board move the discussion item related to the minor property line adjustment to the action agenda. Second. We have a motion, a second on the table. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote starting with board member Anderson. Ashley Anderson, yes. Salazar, yes. Annie Romano, yes. Brian Jensen, yes. Amanda Longwell, yes. Bryce Williams, yes. Charlotte Fe Jefferson, yes. Excellent. Thank you, board. We will revisit this um in just a few minutes. Um our next um agenda item is property use district needs. Dr. Grant, what we're asking for There's just some more clarification from the board. We talked about this last time. There were a lot of conversations about what we should do next. Um not a lot of clarity about what steps need to be taken. Um I tried
142to lay we Allan and I tried to lay out in the memo where we are in G5 and the G5 process which is um we have we went through the initial process to look immediate district need. The next step would then start to be look start to look at what would the community want in those different areas? What does the real estate tell us about itself? What does the financial picture look like? So that that information could be brought to the board as well. Um that would be a longer process. We we'd go out probably to get a third party to conduct that analysis for us and bring it back. But we're still on the initial step of determining district need. There was a request to um to do either a to do a comprehensive
143needs assessment of facilities. Um we had mentioned that we do that each year with Isaac in his work with schools. Um or to do an educational assessment which aligns with the work around the strategic plan. So trying to get out exactly what the questions are and not to have the board design the tool but to give us direction about what we're trying to get. Um there was some consensus in the last board meeting that you wanted to hear from a broader group of stakeholders, you wanted to hear from principles and teachers, which is one of the steps we could take to just ask them what do they see as district needs in using buildings. Now again, the distinction here is that and the reason we didn't go originally with that approach is that there are
144a lot of school needs that can be met on school properties that are currently in use. School needs don't typically extend to going to other school properties and needing that whole school property. So, we're we're trying to look at would we designate Ben or W Jackson or Hawthorne for a particular district need or a few district needs that would all be filled within that building or can we say they can be surplus which means sold off or used for another purpose that the board directs. So as owners of the property you're the one directing this. We can do any kind of assessment you need on any kind of timeline you want to undertake to get to the point of making decisions about the unused school property. So that's kind of where we sit and we
145need clarity from the board about what steps to take next. Um, I know that you mentioned we do get the information from the walkthroughs that Isaac's team does, but in several meetings it's been pointed out that there's a difference between the way that's happening now and long-term facilities updates that used to be provided to the board. And I think one thing that requires really a comprehensive needs assessment, which is what has been asked for multiple times in my interpretation, that we buildings that may or may not have a short-term use, but we also are a little bit unaware sometimes of the broader condition of our facilities as a whole. And so we have specifically in precinct 3 now the oldest buildings in the district and we know that they have maintenance needs and what we
146do with other district buildings relates also to to how we respond to those oldest buildings in the district. So part of the reason that has been presented by current and past board members for a comprehensive needs assessment is that we need a picture of what's going on with all of our facilities in order to make recommendations about what to do with some of our facilities. Um I also think that starting with the school collaboration teams, that's what we're calling them SCTs. Now thank you for the affirmation that I got another acronym in the bank. But um our school collaboration teams are an important way that we can get initial feedback and then kind of coate that feedback of these things we feel can be met at the school site and these cannot like an early
147childhood center dedicated to early childhood that is in the center of the city or an additional CLC or whatever it may be that serves neighborhoods that currently don't have one. whatever those kind of options are that couldn't be um you know fulfilled by a school site can then be put forth through the rest of G5. But part of the ask for a comprehensive needs assessment has been our misunderstanding of the big picture of our facilities. And I think that's what's most important about um diligently looking at it very comprehensively even though the outcome may only impact a small number of um so from what I'm understanding or from my perspective it would be engaging principles and teachers in what they're seeing possibly in future or current academic or other needs that they have as well
148as the larger and really long-term facilities assessment like you're talking about. Would that be like a five or 10 year kind of thing? I don't know. Um 10 20 year outlook. Um I'm thinking of when Bonavville was rebuilt, students were bus to low, right? and that that was an empty building that was being used for a school for I think two years while they rebuilt another elementary school. So I think that's a very astute observation that we need to look long term because there will be other needs in the future that we might think oh we should have thought of that. The other I think the third thing that I'm really interested in is a comprehensive financial assessment like the real estate assessment of property value the the depreciation cost of us hold on to
149it and maintain it versus the appreciation over time. Um and and in the end like would it make more sense for us um you know to sell the building? That is what that next step is. So this one I think we could um put together that facilities assessment with the information we have pretty much um right now in looking at um I think you're trying to get out what is the prediction for what like what buildings have a certain lifespan which is always a little hard because anything out past five years starts to get really fuzzy and then even if some of our buildings or some of boilers we say it has a lifespan that ends here but it ends up lasting five or 10 more years and we don't change it just because it
150came to its lifespan. So trying to predict the white lifespan of a school like Wasatch that's older but is still operating fine is is kind of hard to do. But we can give I mean Isaac's are professional in this and and a real professional in this area. So can help put together a picture that way that gives you a sense of those facilities. It also sounds like and you've mentioned this before more member Anderson the idea of like early childhood hub um or a CLC. These are things the board would have to choose to invest in in the long run um and weren't originally brought to the board because we weren't proposing these new things. Um and uh they weren't things that we came up with as immediate district needs. So we could look at
15110 years down would we want to do something is that kind of do what you're thinking of in that long term. Yeah. To respond, I think the the only piece missing from what you're saying is that going back to SCTs to then determine what some of those things might be. We'd be asking Yeah. Yeah. Because I I think something like bringing to us what that people do feel like there's a need for a new CLC or an early childhood learning center. That's why how we allocate funds to those purposes. But if it's not brought to us, we can't do it. And there is to that one of the on the memo is a testing center which is something we've never discussed as a board. So that idea has never been um brought back to us
152in a public meeting and it is something that was identified as a need. So I think repooling those idea ideas ideas and continuing to ensure that we hear them from the school level rather than like only what may or may not filter to the top is the other missing piece there just to make sure that SCTs are involved in the feedback of what pool of ideas comes to us in that way. And when we gave you the original pool of ideas, we also said we think these things can be met in our current buildings, which was true, like the professional development and testing, things like that. So those things could be part of the facilities needs assessment, too. Or the board, I mean, the board can decide what to do next, looking at all the
153requests that you'll get from schools about what they want, and you can decide as a about what you'd like to do next with us. So, it sounds like the best approach would be to survey parents and teachers, sorry, principles and teachers, um, particularly asking SCTs to weigh in and then to ask Isaac to put together a long-term facilities assessment that would look particularly at aging issues. Is that right? Or you because we have a fiveyear plan um that kind of looks at what expenditures would be in the long run that way. Is that of interest to you or is it more just the state of the current build actually because I think that's directed yeah to anybody but I think Ashley thought through I was going to say that that you know I'm open to
154hearing what other people have to say. I think that it's a little bit all those things. Like if there's a five-year plan, I don't know that we've discussed it or if we determined that a testing center could be in our current buildings, we don't have a plan where one is. So, I think there's just a lot more discussion that needs to happen. And the only thing I would add about asking teachers and principles for feedback is something I'd shared about a really open-ended prompt. The reason why I suggest to start with SCTES before broadly surveying is as you've rightly pointed out some options will be brought up that are not possible to achieve for one reason or another. And then it's important the question we ask people in terms of like ranking realistic options gives
155us information that we can use. So I think starting conversationally and using those dialogues to create a survey will actually give us the most usable information. But beyond that, you know, I'm open to what others have to add. Oh, and I'm trying to hear what everybody's saying and like respectfully consider it all. The thing that I spent time on was going back and revisiting our G5 policy. So, it basically says the um immediate district need figuring out if that's if we which we've identified. We've identified Riley for an immediate need. Um and then reading into it, we're going stagnant. So the next step is um determining site eligibility for repurposing or surplus. And so repurposing is similar to what happened with the CTC center uh or is happening with the CTC center. Um and so
156that step the first step in there is the feasibility study. And the step after that is what are we going to do from here? doesn't automatically read that we have to sell when we have complete the feasibility study. It brings extra information to the table that we can determine if we're going to keep the property or if we're going to sell or whatever it is. At least we have more information to work on. So, my recommendation would be proceed with a feasibility study. You know, we can wrap in some of these other pieces, but there I I will um emphasize that and it is valid information to bring to the board, but I know elementary school buildings that have classrooms sitting empty. So, um to presume that we when we're in a declining enrollment and
157after we close four elementary buildings, we still have buildings with empty classrooms. Um to think that uh selling property may not This is a little odd to me. Um, but I not negating that we it is useful to bring in all this information. So, but I'll still circle back. The G5 says next step is feasibility study. So, at minimum we should be moving ahead with that and then in the we can add on these other asks in conjunction to it but we should be following our G5. Make sure nobody else does anybody else want to speak in this first round. So we'll start round two. So is it possible to get um like a real estate assessment concurrent to getting the information so that we can weigh both options? It will take us a little
158bit to find somebody to do the work. Um, we probably have to put out an RFP. So, it'll take some time to develop that. I know Alan has worked with Tyler to start looking at our policy and how that policy shapes into an RFP and things. Um, so it'll take us some time and then I imagine it would take some time to get that information together. So, that would be I don't know how I I've never done this before so I don't know how long that would take. Um, but it would probably Yeah. So that's why I'm wondering if we would start that process now knowing that it will take a while to do. The only thing is if you wanted to designate one of the schools for something then we would take it out
159of the feasibility study. Um and maybe that's the only piece that would affect the feasibility study is if the board said well let's keep another property for district use right now. Um If somebody has some ideas on timing, that would be great. I think there's a lot of other information that could be shared with board members um specifically again new and relatively new board members that kind of how this process works is not a mystery because past iterations of this board have opted to keep property knowing the consequences of selling property. Like the the current Raul High School is like one example of a property of ours that we've sold or like Garfield Elementary. And so I think we actually would owe ourselves the favor of revisiting exactly what we've done before and some of
160the consequences of selling property for one-time money as compared to the long-term benefits of retaining property. The other thing that we've talked about is how other districts do manage when they opt not to um have district use. So like in Granite, our past interim superintendent Martin Bates would talk about examples where if the building did not have a purpose, they collaborated with the who had first right of refusal in their district, whereas in ours it's the city because we're contiguous with city boundaries and worked to make green space and parks uh things that the community desired. And so I think that there's a before moving forward on a feasibility study when we don't know what we may or may not do with specific buildings. I think it's a simultaneous piece that is really valuable that
161could be done immediately is compile the past information about our practices to help people understand the pros and cons of a sale that results in one-time money that can be used in really finite number of ways versus the long-term benefits of property values overall. And I think we have many examples of that that would be very valuable to our decision making. Thanks Ashley. Um Dr. Grant, I'm I'm hearing the conversation and I'm particularly Amanda, your point about following our process through policy um which we're stewards of, right? and actually um the suggestions that you're making as well are really important and I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for us to have Miss Kindle kind of help us outline some of our next steps and where we're at and what we're obligated to be doing
162um relative to our policy with this particular process because I think Amanda raises a very good point that um some of what we've done over the last couple of years particularly with G5 um well the decisions we've had to make have been super super stressful and hard. Um, huge air quotes was successful because we followed our steps through administrative procedures and our policy. Um, not to negate what's been done in the past, Ashley, but I I don't want to put us in a position where we we are not following what this board has committed to do relative to our G5 policy. So on page five of policy and there's a link to it through the memo if you're on there. Um the first thing we do is the immediate district need um so once that's
163been done um which we've done number one under immediate district need says once you've decided to close a building you'll determine if there's an immediate district need and then it says you're going to talk about it in public meeting and bring it back and get back which we did. So we did step A1. So there is no other direction in the policy that gets you to step um A B that oh sorry just B uh determining site eligibility for repurposing or surplus. So that is and and I think board member Anderson brought up a good point. So all our our sense of what that would be would be the huge data collection piece which would include things like parks too because that's a legitimate use of the property that we'd want to bring to the
164board. You all know that we've mentioned before that people are saying you ought to use this for housing, right? There's a housing crunch in Salt Lake that um people have pressed for you need to make it for family housing because we have an interest in having here in the district that there's even the possibility of doing teacher housing or staff housing that would um be subsidized in a way to encourage and and especially since it turns out you have to be earning between 160 and $180,000 a year as a family to afford the mediumric home in Salt Lake. So those are all the sorts of things we'd want to gather and start bringing to the board. We'd also imagine bringing to the board some experts themselves to talk to you. Um I know that Steve
165Waldrip who's the governor's um property fellows really has um worked in housing issues and can bring different ideas to the board just to present the information to you. It is a big decision and I want you to have the information you need. So some of that was included in our conception of what this feasibility stud would bring to you. It also has built into it community input into those so that each community around those schools could speak to what they want to see happen and we bring that to the board. So all of those pieces are open. The policy itself though, unless Miss Kindle you have another version of things or want to correct my language or my interpretation of G5, really doesn't say once we've made that immediate district need anything to transition into
166the next step. There isn't a it just says the next thing we'll do is do the study to bring you more information, but the board could direct on I mean we want to follow these steps since they're in our policy as president Salazar said but um I think we can do some other information gathering along with that my timer had a little time left but it was left on um so I would just use my last little bit of remaining time if that's possible um I think one of the concerns as we look at following the steps is we're also obligated to follow the directives given in meetings and those directives have numerous times asked for a comprehensive needs assessment and a facilities assessment as related items and so I think we do owe it
167to ourselves to follow the directives we set forth in meetings and not set those as oppositional to what the policy objectives are. Um but additionally I think some of the things that are presented in this memo as initial needs have not been addressed to move to item B. So for example before I asked about the testing center and PD and those are currently housed at Mary W. Jackson and Riley and in the response I was told that as the CTC is anticipated to move to Riley, we further anticipate having to use our Slick site for many of those activities. But this is something that would need to come back to the board given that the Slick site's currently being used by students, but also that it doesn't have accessible parking for testing spaces or professional
168development because that very limited law. So, this is just one example where immediate district needs have not actually been fully addressed and discussed or we would have, you know, either permanent things happening in those buildings like we did with Riley um or we would have fields as was originally proposed or we would be ready to move on. But part of the reason we are not ready to move on is we haven't fulfilled some of these obligations and we have outstanding work to do about some of the needs that even are listed in the memo beyond what the SCS may raise. So that's just one more thing I wanted to clarify that it's not an opposition to policy but it's directives have been given in numerous meetings about these topics. I think we're saying the same
169thing because if we follow the policy, we're going to get to after feasibility study, it's either surplus or site repurposing and we've taken care of immediate known needs like the CTC decision, the um athletic fields. I'm not aware of any other urgent immediate needs, but the feasibility study brings in another piece and site repurposing specifically says in D1 a recommendation to repurpose a site will feature a land use plan and that can be found on regulatory yada yada the land use plans are intended to ensure that we have repurposed a site continues to serve as a community asset while offering value on and on. So, we're still accomplishing this by just moving forward with the feasibility study and doing these additional things. I don't I don't think we're we're skipping past these concerns. They're very
170valid and very important, but we can also be doing this as well. I mean, I don't at the end of the day, whatever the majority decides, but I I don't think that we're ignoring any needs while we're still moving ahead because we can get to a site repurposing, which is still looking at it as a retention and repurposing. Amanda, and just to kind of go back to the original prompt that you gave us, Dr. in opening this discussion is just seeking clarification um where we're at and um particularly with Amanda and Annie and Ashley the three A's that's pretty cool um we have feasibility you know appreciation depreciation properties we have needs assessment and understanding that and then of course following our policy and doing some things simultaneously do you feel like Dr. Grant you
171have the clarification um that you to be able to move forward. No, I would like actually something much clearer from the board in in terms of we've had suggestions, but I don't think I've been given direction. So, this question of what's a directive and what's an opinion held by a few that want something done, I'd like to clarify on this step so that um the board as a whole gives the superintendent direction about what to do next. Um, I think that's important because I think that's important. This is too important ought to have some clarity on I'll make a motion that we um move um forward with step the next step in the G5 and begin the procurement process to select a partner to conduct a physibility study for each unused site. Um at the
172same time we identify Oh sorry Amanda I'm sorry to interrupt you. We move it to the action agenda. Thank you. So um can you restate your motion please? Make a motion to move to the next step in the G5 and begin the procurement process to select a partner to conduct a feasibility study for each new site and move it to the oxygen agenda. Did I just say that right again or wrong again to move to the action agenda? What if it was something like move property use and district needs to the action agenda and we can pick up the conversation there? I said that. Okay. Is there a second to the motion? I second. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? I Yes, Ashley. I would just argue that we have not
173talked about two of the items listed in the memo as immediate district means and they do not currently have a space to be that we have designated for them. So it would actually be out of step with our policy to proceed without doing what we said. And I would also remain very concerned that we are not following past board direction for a comprehensive needs assessment which has actually been very clearly directed by at least six board members over the last two years. So when we presented the immediate district needs in April, we did list the testing professional development center and the discussion then was um our recommendation was not to hold a building site available for that because we believed we had other options within the district particularly with the building of new high schools
174that will allow for different kinds of spaces for testing. our professional development needs. Um, we've got to and then the question of using the CTC is still viable um for those things and and you're right, we'd have to look at the question of parking. So, we haven't solved that completely, but I don't know that the policy says we need to solve immediate district needs or things that come to the four. We actually thought um district staff that we could address those needs at a in a different way than setting aside a building. Um the other one was which was the other one we're missing on that? You mentioned two that there were two that weren't discussed. I said testing and professional development and I think part of the concern I would just ask then as
175we move this forward that we also attach this email response to the minutes for reference that we do have buildings being used for these purposes and proposals of where they could move in the future, but we haven't discussed those in an open public meeting. So, I'd be very uncomfortable that we haven't fulfilled item A before moving to item B. You want my email to be on the minutes? My response to you. Any further discussion? We'll go ahead and take a roll call. Starting with Annie. Yay. Annie. Ryan Jensen. Yes. Amanda Long. Yes. Bryce Williams. No. Um, may I ask a question? I think we got to take a vote. We got to question action portion of the agenda. Oh, whether it's going to action Charlotte Ferson abstain. Ashley Anderson no is our yes. So we'll
176pick this back up on action. Um and we're here in the action agenda. Um the first item on our agenda in action is our committee assignments and I will entertain a motion uh very similarly to what uh was uh stated in the previous motion to move it to. I move that we uh approve board committee reconfiguration which includes uh board member Williams going to the finance subcommittee and Annie Romano joining the policy subcommittee as well as traffic and transportation and wellness committees. I'll second. We got a motion and a second on the table. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote starting with Vice President Jensen. Ryan Jensen. Yes. a long way. Yes. Bryce Williams, yes. Charlotte Fe Jefferson, yes. Ashley Anderson, yes. Salazar, yes. Annie Armano, yes. Motion passes. Um the
177next um item is our property line adjustment. Um and again, just um being sensitive to the significance of this, we do have a preferred language for a motion of approval. I can make that. Uh I move that the board approve the boundary adjustment in our local agreement between the board and the and Salt Lake County as currently attached. agenda. I second. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, uh, we'll do a roll call vote starting with board member Longwood. Amanda Longway, yes. Rice Williams, yes. Charlotte Ferson, yes. Ash Anderson, yes. Nazer, yes. Romano, yes. Brian Jetson, yes. That motion passes. Our next is the one we just visited. our property use in district needs. So for clarity, we're going to do the motion and then we'll discuss before we make
178our votes. I make a motion to move forward with the G5 process and obtain a feasibility study on the uh remaining unused properties. Second to the motion. I second the motion. Motion in a second. We'll open it up for discussion. I want to just provide one more G5 concern about this, which is that when we introduce the idea that the slick site needs to be used for the immediate district needs, it calls into question our current closure process for studying innovations because we are now proposing potential uses of a site that is currently used by students. So, I think again continuing to proceed here is actually a pretty dangerous precedent to set. We're not proposing using the innovation site. We actually were proposing using the CTC side for testing and professional development. Right. Am I
179allowed to speak? Go ahead. I'll ask Go ahead. I was just going to say then it would be good to clarify what sites we're doing and I might need to amend that motion, but it would be my innovations in the CTC CTE are not currently part of this because they are not unused currently. So they are still being the CTC center is moving to Riley. So the current CTC center is not currently unused. So that would not be part of the feasibility study because it's not unused. We have Benyan, Mary W. Jackson and Hawthorne are our current unused elementaryaries. Point of information. This is why I'm asking for this response to also be attached because this is actually about current district needs which have been ascribed to Riley and Mary W. Jackson being articulated that
180they should move in favor of something that we haven't discussed. So I think actually we're really in the weeds here if we don't know what spaces we're talking about exactly why. talking about them and it's why a big picture comprehensive needs assessment has been asked for over and over again. So recognizing that I'm only one person, I just continue to think if we have to go through the weeds to get to the meat of the motion, we we don't know exactly what we're doing and that's not a great place to be in. Thank you. Actually, can I ask a clarified question? Um in the previous public meetings um was it discussed that the where a potential professional development site and and testing center were the professional development site. It was proposed being at the um
181CT innovations if that freed up. We actually I think spoke in more general terms about it um because the vote hadn't CTE. So we weren't planning on that, but rather we had other options in the district for this. So our answer to the district was we did not need one of the three schools for professional development and testing. That was the conversation we had around the immediate district need conversation when we first had it. Um where that then is placed depends on a number of things over the coming years. We're even looking at incre a continued decrease in enrollment which would um lead to a discussion with the board about another possible closure in the future which we're trying to prepare our community for that would be something ahead because the numbers continue to decline.
182So um there are a lot of big questions like that to take into consideration. Can I ask a followup question? So, understanding that it wasn't explicit in the public meeting regarding the the professional development and testing needs. Um, is it based on policy five, G5? I've read through it several times, but just for clarification, does that public meeting need to occur before the feasibility study begins or can it be with the feasibility study. Miss Kindle, can we get a read from you possibly? Probably not. I just think that that order is really important to this motion. So, knowing whether they can be concurrent or not. Could I potentially have the question restated? Uh yeah. So in policy G5 um it outlines um in a to do immediate district need and then it says um in
183an up open public meeting the superintendent will recommend to the board that a building be used to address an identified district need and the board will have public comment receive public feedback and then um in B it as determining site eligibility for repurposing or surplus and that includes an REA and FEA feasibility analysis. So my question is um in this I guess this is a two-part question ask okay so in this it says in an open public board meeting the superintendent will recommend to the board that a building be used to address an identified district need. So we're talking about the identified district need that have not been addressed of the professional development center and the testing site. And um basically um this it has been stated that those can be you those can be
184met with our existing properties. So, does that mean that we still need to have it addressed in in a public meeting with feedback if it's not going to be used in one of our empty buildings? Sorry, does that um so let me give an explanation and hopefully it'll answer your question. So um my understanding of the process how it's worked so far is that the superintendent identified an immediate district need for a CTE center and um that was after um consultation and much study with district leadership and feedback from the different departments. And so um she came to the board with that immediate district need. Is that correct superintendent? like based on your recollection that for the four buildings she identified an immediate district need of the CTE center and we listed four immediate district
185right and we said that one could be fulfilled by building the athletic fields. We thought we might use some of that space but we solved it in other ways. Right. So, the one district need that was identified by the superintendent that was going to be used for a building, one of the unused elementary school buildings that went forward was the CTE building. Um, so point of information, we are continuing to have PD at Riley and Mary W. Jackson house testing and those are unused buildings. So actually the needs just have never been discussed in public but they have been assigned to unused buildings and now they are potentially being reassigned to currently used buildings in ways we also have not discussed. So just to offer the information we are using the two items not in
186current schools but in unused properties. Okay. So so I think it's very confusing is what I'm I understand. I'm just saying for the entire use of a building out of the four elementary school buildings that are unused. Where we currently are with the process is that the superintendent has identified that Riley could serve the immediate district need of a CT CTE center. And that was what we went through the whole process about receiving community input on. So the three buildings that are that are currently have not been identified in a public board meeting to serve as a complete building to be used for an immediate district need are the remaining three of Hawthorne, Ben, and Mary W. Jackson. So the administrative procedures based on my understanding of how they work is that if one of
187those buildings has not been identified and gone through the process in a to be used and voted on to serve an immediate district need then they would go through the feasibility study. So because we haven't identified that any of the those three buildings that are currently unused, the superintendent hasn't said I want to use Hawthorne for this immediate district need or I haven't used Benan for this im I want to use Benyan for this immediate district need. Those are the three that we would be looking at pursuant to the procedures to have a feasibility study on. Okay. The followup question is is it possible that there will it is possible to receive public feedback and have a subsequent public meeting regarding the partial usage of Mary W. Jackson for professional development and testing needs while
188simultaneously moving forward with a feasibility study of REA and FEA. Can they concurrently occur or is it a So how if you read the first part of B it says if a building hasn't been identified for an immediate district need so it is a consecutive process. So if the superintendent were to decide and make a recommendation to the board that she wanted to use a portion of a building for something, then we would have community input on that and she she could she could make that recommendation and the board could move forward with that and then for the remainder of that portion we could do a feasibility and rea study. But to the best of my knowledge, she hasn't identified another one of those three buildings to be used for that purpose and come forward
189with an official recommendation. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Does that make sense, Superintendent? Is that accurate? Yes. And the reason we're using Mary W. Jackson is it was available. Not that we are choosing to assign testing there for all time. Right. And we put people in different temporary spaces. In fact, we're going to limit the testing at Mary W. Jackson in this next year because we need to use some of that space as a site to house a lot of the material for the building of the high schools that we can buy now at a cheaper price than we can buy later. between our warehouse at Beardsley and some space at Mary W. Jackson, which has an easy loading unloading opportunity for us. We'd want to house some of the tiles and things we
190might find now there. So, we're constantly thinking about using the sites we have now well so that they're kept up. Um, but I have not requested because my not requested that we use those sites for testing or PD. Thank you, Dr. Grant. Thank you, Miss Kindle. Any further discussion? We still have a motion on the table moving into round two. I'm a little bit more confused than when we started because now we actually have another proposed need for Mary W. Jackson, which we won't receive public comment on. Um, and the need ing items there would be very durational given the nature of the rebuild. So I I remain confused that also the needs were identified for testing and professional development in the memo as immediate district needs that could not be fulfilled by the by
191the requirements. So I'm starting this conversation about the motion more confused than when it began because actually as we've gone on more needs have been introduced and I would think the community of Mary W. Jackson would also have input into the site being used for building staging as compared to any other use. But I'm additionally confused about why we would engage in a feasibility study about a property that we have a multi-year use for given the rebuild is going to be at least a five-year process. So our estimates would no longer be as valuable as they were in another five years. So again, it's not about trying to be hasty. It's about trying to fulfill things in the order that we do them and knowing that, you know, the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly in
192part so that community members like neighbors of Mary W. Jackson are able to hear about the potential use of their building in a way that's not like this. Um, but that does follow what happens in G5. So, just to add, I'm more confused than when we began. Um, and I think we owe it to the community to have a much more deliberate discussion about this. Any other thoughts or comments from board members? Amanda. So what I heard out of what Christina Kindle had said was that the superintendent grant has not come forward and asked for a site to be a designated purpose which is different than just using it because it's not being used one. And then two and this could be an area that information could be flushed out. When these schools were closed,
193there was a lot of conversation about placing certain programs like special education at Hawthorne and wherever else and other places so that it would um deter vandalism and other elements. So, that wasn't necessarily an intention for a long-term need. It was to save off other issues while we're going through this process. So, um I just want to make sure that those uh were clarified. comments. I guess I would just Yeah, I would just say um I guess it kind of depends on our definition of a repurposing of a site um and what that means and for what duration because I think throughout the district, if I'm hearing correctly, and in the past in the district, sites have been repurposed for short-term needs, but that does not necessarily mean it's going to be repurposed long term.
194And I guess my question is how are we how are we interpreting G5? I'm interpreting it as a long-term usage repurposing, but it sounds kind of like um board member Anderson and board member Williams are concerned that these are going to be longer term than we anticipated and they this could be seen as repurposing without public um an open public meeting. I was going to say something very similar. So it sounds like it's about Yeah, we have to define if it's a temp if five years or the So do you have anything to say about that? Yeah. Um I mean Isaac's worked with his team to say we need a lot of square feet if we're going to start amassing some building material for the schools. Um that doesn't need mean it needs to be
195at Jackson. It's easier for us to use that because it's an easier in and out. Um, it also doesn't need to stay there for five years, right? We also have a warehouse, so different things can be put in different places as they're used. Um, we could find other sites. We're just using it because it's available. In the same way that we're using some of the schools for professional development because it's available, we used Mary W. Jackson for testing because it's available, not because it's an immediate district need that we were bringing forward for board review and public comment input on it. If the board wants to change that interpretation, they can. I mean, you're in charge of the policy. So, looking at that, but and again, um I think it's important to state the district's
196interest bringing good information to the board. Um, our only interest on a timeline and trying to be efficient about this is that it costs money to keep these buildings up. Um, we continue to house people in them because we want to keep them up. We continue to get neighborhood feedback about what are you doing and when. And so our interest was in trying to help you move the conversation forward. Outside of that, we actually don't have an interest from district staff on this beyond the immediate district need that we've already made. So, we're trying to work in good faith on this, but be clear about what's needed in in this and um getting direction from the board about exactly what our because I want you to see us as gathering the d you need to
197make this decision. They're consequential decisions. So then you tell us what you need. Yeah. Um so I understand the need for some of the staging and things of that nature. I'm not opposed to that. I think the motion at hand that I do have opposition to is that around what board member Anderson asked for something that I would ask for as well. And I know we do this um collectively. It's not one or two people making this decision. I'm trying to remember the the terminology you use. The facility comprehensive needs assessment. The comprehensive needs assessment. I think that is something that is highly important. Something that I would like to see. Again, there are seven people voting on this. It's not about moving forward with G5. It's about um the piece that board member Anderson
198said. Brian, did you have any comments on this topic? And if not, that's okay, too. The thing that ran out was me because I always when I'm talking, that's where I lose it. Okay. I really do think that it's important that we are really considering the policy. And as I listen to this back and forth, what we have here to me is a catch 22. the district is being um conscientious in trying to use facilities um whether it's to ensure that there isn't vandalism like Amanda's talking about but also to just be resourceful in running the district. I mean we've got these buildings sitting there. So it's okay. We haven't received directive from the board. So we're going to in the dayto-day operate I'm looking at this also as a dayto-day operation of the school
199and my understanding of my role as a board member is I'm not trying to second guessess the dayto-day op of the school if the school needs if the school district needs to do some testing and we've got Batman well not Batman Mary Jackson or Ben okay yeah and we think okay well let's use that it's sitting there to me that is not a longterm purpose or a long-term need. It's the district trying to fill fulfill their day-to-day operations. So, what we end up kind of chasing our tail here is okay, as board member Romano was trying to discern what is long-term, what is short term. To me, I think that we can go down this um process and look at the feasibility and still considering these other um needs. With that, I'm going to go
200ahead and call for a vote. Um we moved our way back to the top precinct um order here. So, roll call vote starting with four member votes. Bryce Williams, no. Charlotte Ferson, yes. Ashley Anderson, no. Nick Salar, yes. Annie Armano, yes. Brian Jensen, yes. Amanda Longville. Yes. Thank you. That motion passes. And I do just want to be clear that we can still direct the superintendent on the comprehensive needs assessment. Um I don't know if we can tackle that tonight. I know we're running short. Point of order. We have directed that several times. Thank you, Ashley. Um nonetheless, I just want to say that we can do that more formally. Um and I appreciate the the opportunity to do that. Um we will now move ahead in our agenda um to we will move forward
201with the comprehensive need assessment as described tonight. Is that right? Yes. Is that the direction that we would like to thumbs up give? May I offer a suggestion for I think the clarity piece is like we've done on these last two formal requests for board meeting reports is sending a list of what you're seeking out of that comprehensive assessment so we don't continue this confusion piece. Perhaps we could help by sending our understanding of the list and it could be edited by the board. That would be awesome. Great. Perfect. Um, so moving on to uh superintendent report. Okay, change gears. um at the beginning of the school year and I just sent a note to the board about this. We had the opportunity because of some nice research um done by our evaluation team um
202on our English language learners and um I shared with the board some of the slides that I had shared with teachers at the beginning of the year because I think it's important for our district to take credit for the um quality of teaching that has led to so many students learning English and transitioning out of English language development status. We just got from the state board a um a list of all of the districts um who had performed exceptionally in serving English language learners and the growth we're getting out of them including a very fancy uh USB certificate on student achievement toward English proficiency. It's a certificate of achievement to the Salt Lake City School District for that performance. Um, we're in the top five in the state for how well we serve our English
203language learners. Um, and it's both because of those who directly serve English language learners in English language development classes as well as teachers who are working on academic discourse in their general ed classes too with those students. So, um, to the team um led by Dr. Hall and Dr. Maloof and I believe it's Dr. Ike. Is it Dr. Ike? Not yet. Not yet. Nearly Dr. Ike. Um and to to our teachers for just their work they're doing in the classrooms to um advance the achievement of our English learners. So great stuff. [Applause] You're welcome. Oh yeah, that's it. Um, and BA K just texted me and said that he does not have a BA report this evening. So, thank you Alan from the remote world. We'll start with Charles board member reports. I just wanted
204to report that I have um let's see I attended the West High open house um to see the the designs from uh the renderings from the architects. I um and I know we're getting further along in this process um of rebuilding our schools, but I want to make sure that we um remember that that we compile and keep in mind all of the stakeholders um comments that we've received at these input meetings. Um, I know we can't, like I said before, we can't fulfill every wish or every thing, but but to to have it um in record somewhere um and to refer to it and be because um this is, you know, I think it's we need to be good stewards of our taxpayers money. We need to make sure these designs are um be
205responsive to our community. So, I mean, we we want to make we we want to keep families and attract families and to our district. And so, we have it's important to really listen. Um, but I also think that we need to be thinking about the future of these buildings and how long I mean in the future, what is our world going to be looking like and is it going to be hotter? Do we need more? Wow. I never That's the first time I've ever gone over that. It was a Oh, anyway. Um, and then hearing the students voice. I also went to the Highland a Highland High School. Um, hearing about the art that they wanted to keep and hearing about community gardens or like school gardens on campus that just leads to a better
206quality of student life. those things and I think all of those things should be not just forgotten in the shuffle and madness of of everyday um work. Thanks. Uh yeah, just briefly I um also attended the West and Highland High School open houses to see the new designs. Um was very impressed with the integration of the sustainability piece. um and also um the inclusion and accessibility for all students to learn. So, I'm very optimistic about that. Um I plan to visit uh since you may have already visited some sites that have similar uh layouts. I have not. So, I'm planning to visit Desert Peak if anyone wants to join me um and to see that pod learning in action. um because there were quite a few questions about that from um people who were at
207the at the meetings. Sorry, I'm getting tired. Um so I would like to be able to see it so that I can address those concerns for the constituents. Um also attended the innovations closure meeting which is within the precinct that I represent and will continue to do more research as that is an impending decision. Thanks. Okay, first I need need to apologize as the timekeeper. Um I guess I've got to learn to do two things at the same time or just not talk. So anyway, um I just wanted to report on three of my assignments. Okay. To you, as we were looking at the committee assignments. I am on the Salt Lake Education Foundation. I met with my team because I have been assigned to the clinics, the health clinics at Highland and West. We
208met on September 4th with James and with Rick Davis and a couple of other members that are on that sub and talked about moving forward with the health plans for West is it I mean West has this wonderful program but it's still going to be directed by Dr. Jeff Robinson who was so instrumental for the University of Utah. So, I mean, there's excitement there. Even though we're going to be building a new one after we have this, it was a success. Okay, that's the first one. Then I'm also on the um city council or city rep council meeting along with Ashley and Nate and we were there on September 5th and they can report on their part, but what I was trying to take the opportunity um with the mayor and council members was to
209explain that there was some concern from constituents in my um precinct about the roundabout that is being suggested or for with the Highland rebuild at 21st South and 17 East. There are many that are concerned about how do you get children across that intersection um when you've got a roundabout and so there's been some followup um reporting going on with that and I'll Finally, um, USBA. I'm not the person, but this is lawmaker month in the classroom. And I just really do want to encourage we as board members, if we know um, legislators that we could invite to come to our classrooms. This is a wonderful opportunity to um show the Salt Lake City schools to our legislators and also have them recognize the challenges that we're facing. And then I'm going to the regional
210meeting tomorrow. That's it for I did go to my back to schools for all my five elementaryaries. And the thing that I want to say there that was really wonderful, those teachers were incredibly prepared, but the parents, it's amazing the support that those parents giving PTAs and PTO's and other organizations that are there supporting our schools. Thank you, teachers and parents. Um, I also had the opportunity to go to the West High rebuild presentation. Um, and both I and my fellow students really appreciated the opportunity to connect with the architects directly. Um, and ask some details about the rebuild. Uh, even if it'll be completed after our time there, it was helpful to be able to get some direct contact with the folks who are planning out the minutia of that process. Um, Also, I
211had the opportunity to talk with um Miss Ree about uh the upcoming portrait graduate. Um and that was a great conversation. I think we're making some progress. Thank you. I have a lot, but I'm going to say it fast. Um, it's National Arts and Education Week. So, I want to celebrate Tanner Dance, which serves many schools in my precinct, youth theater, which specifically works at Wasach, and our BTS arts and district music faculty, and the pops programs that serve every elementary school in the district. I also wanted to acknowledge that our secondary schools also have very successful arts programs and point out that in CTE, many, if not most, of our highest enrollments are in the arts courses that also receive CTE credit, specifically photography. I would really encourage the district as we celebrate this
212week of fine arts to considering offering enough sections of those arts and CTE courses to fulfill student demand and ensure that our developing um or growing I should say CTE program response to the profound connection that the arts provide to youth. I also wanted to provide an update from the Salt Lake County Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting where we discussed their strategic plan. Um feedback was additionally provided on how to encourage students to sign up for the my county w pass. I've brought this up before. Um, I shared our district's model of registration where we support students in connecting with the public library and the UTA. And this may be a model where they can support more kids in accessing rec centers at some point in the future. Um, I also wanted to remind
213the board that I've been attending all of the monthly USBA policy webinars and the last one was really a doozy because they reviewed five model policies in 30 minutes that were newly required by the legislature. Um, while it'd be great to see any of you on the webinar, I know that time doesn't work for everybody, but they are all posted on the USBA website. So, people who've missed them or wanted to catch up, especially our policy subcommittee members, might be interested. Um, in other board business, I did attend the information meeting about the potential closure of innovations as well as the West High open house for the rebuild. And in both of those meetings, I really do feel like there continues to be a tussle between the public perception of events and the district response
214to those events. And I think many parents at Innovations feel unheard and misled. And many of my neighbors on 200 West unfortunately feel the same. And I think it really behooves us as a group to consider why there is so frequently such a big difference in understanding between community members and district staff about the events that have taken place at their school. I think it's really easy to be reactive and tell community members what they've misunderstood or why we think they are wrong about the events that have occurred. But I think we should instead try to consider how we can solve the problems faced by constituents and build mutual understanding. Um the last note is that I spent Saturday at the Avenue Street Fair where I heard from a number of community members, many of
215whom were excited about the building plans for West celebrated many vendors to our students and I heard two items of feedback. One I already passed on to Sam. Some people have reported that our meetings the audio was very quiet. He says that was fixed. If you can hear this message, you don't need to reach out to me. If you can't hear this message, you won't know to reach out to me, but I will try to find out. Um, the last piece of feedback that I heard was, uh, I've also received this via email and shared it with the superintendent that our calendaring process for next year is a great process and that it outlines three years in advance, but when we don't vote until January of the next year, parents cannot plan for the subsequent
216school year. as we work to address chronic absenteeism, it'd be really great for families to be able to plan um their family events and trips around the school calendar if we can push the dates forward on that moving forward. Yeah, I'll try to be quick as well. Um I also attended the West High uh rebuild meeting um and have received a lot of positive and some not positive um feedback, but I I appreciate hearing from constituents on these items. I did attend my ad hoc um SLF uh meeting for the CTE center that was on September 2nd and I know that's the day that Henny uh was appointed so we didn't have a chance for a board member report then but um that that was a great meeting. Um I forgot one other thing I
217was going to say but that's fine. The last thing I was going to say is um I did have the uh wonderful opportunity to attend my 20-y year high school reunion from West High School on Saturday and it was a really great reminder of all the great uh experiences that I had as a student here in the district and the great things that are coming forward. So, I just wanted to share that as well. Thank you. Um did what a lot of other people said coming in last. I feel like I'm just on a repeat and rewind. um attended West High open house, Highland High open house, innovations info meeting, planning on attending the USB A regional tomorrow and the Nibbly Park info meeting on Thursday. Um thank you for the shift on the schedule
218where originally conflicted with NBA or USBA regional. So that was really appreciated. Um it is really exciting to see people shift between um apprehension for these rebuilds and then when they see the graphics and the details and stuff it's shift from apprehension to excitement. So um finally kind of seeing a lot of that that more enthusiastic momentum with the more information coming out there has been great. Um, I wanted to express heartfelt sympathy to um with Daryl not's passing up at um Enzyme. So, heartfelt sympathy to his family and students and staff etc. that were impacted up there. Um, loss is never never easy. Um, and I last thing I wanted to say was just in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder, just a reminder to students, staff, community, etc. that um violence is
219never the go-to solution. Um so if you're struggling, reach out to somebody and talk through it and work through the concerns that you're having. Um because there's always a better solution. Um even if it doesn't seem like it, there always is. So please reach out and talk to somebody first. Always. Thanks. Um I'll be really quick as well. Um I also attended the city council meeting with Ashley and Alan, Liz, Grant, and Yandere. Um, so that was a productive meeting. I felt like um I attended my subcommittee meeting for SLF on the Glendale track. Um, it was a pretty quick meeting. It was pretty high level. Um, but nonetheless, um, they are moving forward. They had an open house that I was planning on attending but couldn't because somebody called in sick at work, so
220I had to stay late. Um, but nonetheless, that is building. Um, there will most likely the request for folks on that subcommittee to attend meetings with potential donors and in the community and all that type of stuff. And I will certainly keep all of you appraised of of when those meetings happen. Um, a really kind of housekeeping thing uh for you all in my report. Um, October 7th at our next board meeting, um, we're having, um, a photographer come in to take board member pictures um, with Annie joining us. Um, so please be ready, you know, and your your best, you know, feel like the first day of school in October, but nonetheless, um, we will have, uh, the opportunity for new pictures and a new board, you know, full board picture. Um, and then
221later this month, um, Charlotte, Dr. Grant and I will be attending the USBA Leadership Academy, um, in Southern Utah at Bryce Canyon. Um, that's September 25th through the 27th. Um, so those are the the top things that I wanted to share out with you all today. Um, we do have a need for a close session and I would entertain a motion. Um, there should be one on your all's tables to make sure we cover both. I move that the board go into close executive session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and the character of professional competence or physical or mental health of an individual and that the board adjurnn immediately upon the conclusion of the close session. Second. I second. Got a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, um let's let's do an
222all in favor, please say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes. Thank you everybody. That's the board. Okay. I