[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

I am glad we got clarification on what a forensic audit is and why it is not appropriate. I have no issue with doing an economy and efficiency audit while we are in between superintendents. However, I would caution against acting on any findings before the new superintendent begins. We are hiring a superintendent for his/her expertise in running a school district and therefore I would prefer we allow him/her to make the decisions.

In terms of the efficiency committee supervised by Dr. Adix last year, these were the efficiencies presented to the Policy, Innovation and Budget Committee on February 3, 2020:

Transportation- Reduce Overtime which Funds
Additional Routes to Reduce Overcrowding
Replace T-8 and T-12 Lights with LED Lights
High Efficiency Toilets and Flushless Urinals
Use Air Driers instead of Paper Towels

When we consider efficiencies, remember that we have two budgets. We have an M&O budget, that covers our operational expenses, and an I&S budget, that covers our bond projects. Those are very different in terms of finding economies and efficiencies.

For the M&O budget, in light of the $27 million budget deficit for this year, the big dollar savings would come from changing our education delivery model significantly. I pray the advocacy at the legislature results in continuance of current funding levels (and an increase for teacher/staff raises) so that the proposals on the table aren’t cutting programs to reduce overall expenditures, but rather reallocating dollars towards initiatives/staffing that will further improve student outcomes.

For the I&S budget, I think a combination of utilizing the Bond Oversight Committee in this capacity (looking for efficiencies and economies) and utilizing an external audit will be helpful. The 2018 Citizen’s Bond Committee put together a bond to serve the district for three years, planning for another bond in 2021. Given a 2021 bond is unlikely with the current economic circumstances, stretching those 2018 bond dollars as far as possible is definitely prudent.

I look forward to a robust dialogue in our upcoming meetings.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

As you may or may not know, vaccinations for people qualifying under 1b are now permitted.

People in this group include:
-People 65 years of age and older
-People 16 years of age and older with at least one chronic medical condition that puts them at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19, such as but not limited to:
-Cancer
-Chronic kidney disease
-COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
-Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies
-Solid organ transplantation
-Obesity and severe obesity (body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher)
-Pregnancy
-Sickle cell disease
-Type 2 diabetes mellitus

I theorize that over 25% of RRISD staff qualify (mainly because of the obesity category). I would like to get any staff that qualify vaccinated ASAP. However, the availability of the vaccine from regular providers is very limited. If our qualifying staff must go to a pharmacy or doctor, they may have to wait many weeks.

I sent an email to Dr. Presley earlier this morning asking if we could set up a vaccination clinic on-site. Could we coordinate with Williamson County Public Health like we did for our school nurses? If they aren’t able, could we coordinate with another provider? I want every staff member eligible to be vaccinated ASAP.

Vaccination is the surest way to protect our staff. Teachers and school staff didn’t make 1b, but we can get our teachers and staff that qualify under 1b currently to the front of the line.

Sincerely,

Cory Vessa

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

I watched the AISD emergency meeting last Wednesday, December 23rd and the AISD Superintendent, Dr. Stephanie S. Elizalde, outlined the possible options should APH make the recommendations it just did. The information she shared is applicable to RRISD as well and I felt it was very informative.

1. She could go all virtual for 1-2 weeks.
She said this option was quite challenging. TEA only gives half credit for all virtual if it is done to prevent spread (rather than in response to active spread – like we saw at Stony Point HS). To make up those instructional minutes, she would have to not only add minutes/days onto the calendar, but she would also have to add days to staff contracts. Many staff, teachers especially, are contracted to work a certain number of days/minutes. Going over that contractual amount would necessitate changing contracts and adding compensation.

2. She could close schools for 1-2 weeks.
She said this was less challenging. Closing schools means teachers and staff under contract are not working. Closing schools would only require adding days onto the calendar. Most parents surveyed preferred adding days onto the end of the year, rather than eliminating Spring Break or other vacation days in the Spring semester.

I believe there could be a third option: Extend the time current in-person learners can be virtual without impacting their in-person status. Right now, in-person learners can be virtual for January 6-8th, returning January 11th. We could extend this grace period to include that entire second week, meaning it would end on January 18th.

There was also a discussion of just closing schools until Spring Break. She said that was not legally possible under current law. The current law requires all instructional minutes for this school year to be complete by June 30, 2021. To close school until after Spring Break would require school to continue past June 30, 2021 in order to complete the requisite number of instructional minutes under current law. Also, there were issues with staff contracts – they would not be able to complete the required number of days/minutes on their contracts before the end date of their contracts.

I have not touched on the recommendations regarding extracurricular activities. The two APH recommendations are: 1. Suspend/postpone extracurricular activities within the school system when masking and distancing are not possible. 2. In the event that activities are unable to be postponed or canceled, they should be modified in order to reduce the risk of transmission, including proactive testing.

I hope this information aides in our conversation.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

Trustee Bone’s comments come from the absolute best of intentions. She believes this is what is sincerely best for students and I deeply respect that.

However, I see things differently. While I agree that in person learning poses minimal risk and I agree that in person learning produces better student outcomes in general, I prioritize choice and people making their own determinations as to what is best for their students and families (even if I disagree with those choices).

Furthermore, as I go down the road of only granting exemptions in the case of high risk health conditions, I think it would be challenging to evaluate and determine whether a family has a valid exemption.

Lastly, I worry that families who believe virtual is best at this time will just leave the district if we require them to return. They have other options. Several surrounding districts are open enrollment and eager to welcome new virtual students.

As I said initially, I respect the intent of Trustee Bone’s recommendation. I just prioritize parent/guardian choice.

[Cory Vessa]

First off, a big thanks to Trustee Bone for taking the lead on this RFP effort. We are blessed to have your expertise and are blessed by your willingness to devote so much time and effort.

My only feedback is that I would like more weight put on references and reputation and cost. I would like less weight on Strength of Project Team and Philosophy/Method to Recruitment.

I propose:
Firm’s Experience in Providing Executive Recruitment Services (20 pts.)
Strength of Project Team (15 pts.)
Ability to deliver and quality of the scope of worked proposed (15 pts.)
Reference and Reputation (15 pts.)
Philosophy/Method to Recruitment (20 pts.)
Cost of Services (15 pts.)
Total Overall Points 100 pts.

I think references and reputation are huge. Most of us in our personal lives put huge weight on references and reputation when making big decisions. We also put a significant weight on cost. I think about all the families making decisions about colleges right now. References/reputation and cost are massive drivers of those decisions.

Again, I so appreciate all the thought, time and effort. I think the RFP is better for it.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

If I were to pick my top three priorities going into the session, they would be:

1. Protect all programs and funding in HB 3 (86R).
2. Provide additional funding to address deficits brought on by the pandemic and to enable raises for teachers.
3. Protect and enhance funding for SB 11 (86R) that addresses school safety, trauma informed care, and mental health resources in schools.

They are all related to funding. There are a couple reasons for this. 1. Our allotment comes from the state based on their formula. The only way we have more resources is if they change their formula or we raise our tax rate. 2. This is going to be a very difficult session. The legislature is facing a serious deficit, must deal with Covid issues, and must redistrict. If I were to take an educated guess, there will be special sessions and very little beyond addressing these necessities will get done. The budget and redistricting must get done per the state constitution.

I believe other legislative priorities outlined by staff are important, but I am not sure 1. the majority of our board will agree to support them, and 2. they will even gain enough momentum this session to go anywhere for the reasons listed above. For example, I don’t think vouchers will have traction this session. It would be a huge fight and there isn’t the bandwidth to have that fight. I think the ban on tax payer funded advocacy is also going struggle for the same reasons. Some charter revisions (like applying the same superintendent severance limitations and penalties to charters as currently exist for ISDs) may pass, but wholescale charter reform isn’t likely (also due to bandwidth issues). What will pass is what must pass and that which has broad support.

My goal in these legislative priorities is to establish what this board and community wants to see this legislative session and then take those marching orders and do our best to advocate to that end. I believe the three core priorities listed above have wide support on our board and in our community. I also believe there is a legislative will to make them happen (which always helps).

[Cory Vessa]

I was also at the meeting yesterday and I actually left the meeting confident that I could vote yes. I felt staff answered pretty much all of Danielle’s questions above. I was grateful she raised them. And if it takes a board workshop in January to get all trustees to a place where they can support this project, I am fine with that. A one month delay won’t be the end of the world. That said, these are my answers to the questions she raised based on what Terry said and what I know about the school.

What is the plan for student athletes during the 2-3 years that CDF will not have a track/football field?
The kids really shouldn’t be using the field right now as it is. They have ceased using the field for actual football games because it is dangerous. It has a 2 foot sideline (I haven’t measured it, but it is very small). Then there is a concrete bunker before the track. This is not a suitable field to play on and I honestly wish they weren’t practicing on it either. The sooner we get the track and field replaced, the sooner we have equity at the school. Right now, what we have is a far cry from equity.

Might a meaningful renovation that keeps the beautiful and historic theater part of the building and needed upgrades to the track/football field better meet the needs of students by not forcing CDF student athletes off campus for sports participation be worthy of consideration?
We can preserve the historic theater. That is part of this plan. However, as I stated above, the track and field are dangerous. Continuing to practice and play on them is a disservice to this community.

Can a renovation/expansion be done in such a way that students are kept safe and not going in and out of hard-hat areas?
Terry clearly stated that they just couldn’t find a way to make this happen. Not only wasn’t it possible, even if it was, it would make the project timeline so long as to make it impossible to keep to the bond target.

Do we as a community value CDF as a historic building (it’s the former Round Rock High School) and want to preserve it while making meaningful changes that students deserve?
If that is the priority, preserving the building (not just the theater), the campus would not be able to have a full sized track and field. That is certainly an option, as other middle schools in the district do not. Because the footprint of CDF is so small, you cannot preserve more than the theater without sacrificing a full sized track and field. Terry did a good job showing us this at the meeting. Whether preserving the original building is a community priority is more of an unknown. During the original surveys of the community, preserving the theater seemed to be the community’s focus. It appears staff have tried to solicit more community input, but the response has been minimal. What we do know from the responses, is that the community wants a middle school that has all the advantages that other middle schools in the district enjoy. We also know that there is great community participation in coming to the games when the games are on campus and easy to walk to. When the games are located somewhere else (which would be necessary if we couldn’t give them a full sized track and field), attendance may be impacted.

Would a renovation/expansion option reduce the cost of the project thereby allowing us to invest in other parts of the VLC of which CDF is a part?
We can clearly see from other campus renovations that they are not less expensive than a rebuild. In many cases, they are more expensive. A good example is Westwood. I am fairly confident, with the amount of money that has been spent on the remodel, we could have torn the school down and rebuilt it and probably saved money. The 2015 study clearly showed that CDF is beyond a remodel. Why? Because to upgrade the campus to meet current requirements, is 1. extremely challenging, and 2. extremely expensive.

All that aside, my goal for CD Fulkes is to give them a state of the art facility. I don’t want them to have something that is acceptable. They have had the worst facilities in the district for many years. I want this board’s legacy to be that they received the absolute best from us.

[Cory Vessa]

I personally think that our community should do everything in its power to keep our schools open. I understand that there comes a point where everything must close and we all need to be on lockdown. Perhaps we are there. And if public health experts say we need to go on lockdown and therefore close schools, I would not oppose that. But I am not in favor of closing schools before we, as a community, close other entities that we know are sources of considerable spread. We know that bars and indoor restaurants are sources of considerable spread for example.

But we also know schools have very minimal spread when there is adherence to the protocols. We know this from our own data, from districts around us, from all the state data, from the national data, from the international data and from every single study on the matter (that I have been able to locate). If there are studies that show that schools who are utilizing mitigation protocols are sources of considerable spread, please make me aware of them.

It doesn’t appear that even our local health departments are advising closing schools for in-class learning at this time. Austin Public Health warned last week that we are in danger of entering Stage 5 restrictions if hospitalizations continue on the current trajectory. At Stage 5, they recommended stopping extracurricular activities. They did not recommend closing schools for in-class learning.

I have really been “chewing” on my ranking of priorities. And I think safety and keeping schools open are 1’s for me. They are equivalent in importance and I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. If we are following the safety protocols, our schools pose a very low risk of Covid transmission. Given the increase in community spread, I would argue we need to beef up our protocols by adding rapid testing and getting our staff first in line for the next round of the vaccine. I believe keeping schools open should be a level 1 priority because going to school is absolutely vital to so many children. It is vital to their ability to learn (many just can’t learn online), their mental health, their physical health (including fitness), their protection from abuse and neglect…the list goes on and on. We can keep our students and staff safe while at school and we must.

So I don’t support closing our schools and making up the time later in the year.

As for the rest of my chosen priorities (that I listed above), I don’t see any of those in conflict so I think they all can be level 2.

[Cory Vessa]

I am also fine with President Weir’s adjustment to the timeline. And I so appreciate everyone participating in this discussion on the Message Board.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

Regarding the agenda for Thursday, I agree that those two points are particularly salient. If we need to limit our discussion, I think those are the most pressing. I would love to be able to give more guidance regarding the board’s Covid response priorities. I hope we can continue to make progress in that regard on this Message Board so that we are ready to go in January for adoption and staff implementation.

While I agree that students learn best in person and that the mental health aspects of the pandemic are particularly troubling, I have many reservations about making a board priority associated with reducing the number of virtual students.

If I were to pick my top priorities from Amy’s list, they would be:
Keeping Schools Open, Classrooms (which I believe promotes mental health and improved student outcomes)
Safety – (which is linked to my advocacy for free access to Covid testing) which I would define as minimizing risk, while acknowledging the need for schools to remain open.
Teacher Retention (Teacher Prep, Support, workload and compensation)
2-way meaningful communication – staff and parents/students (include skip level teacher to district, etc.)
Proactive Planning
Student outcomes, including mental health

As of this point, I am not sure how I would rank those priorities. They are all so important. And yet, I think we need to rank them because there have been and there will continue to be instances when one will be in conflict with another.

I look forward to reading your responses and thank you for using this platform to continue this discussion.

Sincerely,
Cory Vessa

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

As you may or may not know, I attend most of the Central Texas School Board Association Meetings and also am our TASB delegate for the Statewide Assembly. I also served on the TASB Grass Roots committee for our region to come up with legislative priorities. I thought it would be helpful to share with you what those bodies adopted for legislative priorities. They are below my comments. While I don’t necessarily agree with every priority adopted by these two entities, I think it is valuable to consider them as we venture to adopt our own.

Regarding the proposed RRISD legislative priorities, I agree with Danielle that having too many priorities makes focus difficult. We may want to consider adopting some core priorities, while also adopting some of the others.

I also agree that focusing on continuance of HB 3 funding should be the absolute top priority. But I would go further. RRISD and districts around the state need not only a continuance of the funding levels committed to under HB 3, but also an increased allotment. We need these additional dollars for two primary reasons: 1. To address the deficits to student outcomes brought on by the pandemic and 2. To provide teachers and staff with raises to both honor their hard work in this time and to encourage retention. It would be very discouraging to our teachers and staff if coming out of the pandemic the state failed to provide resources to districts to give our teachers and staff even nominal raises. The legislature made a commitment to our communities to value teachers by prioritizing their compensation in order to attract talented individuals to the profession and keep them in it. As you may know, the resources we have in RRISD are directly determined by the state formula that dictates our funding level at our current tax rate. So, if the state doesn’t increase the formula, the only option we would have to give our teachers and staff annual raises would be local tax increases.

Regarding advocacy for additional resources to address the deficits to student outcomes brought on by the pandemic, I believe that is tied to our discussion during Thursday’s meeting as to whether we should request that STAAR tests should be suspended in their entirety this school year. TEA has already announced their decision to suspend STAAR for school and district A-F accountability. Danielle and I both stated in the meeting that we felt the STAAR was necessary as a diagnostic tool to know where students are performing. Additionally, I would argue that the data obtained from STAAR will aide in advocacy efforts for additional resources to address student outcomes deficits brought on by the pandemic. Amber was correct to say that STAAR results will likely confirm that students are behind. With concrete data to confirm that, it will be easier to make a case that additional monetary support is required. Given the pandemic’s adverse impact on the state budget, resources are very limited. Advocacy for additional resources will greatly benefit from statewide validated data (from TEA’s own exam) showing the need for interventions.

As for whether RRISD and other districts around the state should have the ability to continue virtual instruction past this school year, while I agree most ISD’s and charter schools main focus is and should continue to be in-person instruction, many families have found virtual instruction to be better for their children. While there are providers around the state that focus on virtual instruction, what we can offer students and families that they can’t is virtual instruction with access to extracurricular activities and other in-person supports (just like we have done this school year). It’s an opportunity to meet the diverse needs of the students and families of RRISD better.

I do have a lot of other thoughts on legislative priorities. I am eager to hear your thoughts and will continue to post throughout the week more on what I have observed as I have participated in these discussions throughout the year.

Sincerely,

Cory Vessa

Central Texas School Board
Association
2020 Legislative Priorities

The Central Texas School Board Association (CTSBA) advocates for
lawmaker support of local independent school districts and consolidated school districts to operate in
such a manner to be able to ensure that all students “have access to a quality education that enables
them to achieve their potential.” (Tx Ed Code Sec. 4.001) To do this we will need to retain our teachers,
fund educational opportunities, maintain and support infrastructure, reflect our local community, work on a
level playing field, promote the welfare of our special populations, mental health of all students, and be
able to respond to our community during this COVID-19 crisis.

The districts that make up the CTSBA therefore advocate for the following:

Strengthen and Support Local Control

Encourage locally developed accountability systems that measures the progress of district and
school performances toward state and local goals that reflects the diversity of districts.
Support ISD’s ability to decide on alternative assessments/testing instead of using federal and/or
state standardized testing for the majority of accountability.
Support ISD’s ability to make decisions and lessen/decrease the rulemaking authority of the
Commissioner of Education.
Prohibit censorship of locally elected officials and local community voices. Recognize and
preserve the right of public school boards to associate and collaborate with each other and to
communicate the needs of their students and schools, both directly and through representative
organizations, with lawmakers.

Continue HB 3 State Funding Commitments

Support HB3 funding to stand as is and extend “Hold Harmless” ADA for the entire 2020-2021
school year so public school districts will not have to cut program funding and to avoid/cause any
layoffs that will contribute to higher student teach ratios, destabilizing the educational system,
and increase the unemployment rate in Texas.

Prohibit Bond and Ballot Language that is limiting and Obfuscates Facts; Support a Level Playing Field and Invest Public Funds in Local ISDs/CISDs

Any funding that is being diverted to a “charter” should be held to the same standards and responsibilities the govern local ISDs/CISDs and should clearly identify if Texas taxpayer dollars are going to a privately owned out-of-state management company.
Oppose any form of taxpayer subsidies that go to private entities, public entities managed by private corporations, and virtual vouchers.
Supports that the Legislature gives SBOE the authority to veto and oversee the approval of all privately owned charters that will receive public funds otherwise intended for ISDs and any amendments; and to reduce/eliminate any sole authorization/discretion of the Commissioner of Education.

Take Action to Ensure Implementation of TEA’s Corrective Action Response Plan Will Achieve its Intended Result by Supporting Local ISDs/CISDs and Keeping Student’s Needs in Mind

OSEP’s has sent a response to TEA identifying for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) areas of noncompliance with its Corrective Action Response (CAR). As trustees in Central Texas our concerns are that reinforcement or funding is missing supporting local ISDs/CISDs or funding their efforts to provide special education and related services for students regardless of the severity of their disability. For example, TEA’s Documentation/Evidence of Progress/Completion states that 100% of LEAs will receive guidance and information related to their legal responsibilities under state and federal law, including the identification of all eligible students and subsequent compensatory service guidelines but funding and support to carry these out to its greatest extent are lacking.
Recognize the specialized and skilled professionals needed to support and render services to SPED students. ISD’s must hire speech therapists, licensed psychologists, behavioral/life skills staff to meet the needs and mandates for this community of students.

Provide Additional Support and Funding as Districts Respond to Local Needs During COVID

Support local school districts to identify and address student needs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and other disasters, such as access to technology and broadband/utility services, mental health resources, meals, social services, personal protective equipment, additional support for economically disadvantaged children, and remediation for students, while maintaining local control. The state should also suspend accountability ratings during disasters that severely impact school operations, such as the current pandemic, enact a temporary moratorium on the expansion or creation of new charter schools, not supplant state education funding with federal funds provided for disaster recovery, and fund schools based on student enrollment to ensure adequate instructional continuity.
Support increasing funding and support for counselors and social workers who address mental health needs, wellness, crisis counseling, social/emotional support, and critical family assistance & consider legislation related to school safety, requiring, or providing funding for emergency drills and school safety plans, funding for structural or technology-related safety measures.

TASB 2020–2022 Advocacy Agenda Priorities
As Adopted October 3, 2020 by the TASB Delegate Assembly

COVID-19 Pandemic
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to continue working with local school districts to identify and address student needs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and other disasters, such as access to technology and broadband/utility services, mental health resources, meals, social services, personal protective equipment, additional support for economically disadvantaged children, and remediation for students, while maintaining local control. The state should also suspend accountability ratings during disasters that severely impact school operations, such as the current pandemic, enact a temporary moratorium on the expansion or creation of new charter schools, not supplant state education funding with federal funds provided for disaster recovery, and fund schools based on student enrollment to ensure adequate instructional continuity.

Charter Schools
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to prohibit the expansion of charter schools, to reduce the impact charter schools have on the state budget and on local public schools, and to increase the transparency of charter schools and their operators, especially with regard to enrollment and expulsion practices, business operations, and expenditures. The state should require charters to have publicly elected board members who are accountable to the communities they serve.

Diversity and Cultural Awareness
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to support diversity and cultural awareness initiatives throughout districts through staff and student education and restorative teaching and disciplinary practices that treat all students with equality. We also call on the Legislature and State Board of Education to evaluate the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for accurate and complete education as it pertains to all cultures that have contributed to the rich history of Texas and the United States.

Governance
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to recognize and preserve the right of public school boards to associate and collaborate with each other and to communicate the needs of their students and schools, both directly and through representative organizations, with lawmakers.

Mental Health and Safety
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to increase state funding for access to proactive mental health services and support in public schools to improve the physical safety and psychological well-being of our students and staff, especially as they cope with additional anxiety related to COVID-19. This includes access to services for all students in a school setting; the ability for districts to provide students with targeted interventions; and the establishment of a collaborative network of school and mental health professionals to better identify and meet the needs of students and their caregivers.

TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to work with public school districts and their locally elected trustees to enhance school safety measures, including increased funding for school safety audits, the school safety allotment, and other measures that ensure the safety of students and staff.

Public School Finance
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to aggressively commit to maintain the promises and dedication of funding made in the new school finance system implemented under House Bill 3 (86th Session) and to equitably share the cost of education with local school districts. Further, the state should implement a funding structure that recognizes the flexibility needed by and the additional costs incurred by school districts amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

State Assessments
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to continue to reduce state assessments by eliminating those not required by federal law, removing the high-stakes aspect of the system, reducing testing time, and prohibiting standardized tests from serving as the primary indicator of school and student performance. TASB advocates for additional support for non-high-stakes, diagnostic assessment alternatives, such as writing portfolios and adaptive exams.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to support adaptive and creative local solutions for recruiting and retaining high-quality, diverse educators in our independent school districts and to help elevate the teaching profession by incentivizing students to enter the teaching profession, shoring up teacher health benefits and retirement, and supporting local measures to develop and assess educators.

Vouchers
TASB calls upon the Texas Legislature to prevent any transfer of public education funds through the use of vouchers, savings accounts, or tax credits to private or out-of-state entities, including the unfettered expansion of virtual instruction by corporations.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

At Thursday’s meeting we discussed the guidance Williamson County Health Dept. had provided regarding reopening schools. On Friday, Austin Public Health released its guidelines, entitled “Risked Based Guideline Stages for Phased-in Learning.” Based on the CDC Level of Community Transmission (Stages 1-5), schools would be allowed to have different percentages of students for on-campus learning. Our current Stage 4, would allow for up to 25% of students to be on-campus.

Leander ISD’s Superintendent announced Thursday that, with this guidance, they will consider allowing select students back on campus Sept. 8th. He stated, “We are not intending to be 100% virtual learning after September 8th. Our intention is to start bringing students back, but the health officials are advising that we need to do that in a very measured way, and so we’ll be phasing students back in likely – potentially starting with 25% of our capacity, as we start bringing students back in that first two weeks to see how things go and to make sure that we can keep everybody safe inside that in-person environment…based on what happens that first two weeks, we’ll look at expanding our capacity after that.” He went on to clarify the groups of students prioritized in that first phase. “Our special needs children, our youngest learners are going to be first on that priority list. We’re also going to prioritize staff children because we know that in order for them to be able to be 100% engaged with their students they need to have their own personal children taken care of.”

In terms of the previous guidance from Williamson County, which only recommends in-person when incidence rate is below 7 per 100,000 for the previous 14 days and positivity is below 10% for the previous 7 days, we aren’t there yet. Positivity has remained below 10% in Williamson County for about 7 days, but the incidence rate is over 25. Travis County has an incidence rate around 16 (harder to track positivity but I believe it is also below 10%).

In my opinion, Austin Public Health’s guidance is a middle ground. By limiting capacity based on community transmission, it balances the real need for in-person instruction, which is absolutely critical for certain populations, with the reality of community spread of Covid 19.

Our next meeting to discuss this is August 27th and Dr. Flores has indicated he would like to make decisions regarding the Sept. 10th return to in-person instruction at that time. I am hoping we can have a constructive dialogue via this Message Board as we lead up to that crucial meeting.

[Cory Vessa]

Dear Fellow Trustees,

As you know, yesterday afternoon, parents/guardians received the district survey asking to chose a model of learning for the fall. Shortly after, the district had its second town hall meeting. The town hall was focused on virtual learning and did not include much information about in-person instruction. It was conveyed that information regarding in-person instruction would be forthcoming: next Tuesday for elementary and next Thursday for secondary. I am writing this post to make you, my fellow trustees, aware of my concerns regarding the timing of the release of the survey and the release of information regarding what all modes of learning will look like. If you share these concerns, I encourage you to reach out to Dr. Flores, as I have already done.

First, I am grateful that many of the above questions were answered in the Reimagining Education document and the first two town halls. However, as the district continues to flesh out the details of the learning platforms identified in the last meeting, more specificity in the Reimagining Education document on how a typical day would look for in-person education is needed. The two town halls have not provided that clarification. As we ask parents/guardians and students to make important decisions, it’s important that we provide them with adequate information to make informed choices that best align with their family circumstances. It is prudent to provide this information with full transparency before encouraging them to make decisions. And though that information will be made available before the survey deadline on August 6th, the title of the email was “Action Required: Select Virtual or In-person Instruction Now.”

I also communicated to Dr. Flores that I think SPED parents should have a separate town hall to address their specific concerns. Many of the questions pertaining to SPED students have yet to be fully answered and I believe they need an opportunity to explore their options in depth before committing to a decision.

I understand that these are extremely challenging circumstances and staff are trying. I just want to make sure that parents/guardians and students can make informed choices and don’t feel pressured to make decisions before all the information is on the table.

[Cory Vessa]

As you may know, I attend the CTSBA meetings regularly. The president, Trish Bode, sent out an invitation which I thought I would pass along. If you decide you would like to attend, please let me know. Also, she included a copy of the letter the Leander Board and their superintendent are sending to TEA asking for more flexibility regarding school reopening. I know it is too late to add the creation of such a letter to our agenda for tomorrow, but I would like us to discuss it ASAP.

Here is the invitation:
CTSBA Friends, Thanks to Austin ISD and Region 13 for hosting a special opportunity for our Central Texas Trustees to hear from a leading public health expert. Dr. Mark Escott, Interim Medical Director and Health Authority for Austin Public Health, will provide an overview of the COVID impact on Travis County and will be available to respond to questions for all our Central Texas Trustees regarding health and safety considerations for opening school campuses.

We have heard the outpouring of questions from our community, our families, our district staff about health and safety concerns so this zoom call will be quite timely.

Dr. Escott is available to speak with us on Monday, July 20 at 11am. Feel free to pass this invite on to trustees and your district personnel who may find this discussion of interest.

Please RSVP by replying to this email and we will send you the link and further details when we get closer to the date.

[Cory Vessa]

Good morning fellow Trustees,

One of the biggest questions people have about in person instruction surrounds what will happen when a person in a school tests positive. I read an article out of Dallas from the ABC affiliate (WFAA) that states Governor Abbott stated, “For schools across the state, if anyone in that school tests positive, that school will close down for five days to clear out the school, sanitize it, to make it clear and clean for students return.” I don’t know if this is an off the cuff remark or an official policy. If this is the official policy, switching between in person and remote learning will be near constant if the current level of outbreak persists. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the matter and those of Dr. Flores and his staff.

Also, I continue to receive questions, especially on my Board Facebook page, where I posted Monday’s presentation. But more than the questions is a misunderstanding of the board’s role in this process of planning for the 2020/2021 school year. Many think the board must approve Dr. Flores’ plan in order for it to be implemented. To the best of my understanding, that is not the case. As this pertains to the day to day operations of the school district, Dr. Flores does not need the board to approve his plan. And as such, this is not an action item for Monday’s meeting, but rather a report to the board.

Furthermore, while people may understand that TEA issued the guideline to reopen schools for in class attendance everyday for all students that request it, they don’t understand that compliance with TEA rules is required in order to receive funding. Or, they think TEA won’t really remove our funding if we don’t comply. They think if we stand up to TEA, they will cave. Also, many feel it highly ironic that we are discussing in class instruction while the board and district staff are meeting virtually. The comments have been very insightful. Right now, the post has been shared 135 times and nearly 23,000 people have been reached. I have a strong feeling that Monday’s meeting will be watched by many.

Originally, this meeting was slated to also include a formative evaluation of the superintendent and a board self evaluation. Evidently, those evaluations had to be postponed to a later date. I would prefer that date be sooner rather than later. At this point during this year, we have only done one superintendent evaluation and one board self evaluation. We owe it to Dr. Flores, ourselves and the community to highly prioritize this duty, especially in extraordinary circumstances like we are facing now. As I stated above, the board does not have the authority over day to day operations. We evaluate the superintendent and hold him accountable to the outcomes his decisions produce. As such, it is imperative that as a body corporate we provide him with regular feedback. Consequently, I ask that we all find a way to fit this very important meeting into our calendars in the coming days.

[Author]

Posts