Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As to Trustee Harrison’s comments about interpreters, it has been a concern of mine for 2 years now, especially coming from the McNeil Learning Community with our deaf population. I know that the administration has been looking into different options and I think we will have some information soon in a board update; hopefully it will also include the request from Trustee Weston last night about easier searching capabilities for the meeting videos.
In the past we have had people speak to the board in languages other than English. I believe that they usually brought their own interpreters; it was before I was elected and when the board meetings were in-person only. I think it should be possible for us to add languages other than English to the sign up instructions. And I also think it should be possible, with enough notice on the sign-up, for the administration to find an interpreter for someone who wanted to speak to the board in a language other than English.
With regard to Trustee Xiao’s suggestion, we cannot legally limit the amount of time for public speaking. Everyone who signs up and then shows up to speak must be allowed to speak.
We have not had our training, but the Lone Star Governance model contemplates 2-way communication as the means of gathering input from the community, not speaking at the board meetings. Board meetings are not 2-way communication opportunities; they are meant to get the business of the district done. So as the district implements LSG with integrity, the hope would be that the number of public speakers at meetings would decrease as the 2-way communication increases and more community members take advantage of that opportunity.
I agree with Trustees Bone and Harrison that it is frustrating for speakers who assume they will have 3 minutes to speak but then are given less time. I think in those instances where we are anticipating a large number of speakers, such as the boundary hearings last year, we need to make sure that if we anticipate time limits, that it’s known up front. That being said, staff does not know until a few hours before the board meeting exactly how many speakers we have. District staff can notify speakers when they receive the zoom link of the time limit if we decide to add that to our policy. Which I do still advocate for limiting the speaking time based on the number of speakers. The law is for 1 to 3 minutes per speakers. We could limit all speakers to 1 or 2 minutes to be consistent. But I think the sliding scale is the best approach; clearly stated on the sign-up and on the board meeting page, and clearly communicated to speakers as soon as we have the total number of speakers.
This item will be on the agenda for next week.
As to the signature request, BDAA Local policy allows for additional signatures of trustees who have a senior. It has been used in the past, and I’m sure it will be needed in the future. It is a simple courtesy for a fellow trustee who is not an officer to be able to sign the diploma. In the next year or 2 I know that a couple of current trustees will have seniors at the same time, we may want or need to implement this policy during that year. This is the same policy that allows former trustees the opportunity to come back and present diplomas to their child, or even a grandchild. Again, it’s a simple courtesy for those that have served our district.
As to your questions Trustee Weston regarding the budget and the proposed “Retention and Incentive Payment” I do believe that staff will be prepared to answer your questions. I have a question for Dr. Presley and Dr. Adix and Ms. Vierra regarding who will be eligible; those employed since August only, or some other calculation? I will make sure to copy and paste your questions posted here to make sure they have been seen by the administration and will be addressed on Thursday.
While I agree with Trustee Weston that the motion passed on December 17, 2020 (well technically it was December 18 since it was after midnight) was vague, the other option did not take into account any of the unknowns, particularly those regarding TEA. After midnight on the last day of class for the fall semester was not the prudent time to say we will do away with virtual learning in August. We have absolutely no idea what TEA is going to require or allow or not allow. I do agree we need to do a better job preparing for our student’s recovery, but to make such blanket decisions at such a late hour, without any guidance from TEA was not something I was comfortable doing. I think we can strengthen the guidance we give to the administration and amend that motion, and I was hoping that our LSG training originally scheduled for last week would be the start of that. Now that our Lone Star Governance training has been rescheduled for the end of this month, I hope that we can begin to focus on our goals and constraints, to actually focus on our students. This is where we will have the most impact and be able to be very specific in our desires for the district. I would encourage the new trustees to look at other districts around the state that are using LSG. I know that our student’s mental health needs will be paramount and is a topic that is important to several trustees. So in the LSG model, for example, a constraint the board MIGHT want to discuss would be, “The superintendent shall not allow any high school counselor to have more than XX students.” And then the progress measures would be how many times counselors are meeting with each student; or something to that effect. It is within this LSG framework that I believe most of what the board wants to accomplish will happen and it will be the place to really dictate what we as a board would like to see in the recovery plan.
I was on the TEA website and they have a document that lists types of audits for schools districts. I believe given Trustee Weston’s description of what she wants reviewed that the following per TEA is actually what is being requested (Texas Education Agency 2019 Financial Accountability System Resource Guide page 8 Auditing) :
Performance audits are objective and systematic examinations of evidence that provide an independent assessment of the performance of a government organization, program, activity, or function. Performance audits provide information to improve the organization’s public accountability and facilitate decision making that initiates corrective action. Performance audits assess the performance of an entity, a program, or an activity within that entity. Two common types of performance audits are economy and efficiency audits and program effectiveness audits.
* Economy and efficiency audits determine whether an audited entity is operating economically and efficiently, identifying causes of wasteful and inefficient practices, and ascertaining whether the entity has complied with laws and regulations in matters of economy and efficiency.
* Program effectiveness audits determine if a program is meeting the objectives for which it was developed and the entity has complied with significant laws and regulations related to the program.I wanted to clarify the term Forensic audit. This is an audit used to gain evidence for a court case or legal proceedings and I don’t think that is what you mean as I read your definition of the kind of audit you’d like to see happen. Trustee Weston you say, “ look for areas of inefficiency, redundancy, waste, etc.” which is a different type of audit. We should discuss what type of review or audit this board would like to see.
Trustee Weston in reference to your question on efficiency studies, the only thing I have seen is the Gibson study which was presented before I was elected. But as far as the efficiency committee that Dr. Adix was spearheading last year, I do not remember seeing a formal presentation or recommendation on that committee’s findings.
Trustee Xiao as you know I have been very concerned with construction projects and construction spending, but I do believe the new system that has been implemented by the construction department is working. We can ask Mr. Worcester to get that information to the current board. I know the previous board was given a presentation and more information on the new accountability system for the bond projects. We also will be working to make the bond oversight committee more of an asset to the board, and they will be able to monitor these projects more closely for us.
I agree that we need to create the best RFP document. Dr. Bone will you please bring a few specific items for us to consider tomorrow to make the document more detailed. I appreciate all the research you have done on the process. Please email Dr. Presley and Mr. Poolman with your ideas so they know what direction the discussion will take tomorrow night. We want to be organized and succinct in our instructions to staff.
Thank you all for your input. I have spoken to Dr. Presley and I am going to pull this from the agenda tomorrow and we will schedule a workshop for January.
I have had several trustees ask that we put a covid discussion on the agenda again for this week. I know that it is what is foremost on everyone’s mind, but we must also focus on the more routine business of the district. I am going to ask staff to add it at the very end of the meeting, after all the business items. In order to focus on what seems to be the most important topics and not the more general priorities discussed last week – since staff has not had time to come up with any implementation ideas or has not been given enough direction on some priorities (i.e. testing and virtual learning in the future).
I propose we ask staff to bring forward discussion items for the following only:
1. Discussion of the re-opening plan in January to include monitoring the virus and communication over the break.
AND
2. Austin Public Health Stage 5 and the recommendation for no athletics at that point.
Knowing that additional compensation for employees will be discussed in the budget portion of the meeting.
I think there is so much diversity in our schools. We won’t see true parity for a while because I don’t believe that we will see any 2 schools that have the exact same system. Grisham is just across 183 from Deerpark and yet, they are doing different things. It was mentioned on Thursday, but to give more detail, Deerpark no longer has asynchronous time for the virtual learners. They stay in the class with the in-person learners until the teacher is certain that each student has mastered the lesson for the day. The in-person learners can see the virtual learners on the screen in the room, but without the interactive white boards that the elementary schools have, my son says that the virtual learners can not see or interact with the in-person learners. So many of the in-person learners are choosing to be on their laptops. My son says the teacher is clearly giving instruction directly to the in-person learners (and including the virtual learner) he can see the teacher answering the in-person questions. But if those in-person students want to interact with classmates that are virtual, right now they can only do it by logging onto their computer. So many, if not most, according to my 12-year-old source, are logging in at their desks even though they don’t have to for the instruction part. He says the feel is totally different than it was in the pod era. He is very excited to go back in January.
I think that, especially in this time of transition, that we be mindful of our campus leaders and ask that the entire community support them and know that what is happening at your campus may not be exactly what is happening at another campus. But hopefully the best ideas and solutions will float to the top and will be shared with all campuses.
I know first-hand there are teachers, school administrators, staff, and even top district administrators that very much need to take leave. I would caution that the federal and state laws regarding leave, whether under the American’s with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or the Families First Coronavirus Response Act are too complicated for us to discuss or make district wide decisions on as a board. Everyone has their own circumstances, which are private, and that is solely between that staff member, HR, and their principal. My hope is that each individual situation is judged on its own merits for the best outcome for the district, the students, and the staff member requesting leave.
Thank you for starting this conversation. Dr. Malerba will be incorporating the Crisis Monitoring Priorities into the COVID presentation on Thursday. Trustee Math and I discussed the board goals with Dr. Flores and his team on Friday. In May we voted to suspend the Board goals and constraints and the monitoring calendar only from May through August 2020. We’ll be able to discuss this as part of the CMP discussion Thursday and further in the future. Staff is looking at our original board goals and how to possibly modify them with the current data that we have. As you state staff will have some baseline evaluation data in September, which will be critical to this discussion. This may be something we need to add to the September regular meeting. September will be the first month that the board goals are “un-suspended” and our board monitoring calendar will be back. We will have to adopt some changes to the goals due to different measuring metrics that are in place for the virtual learning environment. And possibly add something regarding health and safety, or as our LSG coach suggested we could add health and safety in the constraints.
That being said, I do think you bring up good points about needing additional information/feedback from staff, parents and students regarding the current virtual learning and later to include the transition to in-person learning. Dr. Malerba indicated that surveys are being planned and I believe she will be asking for board feedback on Thursday about what those surveys should look like. I will try to give some thought to the types of questions and the type of survey that would be most helpful to the board in addressing our student outcome goals. I’m hoping if we can discuss here what types of questions we’re thinking about it will help our discussion on Thursday and make it more productive. We could also consider adding something about staff and parent satisfaction as a constraint as well. It can’t fall below a certain level. I’m not really sure how that would be phrased or if it would work, but it’s something to consider.
The Williamson County numbers are coming down, but if you look at the WilCo COVID-19 dashboard by city the numbers in Round Rock are very high. We might need to look at city numbers as well as county numbers. We also need to remember that there may be a spike after Labor Day, and with many college students coming back into Austin that Travis County numbers may see a jump in the coming weeks as well.
I agree that Austin Public Health’s Guidance is a good middle ground. The recommendations do allow for some students to return. As you know Dr. Flores has the authority to add one more week to virtual learning, but I agree that our special education and our youngest students need to be back in the classroom. If we go with the Austin Public Health Guidance, we should be able to bring back these students, and then wait for 2 weeks to see what is happening in our area, how the students and teachers handled the situation, and how well our safety protocols are working. The Austin Public Health Guidance document agrees with the phased in strategy for our special needs and youngest students on page 6. “The National Academies for Science, Engineering and Medicine recognize the importance of in-person interaction for learning and development and recommend that schools prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing full-time, in-person instruction in grades (Pre) K-5 and for students with special needs who would be best served by in-person instruction.”
On Friday Trustee Math and I met with Dr. Flores and some of his team to discuss the agenda for Thursday. Brandy Hafner, our Director of Health Services, is still collecting data to be presented, hopefully her findings along with the full COVID presentation will be posted on Monday for everyone to review. I did ask about our special education students being able to return as soon as possible, and Dr. Flores indicated that staff is preparing a plan for partial return. Hopefully it will be presented this week.
The Board has another called meeting planned for September 3rd. While it is not specifically a COVID update meeting, if need be, we can make a more informed decision at that point about the roll out of in-person learning.
Those are great suggestions Trustee Math. I hope that the administration is considering these types of options.
I am looking forward to the Virtual Town Halls this coming week. My husband and I have not made our choice for our middle school student. I am hoping to get more information on July 30th so my family can decide which option is best for us.
I did notice in the administrations answers to parent emails that a Special Education Town Hall is being planned. I am hopeful that the majority of parents will be able to have their questions answered before the August 6 deadline.
Those are very important questions and I have even more that I’ve gotten. And then there are our low SES parents that have even different worries and needs, but we haven’t heard from many of them. The Thought Exchange survey to parents that went out in May results just came to us yesterday so I am planning to review this weekend but it doesn’t look like it is part of the presentation for Monday.
Looking at slide 3 I’m wondering how we will monitor the minutes per day per child for the synchronous learning. And for Asynchronous Instruction, will that be like this past spring? My high school students were okay with it, but my middle schooler did not like it. I know it was so tough for the younger kids. I wonder if any students were surveyed about what they liked, didn’t like, what worked or didn’t work for them. We have the student advisory council, but I haven’t heard if any students were surveyed.
In the presentation for Monday (slide 4) and the video that went out to staff yesterday there is discussion about the grading policy per the TEA regulations. That’s the first I’d heard of it, so I’m wondering if the Board will have to approve any changes to that policy.
I’m still not clear looking at the presentation slide 10 for Monday what the safety measures really are; are masks required and for what ages? And sanitation wipes are listed but who is using them, teachers? students cleaning their desks? Thermometers are listed so does that mean we are taking everyone’s temperature when they enter a building?
And I’m especially interested in the discussion on the teacher survey which was sent out yesterday (slide 6). I had several questions on teacher sick pay and leave after watching the Morning Joe Team (Staff) Edition video yesterday but after officially getting a copy of the staff survey last night at almost 10pm I can see why it’s causing concern among staff.
I wish that the Board had been involved in the process and able to bring questions to the administration for consideration in the planning, not just get a presentation the night before the plan is released to the community.
Our COVID presentations have talked about the district buying masks, but we haven’t been part of the discussion on what steps will actually be taken next year. So I don’t think there is a policy in place, at least not one that we’ve approved or has been presented.
I agree it will be extremely difficult to keep masks on kids, but in my opinion they will probably be necessary. But if they are mandated, will the district be providing them to students that forget or don’t have their own? I’m not sure that’s a cost we discussed in the budget presentations.
I attended the webinar, now on YouTube – How to Reopen K-12 Schools in the Safest Way Possible: A Path Forward – that was informative. There is still so much that is unknown. Dr. Flores did say the administration will have a plan by July 17th. I’m not sure if that will be presented to the Board or just communicated directly with the community.
