This is just a recap of the March 12, 2019 TSD Board meeting. A couple prefatory notes (1) Unlike most of the Board meeting recaps, I added in quite a bit of commentary, and (2) For some perspective, this meeting was held the night before the Governor shut down schools statewide.
There were a couple take home points from the Meeting(recorded audio can be found here):
Here are some highlights(with quite a bit of commentary from me):
Rita Luce has retired. Rita served on the Board for over 15 years and the District is planning some type of ceremony. The TSD Board plans to conduct interviews in early May. With Rita’s retirement, the Board now has only one member who has served more than 5 months.
As it routinely does, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, which deals with quite a number of significant fiscal issues. As is almost always the case, there was no discussion.
Gender Inclusion policy and school calendar for 2020-21 were each approved without discussion. I could not find these policies on the TSD website yet, but will get them up when links area available. The drafts of these items discussed at the last board meeting are pictured in the blog we published from that meeting and can be found here.
There was a first reading of the proposed revised graduation credits. Each of the Board members who were present seemed engaged, and had questions for Shawn Batstone, who was presenting on the topic. The version that is being circulated requires 24 hours of credit, but does allow for a waiver of up to 2 hours of credit. Here is the link to the current requirements.
Coronavirus—-Sean updated the Board on the Coronavirus. The day of the meeting, King and Pierce County schools shut down until April 24th. Sean went through many precautions being undertaken by TSD, some significant changes being made with respect to scheduling and building maintenance. The theme was that TSD, and the other Thurston County Schools, would follow the direction of the Thurston County Public Health Department. Sean was very thorough, and spent a lot of time talking about various courses of action being undertaken by TSD.
*******As it turns out, the day after the Board meeting all of the Thurston County schools followed suit and announced that all schools would be closed until April 24th.
Notably, during the public comment period, Tim Voie, (TEA representative) used his time to talk about communication he has been receiving about the coronavirus. He even pointed out that several of the teachers and other community members have concerns. Tim expressed the cooperative work going on between TEA and TSD administration regarding potential issues that might arise(like closures). However, the Board asked no questions of Tim, and engaged in no dialogue about the Coronavirus.
Sean also talked about the possibility of online learning in the event of a closure, which seems unlikely in the short term given some state and federal requirements. In essence, it sounds like OSPI is saying that TSD cannot provide online education to some students without provided the same opportunity for all students. In talking with Sean, it sounds like there are some barriers to implementing an online program districtwide. At the time of writing this, it appears OSPI is optimistic that a plan may be in place to provide online learning around March 30th.
Sex Education Bill—The School Board declined to discuss or take any action, regarding SB 5395
SB 5395 is a controversial bill awaiting the Governor’s signature that significantly revamps Sexual Education for K-12 students. Here is a link to a recent blog I drafted on SB 5395.
At least a few schools districts have taken a public position, advocating for their community. Prior to the meeting, Sean Dotson advised me that the item could be added to the agenda if the Board deemed that it warranted attention.
I, and many other TSD parents, asked the TSD Board to do the same and address SB 5395. I received no response from any of the Board Members, which was surprising. However, once I watched the Board meeting video, I realized the Board is going to take a “wait and see” approach, and does not intend to undertake a proactive approach in the short term.
This was disappointing to me as I know many TSD families have strong opinions(both in favor and against). What I do not know is how any of the Board members feel or what any of them would like to see happen. Many districts have taken an active role in communicating with legislators, the governor and OSPI. However, we have no indication what advocacy, if any, the TSD Board has undertaken.
I do appreciate the law, if signed, does not go into effect until 2021. However, many TSD families have asked TSD to advocate now, and the Board has declined to do so. This lack of action is disappointing, especially given the routine absence of substantive discussion by the Board on important topics.
Breath of Fresh air during Board member comments.
Darby Kaikkonen used her Board member comment time to discuss a review of the attendance policy. This was a breath of fresh air. Darby had been reviewing some of the attendance policies, and put forth some concerns. Sean Dotson indicated that he would work to further this discussion with the Board.
The Board members routinely use their member comment time to talk about sporting events they have attended, musicals events they have attended, quality time spent in the schools, or other uplifting good events in the TSD community. While I appreciate there are a lot of great things going on in TSD, we receive such a small amount of information from the Board members that I really appreciate a Board member actually discussing core board member functions(like TSD policies) during member comment time. I am hoping Darby has started a trend.
The next meeting is set for March 26th, but it sounds like it will be done via electronic means.
SB 5395 makes a few significant changes to the delivery of sexual education in schools and is one of the more controversial bills to be considered in recent memory. As it deals directly with education, I figured a blog might be of interest to our readers.
The language in the 2020 law pretty much mirrors the 2007 law with a few exceptions, but those exceptions have become lightning rods when it comes to the discussion.
WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS OF NOTE?
First, the 2020 version mandates Comprehensive Sexual Health Education(CSHE) in grades 6-12 beginning in September 2021, and grades K-5 beginning in September 2022. Under the 2007 law, CSHE was voluntary—Districts and/or schools could choose to tackle the subject or choose not to do so. So, we are going from a “the Districts can teach CSE if desired” to a “all public schools must teach CSE.” Futher, while the quantum of CSE required is vague, the law does say CSE must be “an integral part of the curriculum” at public schools.
Second, the 2020 version requires all public schools to use curricula approved by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction(OSPI). At present, schools can choose their own curricula, but that option is limited as the law limits the choices to what OSPI approves.
For the most part, the remaining provisions of the 2007 and 2020 laws are pretty similar. The 2020 version has updated some of “medically scientific” and “evidence based” definitions and also requires compliance with RCW 49.60, which is known as the Law Against Discrimination, ensuring consideration of all protected classes of people. I have heard little conversation about these provisions and they appear to lack any controversy.
However, the State mandating CSE, while also dictating the
curricula, has garnered a lot of attention so I figured it was worthy of a discussion.
VIEWS ON THE MANDATE
I have my own views, which may be the subject of another blog, but I am going to try and present an objective point of view on this, offering information provided by both sides.
From what I can tell, the people who are opposed to the mandate rely on a couple primary reasons. Many people oppose OSPI and the State mandating any specific education, especially on a topic as sensitive as CSE. They also cite a survey done by OSPI wherein 58% of respondents indicated they felt CSE should not be required in public schools.
One of the biggest opponents of the mandatory CSE is Informed Parents of Washington. https://www.informedparentsofwashington.com/. The primary argument against the mandate appears to take the position that mandatory CSE goes well beyond what a public school should do, and the bulk of this type of education should be left to the parents.
Those pushing for the change, led in large part by OSPI, argue that CSE is an important topic in the education of our youth, and a significant number of children do not have adequate resources at home and/or do not receive sufficient education on the topic. There is also some societal benefit to filling in the gaps with respect to information, trying to make sure that all kids are educated and properly informed, and OSPI is well equipped to be the gatekeeper. Chris Reykdal, the current Superintendent of Public Instruction does a good job of advocating these positions.
The most vigorous debate has occurred around the curricula. A District must teach a curriculum approved by OSPI. Currently, OSPI has approved a few curricula. That list can be found here. https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/hivsexualhealth/pubdocs/Reviewed%20Materials%20Consistent%20with%20State%20Requirements%20Rev%2002.07.2020.pdf. Notably, the selection is limited. There are about a half dozen approved or partially approved programs, which address varying grade levels. From what I can tell in an informal survey of those involved, the two most popular choices are the 3Rs and Flash. A vocal subset of those involved have serious concerns about quite a bit of the material within these programs.
I believe TSD currently uses Flash for middle schoolers, but could not determine if any of the other curricula are used. Also, with the 2007 law in place, TSD, like any other district, is free to determine the quantity and content, with the OSPI standards simply serving as a suggested guideline. That changes under the 2020 law as the parameters within which districts can exercise discretion narrow to a significant degree.
This issue clearly fell along party lines at the legislature. The Debate on the House floor was interesting. The Democrats pushed the curriculum, and tossed aside consideration of any significant changes. The Republicans were doing whatever could be done to create obstacles to the legislation passing.
I watched the entire debate on TVW and the funniest moment for me was when they were debating the content, and a MATURE SUBJECT MATTER—VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED warning popped up.
I did find it ironic that TVW felt the need to warn viewers that CSE material being taught to our children, and debated on the floor, may not be appropriate for its viewing audience.
There were other comical moments, like when they were discussing an amendment to prohibit the use of Playboy and Penthouse covers(which is actually part of one of the curricula). That amendment failed. There was also a 10 or 15 minute debate surrounding curricula which covered “self pleasuring,” and the timing on when that should be covered in the K-12 education.
CONCLUSION
It appears to me that those who are in favor of the curriculum subscribe to the theories that (1)more information is better, (2)the broad curriculum is a good resource and (3)OSPI provides(or will provide) adequate options.
Those opposed to the curriculum (1)object to the mature topics being tackled, (2)are concerned that OSPI and the State will dictate unacceptable curriculum and (3)that making CSE an integral part of the curriculum spreads thinner the limited time and resources possessed by Districts.
HOW CAN YOUR VOICE BE HEARD?
It is highly likely that Governor Inslee will sign the 2020 bill, thus it will become law. Starting in 2021, all public schools in Washington will be required make CSE an integral part of the curriculum. OSPI will determine which curricula can be used, and while local districts can develop their own curricula, I would think doing so is pretty cost prohibitive so districts will choose from the menu provided by OSPI. Concerned citizens should contact OSPI and your local schools boards to have voices heard.
The contact info for the the OSPI Sexual Health Program Supervisor is Laurie.dils@k-12.wa.us
You could also contact your statewide legislator and/or TSD School Board members. You can locate their email addresses here.
The board meetings are recorded and available at some point after the meeting on the District website. I will do my best to summarize the meeting, but for the full report you can view the recording when it becomes available.
All Board members were present. The meeting was held at the District Office.
PGS 3rd grade music students performed under the direction of Marie Williams, who also received special recognition, Chinook Region Music Educator of the Year.
High School Student Representatives reported on the before and after school learning supports at their schools.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Katie Gates on disrespect by students.
Discussed the concern from teachers about the student behavior and disrespect teachers are enduring. Concern that teachers are leaving because of the disrespect from students. The concern is happening at all levels, they don’t feel safe and they will see it every day.
Melissa responded with a comment about Steilacoom SD focusing on Social and Emotional learning, and her disappointment that more parents aren’t at the Candace Lund-Bollinger classes put on by the District. (A list of classes is on the TSD website here).
Superintendent Dotson said he would follow up with Katie.
CONSENT AGENDA
No comments or questions, consent agenda was approved.
ACTION ITEMS
Resolution 06-19-20-Temporarily Altering the Establish Amount of the Unreserved Fund Balance of the General Fund. There was a change in the resolution paragraph, they removed the sentence that said the fund balance would never go below the minimum fund balance. They established a year end fund balance minimum of 4%, this allows them to go down to no lower than 3% if needed. Further discussion will be in the Superintendent report.
Rita expressed concern about going below the 4%. “I find this really upsetting. You know I know it’s an absolute necessity at this point that we have to do this, but I just want to stress how important this fund balance is to the stability of the District and how hard we need to work to bring it back up. Because that is what keeps us going and gives us an emergency fund for things that happen. We all know that they happen, and so I really encourage us to work on that to reinstate this to where it should be.”
Melissa asked how it effects the district bond rating, Jim explained that it is part of the rating, and he met with the Bond council this last week and they will be providing information about that question. (The bond rating affects the ability of our district to sell Bonds). Superintendent Dotson stated that the District is not trying to sell bonds right now, but if it isn’t recovered in the future that might affect the rating.
Rita asked how long this would effect our bond rating in the future.
Melissa asked if they would be able to make payroll every month. Jim stated they will make payroll every month.
Scott asked Superintendent Dotson to explain what the Fund Balance is used for. Superintendent Dotson explained how the fund balance goes up and down throughout the year based on when we get levy payments and when expenses occur. Their monthly payments are not equal. They need to keep the fund balance up to cover the lower payment months. He explained that what most districts like to have in the fund balance is one months expenses. One month’s expenses for TSD would be $7.8MM, so in the months where they get down to $2MM they are in an uncomfortable place. He said they will work to get the fund balance in a better place, in case of unforeseen expenses. The fund balance in good economic times can help cover when you get to lean times so you don’t have to cut programs. They want to get the fund balance back to a place where if they were the economy turns they need to be in a place where they have something solid to take care of the needs.
2nd Reading, Revisions policy 1400-Meeting Conduct Sean reminded them of the major changes, they took out the specific meeting times to allow some flexibility. They added a section on study sessions.
Melissa added it allows them to meet in the evening especially for study sessions. The said they would still visit the schools, but not necessarily as a meeting.
Rita asked about how they were going to get site reports from the schools. SI Dotson explained that since they were shifting to evening work sessions, they would have site reports prior to the meeting. They will also have times in the morning to visit the sites.
Revisions policy 1400-Meeting Conduct passed
2nd Reading, Revisions Policy 3131–Attendance Area (Intra-District) Transfers A couple changes from the 1st reading, language about non resident students was removed since this is an intra-district policy and that language does not apply. A sentence was added to state that they District will provide applicants with written notification of approval or denial of the application in a timely manner. Rita asked if another boundary revision were to occur, would these polices work or would they need to be changed again. Superintendent Dotson explained that they should work.
The revision dates were also discussed. The date was unclear if that was the only times it had been revised or if that was only the latest time it was revised. Rita also stated there was a time they went through all the policies to update them since they hadn’t been updated in a while.
Policy 3131 passed.
Policy 3141 – Non-resident students. There are no changes with this policy. SI Dotson discussed the Thought Exchange, but did not feel there was any feedback that really impacted the policy. The feedback received was more related to the procedure.
Melissa thanked SI Dotson for facilitating the updating of these policies.
Policy 3141 passed.
The Board took a short break for 10 minutes.
OTHER BUSINESS
20/21 Budget Development and timeline.
Jim explained that they have been meeting with each building and looking at certificated staff and other staff needs at each of the buildings.
March 12 is the date for the legislative session to end, they are hoping for more equity from the legislature.
March 20th is the departments and building budget allocations will be sent out by Jim. The principals can decide where to put that funding in their buildings.
April 1st is the last day to turn in additional funding requests.
April 15th is the deadline to let the Bargaining Unions know if they will be planning a Reduction in Force. The deadline to send to the affected employees for Reduction in Force is May 15.
Draft Budget available to the public July 10, Final budget adopted August 27.
Melissa asked about the budget work session, they talked about doing that on July 23rd.
Melissa also asked for the budget to be divided by staff and building and staffing levels at each school.
Rita asked what they plan to do with the boundary changes and if the teachers are going to move with the students. Superintendent Dotson explained they are going through that right now, and they have met with the principals at each building and the HR team to start that discussion. He discussed the intersection with the transfer process. He hopes to accommodate all the kids who want to stay. They want to make as few shifts as possible. He mentioned staff additions, to serve all the students.
Rita asked if there was a deadline for students to decide if they are going to stay. Superintendent Dotson explained he would show the timeline in his Superintendent report.
Rita brought up the K-3 compliance, Jim stated TSD compliance is around $237K. He also stated TSD is not in compliance at the moment, they are at 17.4. They are working with HR to look at a couple positions that are split with LAP, and they can move those to help with the average and get it down to 17 so they don’t lose that funding. Jim stated the funds are minimal.
Superintendent Dotson also reminded the Board that the 17 is not an actual number, but an average of teachers, specialist etc to get to that average.
1st Reading, 20/21 School Year Calendar Beth Scouller discussed the proposed calendar for the next school year. Since Labor day is so late, they had the option of asking TEA if they would like to vote to have the school year start a week earlier. The teachers voted not to start early, so school is set to start the Wednesday after Labor Day (Sept 9, 2020 and end June 21, 2021). A few changes from the past practice were discussed. The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is a day off instead of a half day, due to the instructional hours needed. TEA suggested to try to build snow days into the school year, Feb 16 and May 28 would be scheduled as no school days unless there are days that need to be made up for snow or like in the past, a strike. February 16, the day after President’s Day is typically mid winter break, but May 28, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, has not typically been a day off in the past. The Board was concerned that teachers and students would consider these days off even if they were changed to school days and concern over having a Monday as the last day of school. There was a lot of discussion on this, so there still could be some changes. A copy of the proposed calendar is also available on our resources page.
1st Read Proposed 20/21 school year calendar
1st Reading, Policy 3211, Gender Inclusive Schools Language changed to match practices. A copy of this document is also available on our Resource page.
SUPERINTENDENT REMARKS
Enrollment– TSD enrollment is right around the budgeted number, they started out below, rose above it and then dipped below. This is a general trend for enrollment the past several years. A discussion on how numbers are calculated and why Skills Center and Running Start students aren’t counted. They don’t count them in enrollment for budgeting purposes since the money follows the student. They work with FTE(full-time Equivalents) for budget, so part time students are counted as part time for budgeting. Overall they are staying very close to the budgeted numbers.
Fund Balance
Superintendent Dotson showed the graph from last month for the fund balance. The fund balance follows the typical trend lines of previous years. This month they dropped from $4 MM to $3MM, the minimum fund balance of 4% is at $3.8MM. So they have been above that number until this month. Each year there is a dip around this time of year and increases in October and April when they get the Levy money. This year October Levy money was not as much as last year since they put a cap on what could be collected, but April should be higher since they increased the cap. There was also talk of CTE enrollment being higher at the middle level and therefore the amount OSPI distributed was more. This may not be a true increase since CTE courses offered this fall may have been the courses offered in last spring and it may drop in the Spring. TSD predicts (using OSPIs estimator tool) that they will end the year right around the 4%. Superintendent mentioned they like to keep one months expenses in the fund balance and for Tumwater that would be $7.8MM, they are at about $3.8MM. With a bottom out number in March of $1.9 MM or 2%.
Some things they are watching that will impact the budget, CTE enrollment, SEBB payments, any employee over 630 hours will require TSD to pay into SEBB and TSD is planning for an increase in SEEB costs due to this change. Next year bargaining, step increases, increases in Sped and unexpected costs (the car breaks down) are all factors that will effect the fund balance. Superintendent Dotson has mentioned that they intend to work to get the fund balance back up.
Transfer Policies
Both transfer policies were approved. Superintendent Dotson explained the other side of that is the procedures that they have been working on. He mentioned the community was concerned about the order in which transfers were accepted. He mentioned the Thought Exchange and the feedback that was received. He stated he didn’t see anything that changed substantially, there are differing opinions and not everyone will agree. He stated the vast majority seems to continue to lean toward this being the right order. (I wrote a blog with the details you can read here or you can look at the documents on our Resources page).
In summary:
1-full-time staff children, by law, have first priority.
2-intra-district students continuing at the school they are currently enrolled(further divided to give boundary displaced students top priority). A discussion on the boundary changes occurred and Superintendent Dotson felt this procedure would work if another revision were to occur, he also stated this is not a guarantee that they will be accepted, but that they will be given priority.
3-intra-district siblings of students currently enrolled in a school
4-New Intra-district Students
5-Non-Resident renewals
6-Non-resident Siblings
7-New non-resident requests.
If enough spots are not available to accommodate all the applications, a lottery will occur at that level. No more first in first accepted.
Timeline for requests:
March -Most of the requests would be received beginning in March. All the full-time staff, intra-district renewals, new intra-district requests for 1st -12 grades. And then renewals for non-residents. At the end of March they could accept transfers in the order above, employing a lottery if needed.
April-new Non-resident requests. And then at the end of April they should have a good idea of how many spots they have available.
August-Kindergarten requests. The uncertainty of how many Kindergarteners they will have makes it difficult to accept transfers any earlier than August.
Annual Verification
Superintendent Dotson mentioned a lot of concern on the Thought Exchange for annual verification. He was hesitant to employ this as a District wide verification, but the procedures allow for a school wide or a grade level if they deem it necessary. Peter G was mentioned as a pilot school for this project.
Legislative Update
No levy or staff funding bills have moved out of committee before the deadline. Although if the members have a bill they really want to get through, they can deem it necessary to implement.
Senate Bill 6117 is a Special Education Appropriations Bill is part of this session. It is a bill recommended by OSPI which will provide a small increase in funding for Special Education.
There was a bill to correct for districts like TSD who have Senior staff, but are not receiving extra funding, but this does effect the budget Superintendent Dotson said he is watching to see if that bill ends up going anywhere, since it didn’t make the cutoff.
This is a list of bills with cost implications that did make the cutoff:
These are all bills that will cost more money and no extra appropriations for them.
February 27 Work Session
The following list are the topics they plan to discuss at the February 27 work session. Rita asked about adding the Diversity Policy, Superintendent Dotson explained they would need to cut something to add that in. Melissa asked about highly capable and accelerated enrollment.
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Scott Killough mentioned that he has not been able to attend many things during the day, but attends things in the evenings. He attended Little Women, Momma Mia, the men’s and women’s basketball games. He is trying to get to each elementary PTA PTO meetings.
Rita Luce-met with legislators. She mentioned Olympia SD possibly changing the school start times. She attended the basketball games.
Casey Taylor-At the board meeting last month, they got to walk around BHHS, and the next day met with Lisa Summers and played some pickleball with the students. He also met with Jeff Broom and walked around THS. Attended basketball games for girls and boys. He attended the legislative conference but was disappointed in the politicians.
Darby Kaikkonen- attended the basketball game, She continues to be part of BMS PTO, She appreciated attending the legislative conference, and plans to visit Lisa Summers at BHHS.
Melissa Beard-She too went back to BHHS the day after the meeting to play pickleball with Lisa Summers. She visited THS for her alumni association, She mentioned she noticed THS had a meeting for Spanish speaking families, this group meets the first Tuesday of each month to help them understand the resources available. Next month they will be learning about Skyward. She attended the Momma Mia and Little Women. Talked about the sign holding for the Levy and thanked the community for the support.
Regular meeting recessed to Executive Session to discuss Personnel Performance, Evaluation or Qualifications for Employment
Casey Taylor, Melissa Beard and Darby Kaikkonen were present. Scott Killough and Rita Luce were not present. The Board meeting was held at BHHS. You can view the recording here. I have summarized a few topics from the meeting.
Superintendent Dotson recognized the Board members for Board Member Appreciation month. The student representatives were also recognized. They were each given a “small token”.
Lily Campbell and Ansley Campbell were recognized for their work in the club they created, the Girls Outreach Club.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jacob Meyers for Pathways for Hope spoke about the efforts in preventing human trafficing. He invited people to attend their meeting that was held on January 30 to help with child trafficing prevention.
CONSENT AGENDA
Darby asked Mel to explain a change order. Basically it is something that comes up during a project that will cost more money, and they ok the “change order” to keep the project going with the added cost of what is contained in a change order. Mel gave a couple examples of times it has happened.
Consent Agenda was approved
ACTION ITEMS
Resolution 06-19-20-temporarily altering the established amount of the unreserved fund balance of the general fund. The minimum fund balance is set at 4%, but during this year, keeping the budget as is, the fund balance will go below this set amount. They hope to end the year at the 4% Fund Balance. If they keep the language at “may not fall below” then they are in violation because they are below that number. Superintendent Dotson asked to look at the language and make changes where needed. He also showed the Fund Balance trends, this year TSD will hit near the zero balance at about $1.4 M in March, but should trend back up in April based on the levy collections. We should end above the 4% in June. If they were to prevent form ever going below the 4%, they would have had to make several more staffing cuts last spring. It would have to cut $2.5 M in cuts. He was asking to get approval to change the language to be able to go and end below the 4%. A challenge in ending at the 4%, is that we would be starting 2020/21 school year $2 M lower than TSD started at in 2019/20. There are some expenses in September 2020, which would put the Fund Balance below that $2 M mark again. Sean insured that they have money to pay all their bills at this point.
Melissa mentioned that TSD received hold harmless money last year that they will not receive this year. Based on TSDs estimate of $2.2 MM, the Board decided not to send out RIF notices last year, (eliminating the ability to reduce staff if needed). As it turned out, TSD only received $200K, Melissa stated that is why they are in this position.
THS Batting Cage Building: Tim Graham asked for a separate building for Softball and Baseball for practicing in inclement weather. Appears to be just asking for approval to have a community funded project to be built. Board approved the donation and the planning for the new batting cage building.
OTHER BUSINESS
Revisions to bid requirements in Policy 6220, just updating to follow WASDA policy model created by OSPI to adhere to state and federal regulations. May be added to Consent Agenda with no changes.
Meeting Conduct-1st reading Policy 1400. Changing board meeting times. Superintendent Dotson asked to change the language in the policy to not specify times and dates, leave it more flexible.
Transfer process policies 1st Reading:
Policy 3131 and Policy 3141(both can be found on our resource documents page). Superintendent Dotson explained the process up to this point; Thought Exchange, Community Work Group (you can check out my previous Blogs on this subject here, here and here). The Policies were updated to be in alignment with this process, legislative language and what other local districts have in place. This is policy, but there is also a procedure which is written by the Superintendent.
Legislative Priorities:
Superintendent brought a list of priorities.
Special Education-used ESD language (shortage in Sped Funding). Recommending for Legislation to fully fund Special Education.
Equitable Funding-inequity in funding regionally as well as statewide. Recommending expand the experience factor to reduce inequities, and correct regionalization to provide funding based on an areawide workforce model.
Staffing Enrichment-Increase funding for school nurses, counselors, social workers and safety officers.
Board Committees/Assignments:
Legislative Representative- Rita Luce, renew or update? Tabled since she was not present.
WIAA representative- Casey Taylor
Technology Committee Representative – Casey Taylor
Military Representative – Darby Kaikkonen
Budget Committee Representative- Melissa Beard
Graduation Taskforce – Melissa will talk to Scott Killough?
Replacement Levy Representative – Melissa Beard
SUPERINTENDENT REPORT
Equity Programs – Sean Batstone looked into partnering with SPSCC equity groups, there was a conference Jan 24. Each HS sent a representative to the conference.
Enrollment:
Enrollment reports usually include Skills Center Enrollment, but they are separate. Tumwater West and Open Doors also contribute. Funding for Running Start and Skills Center go directly to those programs.
Projected enrollment. Actual Enrollment
The actual enrollment in December was a net positive 15.4 students. However, when you look at January, enrollment was a net negative 8.9 students from projections.
January Actual Enrollment
Looking at trends for enrollment it starts low and then increases and then drops down again. Budget should be done with the Skill Center and Running Start numbers removed.
Enrollment trends
They estimate the numbers based on past years. Skill Center stays about 300, Running Start was estimated based on projected enrollment. Running Start is expected to grow. A discussion on conservative budgeting, using conservative numbers for budget purposes.
Superintendent’s Remarks:
The following chart shows the next steps for budget planning to get the fund balance back to where it needs to be.
Staffing. They need to begin early staffing planning. With the boundary changes, staffing changes will need to occur to accommodate those changes.
Transfer Workgroup Update.
Main points in the changes to the policies and procedures.
The main change was the intra-district requests will be prioritized before nonresident requests, this was done based on the thought exchange and community requested that TSD residents should be prioritized above nonresidents.
By law staff would be prioritized first. Then the students impacted by boundaries would be prioritized next. Siblings will be prioritized within each group.
If there are not enough space in each group, how do you decide who gets the spots Historically they have used a first in time. There are problems with determining who is actually first. We need to provide something with greater equity, so if they get to a group without enough spaces to take everyone, then a lottery would be implemented.
The proposed timeline:
New Kindergarten applications would not be accepted until August 1.
Timeline:
The Community Forum held on January 27. Since it was such short notice, they also put out a Thought Exchange for the new procedures. Superintendent Dotson realizes that these policies and procedures will not please everyone. Homeless students are not under these policies.
Casey Taylor asked about staffing, and budget. The timelines are set so that the high schools can have master schedules set so they can determine where they have room or not.
Superintendent has been giving several presentations on the Levy, to get accurate information out there.
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Darby -met with District leadership members, attended graduation pathways forum, spending time in schools. Attended the Tumwater-BHHS wrestling match. Her son wrestles as an 8th grader.
Casey -Thanked Ainsley and Lily, thanked Dave Meyer, thanked Jacob Meyer. He met with District Leadership team, thanked the leadership team. Thanked Mel Murray. Was at wrestling meet. He went to girls and boys basketball games.
Melissa- bought tickets for BHHS musical, gave play schedule. The choreographers were highlighted in Thurston Talk. Thanked BHHS leadership for their work with the promoting student leadership with the play.
****UPDATED****New information was received. See highlighted sections below to see the new updated information.
Transfer Review Committee-We Made a Little More Progress-But Was It Enough?
That depends on what you wanted to happen as a result of the Transfer Review Committee’s work. Here are some of the highlights:
Priorities were changed.
Application acceptance dates were changed.
UPDATED to move ALL intra-district requests BEFORE nonresident requests including renewals. Not all Tumwater residents will get priority over nonresident transfer students
UPDATED to change to a lottery system when spaces are LIMITED. No changes were made to the inequitable first in-first approved process.
Nomenclature was changed
UPDATED-discussion of the addition of dropping off applications at the schools and forwarded to the District Office. All applications must go to District Office.
The District can request residency verification from all students if needed.
As our readers know, I am on the recently formed Transfer Review Committee for TSD. We had our third meeting on January 13th and made a little more progress so I wanted to provide an update.
Superintendent Dotson provided revised policies and procedures for both the intra-district transfers and the nonresident transfers for our review and feedback.
UNDERSTANDING THE NOMENCLATURE The nomenclature was changed to Intra-District and Non-Resident, which reflects the nomenclature in the law. Intra-District refers to Tumwater Residents who transfer from one TSD school to another. Nonresident refers to students who reside outside the Tumwater School District area.
CHANGES IN PRIORITY I discussed the priority proposals that the group voted on in my prior blog (which can be found here), so in this blog I am focusing on the changes proposed at the most recent meeting.
The following priority was proposed:
1-Students who are children of a full-time certificated or classified employee and are requesting enrollment in the employee’s assigned school or a feeder pattern school”, have first priority above any other transfer or renewal of a transfer, as required by law (RCW 28A.225.225).
2-Intra-District students who would be continuing enrollment at a site or in a program (this would include students impacted by boundary changes and renewals).
3-Nonresident transfer renewal request. (See update. Note-this gives priority to non resident students over some Tumwater resident students)
4-Students whose siblings are enrolled at the same site. (See update. Note-Again this gives priority to nonresidents over some Tumwater resident students.)
***UPDATED*** 5-Other Intra-District transfer requests.(UPDATED-these have been moved to be prioritized over all nonresident requests including renewals)
6-Other nonresident transfer requests.
PROCEDURAL CHANGES The following changes were also included in the procedures:
***UPDATED*** They are discussing the possibility of adding the option of dropping off applications at the schools and forwarding to the District Office. All transfers must go directly to the District Office within the new timelines(details discussed below). Families used to be able to drop applications off at the schools, but that is not allowed under the new policy.
The nonresident procedures include a requirement that the student must show proof of release from his or her resident district, and submit the proof to TSD.
“The District may request verification of residencyfrom all students in a school, grade level, or program when the District determines it is necessary due to space/capacity limitations. Acceptable documents must show the parent/legal guardian’s name and address and must be dated within the past 30 days. Post office boxes are not acceptable as residence addresses….”
NEW APPLICATION WINDOWS Given the prioritization changes, TSD has implemented different application windows, depending on your status: The proposed application windows for each priority group are as follows:
February (3-28, 2020)
Full-time staff; new and renewal per RCW 28A.225.225
Intra-district students requesting to continue in their current school(includes boundary displaced and renewals)
Non-resident renewals (Note this is prior to new intra-district requests)
March (2-31, 2020)
Intra-District new requests**
April (April 1, 2020)
Non-Resident new requests(grades 1-12)**
August (August 3, 2020)
Nonresident new requests(kindergarten)**
**Siblings of current students will be prioritized for acceptance.
A couple changes I would like to see, but have yet to be addressed ***UPDATED*** to change to a lottery system when spaces are LIMITED. The lottery system would require a set date for lottery, which I have not heard of a date at this time. If after a groups application period there is space for everyone, no lottery wold be necessary, it would only take place if there were more applications than spaces. I would assume they would have a lottery with each group in order of priority if necessary.
The proposed policy continues to determine priority based upon “time stamping”, with a first in-first approved for transfer requests. This has been the prior practice, and I believe has lead to one group over another getting an unfair advantage. This is still a very inequitable method to accept requests, especially to many underprivileged families. This may require “camping out” at the District Office the night before to ensure a child is first in line, taking the day off work to get the application in on the day of acceptance, etc. This is unfair to many families(dual working parents, those with small children and no day care, those who do not know the system, those who are not computer savvy, etc). Further, serving the earliest applicants eliminates TSD’s ability to look at the group as a whole and decide where students can be placed that will be a good fit for the student and TSD.
***UPDATED***this appears to be the updated process (or something similar) as far as I understand. I would suggest using the timeline windows with no preference given to first in time, provided the application is received within the timeline window. If there are more applicants than spots, a random draw, with no preference to first in time, is the fairest solution. The District has in the past used a lottery system (all-day Kindergarten before it was mandated, and required at all schools) and it was a far more fair system.
From the drafted policies and procedures I also did not see any indication of limiting transfers or working towards limiting transfers. There was also no indication that the transfers be used to bring the enrollment at both high schools closer. However, I do hope that by pushing the dates out, TSD moves from an “accept all and figure it out later” to a more deliberate process of accepting transfers.
What was discussed:
I had hoped we would address some of the non-resident transfer procedures at this meeting. The process we used at this last meeting did not lead to much discussion or exchange of ideas as a committee. It was more of “social media” project. For example, we read the policies and procedures(not given in advance) and gave feedback such as, questions, what we liked and/or recommendations for each item. We had about 10 minutes for each step(to read the procedure and policy, discuss as a small group and give feedback). Then the next group in the rotation would also give feedback or “like” or “dislike” previous comments. It felt one dimensional and not as constructive and involved as the last few meetings. Someone asked if we could vote on the comments, and were told we weren’t doing that this time. There was no open discussion with the group or between groups. For instance, my conversations were pretty much limited to the 3 other people in my group, and although we did have some good discussions, no one else in the room or the Superintendent heard or participated in our conversation, and I am sure other groups had a similar experience. We were told the comments would go to an administrative team at the District office who will go through the feedback and decide if they wanted to incorporate any of the feedback or not. This process has begun and some of the committee comments have been addressed-see highlighted updates.
The Community Forum is scheduled for January 27, 2020 from 7-8:30 at Tumwater Middle School.
The policies have been updated since the last committee meeting, so I would suggest attending this meeting as the new draft policy may look very different from what the committee saw at the last meeting. These documents are still fluid at this point and community comment is necessary to make sure they represent what the community desires. Do you think they have or have not done enough? Mark your calendars and plan to attend the Community Forum to let them know what you think. During this forum, the public will be able to see the policy and procedures drafted at the District Office. This will be your last opportunity to ask questions and to let the Committee and the District know what your thoughts are on the process and the procedures that have been drafted up to that point. The last community forum I was involved in was fairly informal and small group discussion type idea exchange. Mark your calendars (January 27, 2020, 7-8:30pm) and plan to attend.
Or contact Superintendent Sean Dotson and the Board Members to give them your thoughts:
This blog is just a quick recap of some highlights from the December 12, 2019
Board Meeting. When doing these updates, I generally only cover the
action items(which is a minority portion of the meeting). The full
audio recording can be found here.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED
As it routinely, does, the Board approved the “Consent Agenda.” Frankly, I am unclear as to the process with the Consent Agenda. The items are never discussed during the meeting, but do appear on the approved minutes. The content is mostly employee changes and general financial data. I plan to do some investigation and will provide clarification in a later blog.
THREE NEW MEMBERS SWORN
IN
The Board welcomed Casey
Taylor, Scott Killough and Darby Kaikkonen as Directors. They join Rita
Luce(joined 2005) and Melissa Beard(joined 2016).
SECONDARY OPTIONS RENAMED
Mel Murray led a
committee to make recommendations to the Board regarding renaming the school
and building formerly known as Secondary
Options. As recommended by
the committee, the Board approved naming the building THE TUMWATER LEARNING
CENTER and renaming the school CASCADIA HIGH SCHOOL.
That was it for action
items, but there were some interesting reports. . .
FACILITIES UPDATE
Mel Murray seems to be a
great asset for TSD. He has a wealth of knowledge, manages multiple
projects at the time, and is really good at providing simple and understandable
information without oversharing. Nothing overly groundbreaking in Mel’s
report, but he did share a slide showing the vacant property TSD currently
owns. I thought it was worth sharing.
BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
The Board did spend
45 minutes or so talking about budget issues. Jim Brittain and Sean
Dotson did most of the talking, while the Board members asked questions and
sought insight about some of the difficult financial decisions the Board must
make over the course of the next few months or so. As many of you know, I
have been critical of the Board in the past due to what I perceive as a lack of
interest in the financial matters of TSD. This meeting was refreshing,
and I hope the discussions continue.
As a reminder, the
projected deficit during the 2019/20 school year is about $2.5 million,
meaning TSD budgeted to spend about $2.5 million more than it will
receive in income. Compounding the financial difficulties, as part of the
budget crisis last year, the Board approved a resolution where the
minimum Fund Balance(TSD’s Savings account) was set at 4% of the
total budget(about $90 million). Here is a chart showing the historical
level of the fund balance. Note the current fund balance is several
million dollars less than prior years.
In essence, TSD
must have about $3.5 million in savings at the end of each year.
Sean advised the Board that, without significant and immediate reductions
in spending, it is highly likely the fund balance will be
less than $3.5 million at the end of the 2019/20 school year, and most
certainly will dip below that level during the first few months of 2020.
The Board discussed some
priorities, but appeared unwilling to direct Sean to make substantive
reductions at present. It sounded like Sean is going to come back to the
next meeting with some options for consideration by the Board.
Because TSD started with
a much lower fund balance from a historical perspective, it does not have the
luxury of running at a deficit in the upcoming years. Unless there
are additional funding resources, TSD will need to cut at least a few million
dollars from its budget just to break even next year.
Last year, the Board did
not take action until it was much too late and the options became
limited. The Board continually deferred any decisions with the hope that
TSD would have an enrollment upswing, or the Legislature would provide more
funding, neither of which occurred. With the Superintendent change,
and three new Board members, I am hopeful this Board will be more
proactive. Difficult and undesirable action is inevitable and it is my
hope they get to the discussion promptly.
ENROLLMENT UPDATE
Enrollment continues to
be a “hot” topic at the Board meetings. Enrollment at TSD
has consistently decreased over the last 2 years, and appears to be on a pretty
level trend. TSD’s enrollment currently sits at the same level
as 2015/16. Notably, enrollment traditionally decreases throughout the
year. Here is a chart showing enrollment numbers since
2013.
Enrollment is one of
the most crucial components of the budget as virtually all of the state funding
is tied to the number of students enrolled(Enrollment does not affect levy
funds as TSD gets the same amount of levy money regardless of enrollment).
I am curious about the
staffing levels at TSD. Like many operations, TSD largest expense is
staff costs(well over 70% of the budget). It is difficult to make
substantive changes to the budget without considering
staff expenditures. TSD will have to navigate this very trick terrain in
the upcoming months. I wonder if the staffing levels are closer
to 2017/18 levels(when enrollment was at 6800) or in line
with 2015/16 levels(when enrollment was where it sits today—about
6500). I plan to do a blog on the topic within the next month or
so.
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
Sean’s reports are pretty
direct. His primary focus was seeking some clarity from the Board as to
what they wanted him(and TSD) to focus on during the next legislative
session. Sean suggested that TSD should try to focus on the same topics
as statewide organizations(OSPI, WASDA, ESD 113 and WEA), and pool
resources. This makes sense. It sounds to me like the organizations are
all going to try and convince the legislature that there are still inequities,
and state funds do not approach that which is necessary to educate
students.
Sean also indicated he
had talked with multiple legislators, many of whom indicated that the State
Transportation Department will “occupy most of the air in the room”
with respect to budgeting, and education would not receive much attention at
all.
CONCLUSION
That is it for now.
Tami or I will continue to provide routine updates regarding what happens at
the Board meetings.
How is TSD doing on class
size at the Middle School level?
A previous blog discussed
the class size in TSD elementary schools and High Schools. Unlike class
size studies for elementary schools, there isn’t really much out there
discussing recommended class sizes for secondary classes. (you can read
the latest blog on elementary class size here). This blog mainly
addresses the seats available in the classroom(likely around 25-35) and the
stated threshold capacity. Some classes are more intensive, and take more
time outside of the classroom, than other classes. For instance a PE
class is less likely than an English class to add a significant amount of time
to a teacher with added students. With not much outside TSD available,
the contract between TEA and TSD is used as the baseline for class size in this
discussion.
Article 37.E.5 of the TEA
contracts states as follows:
“Secondary
Class Size and Targeted Average.
The employee workload in secondary classrooms (except band, choir,
orchestra, and PE) shall average no more than 27 students per period,
with a class size of 30 for impact. These calculations shall exclude
student assistants or peer tutors. If an individual class exceeds the
impact level (30), overload compensation will apply. If the overall
targeted average of 27 is exceeded, overload compensation will
apply. Employees will only receive overload compensation for one of
the two provisions, whichever provides the greater compensation.”
So what does that
mean? A teacher having classes averaging more than 27 students
throughout the day, or a single class over 30 students, were agreed by TEA
and TSD as the threshold for impact. From this one can conclude that 27
is the desired maximum in a class. From a budget perspective, this
means that any class over 30 students automatically qualifies for
“overload compensation”, and any teacher who has an average of more
than 27 students throughout the day qualifies for “overload
compensation”.
What classes at
BMS and TMS would be considered “overloaded” based on the 27
student maximum?
Both middle schools have
several classes that are over the threshold of 27 students, with many over
the 30 student threshold. (Band, Choir, Orchestra and PE were not
included in this investigation).
The following chart was
compiled from the data showing the size of English classes at both
middle schools:
BMS and TMS both have
several English classes that would be considered overcrowded using the 27 students per class as the line where a class
is “overloaded”. Most classes have an overall average
below the 27 threshold with the exception of BMS 7th grade English and BMS 8th
grade Honors English.
6th Grade English. BMS has 30% of their classes over 27 students and 10%
at, or over, 30, where TMS has 11% over 27, and no class at 30 or
over. The overall average 6th grade English class size at BMS
sits at 25.9, and at TMS it is 24.8.
7th Grade English. BMS has more 7th grade students than it has room for. BMS has 88% over 27 and 50% at or over 30 students.
The average class size for 7th grade English at BMS is 29.3, which is
above the 27 threshold. TMS has 22% of its 7th grade English classes over
27, and none at or over 30, with an average class size of 23.2.
TMS does not have any 8th
grade Honors English classes over 27, with an average class size of 24. In contrast, every
8th grade Honors English class at BMS is over 27, and 67%
have 30 or more students, with an average of 30 students per
class. The average for the classes at BMS indicates there are more 8th
grade Honors English students than there is room for at BMS The 8th grade
English classes at BMS only have 17% at 30 with an average of 21.5. It
might be possible to have added an Honors class and taken away a regular
English class to alleviate this, but there are a few things that would have to
align to make that a workable possibility.
The same approach
with the math classes is as follows:
With Math classes, the
more advanced math classes are overloaded. For instance, at both BMS
and TMS the 6th Compressed Math(BMS only), 7th grade Compressed Math and
the Integrated Math are significantly overloaded with averages all over 27.
Almost every level of math class have a number of classes with more than 27
students.
*Although, I could not
locate the data for TMS 6th grade Compressed Math, it appears that course is
not offered at TMS. TMS 6th Grade Math have 67% of the classes with more
than 27 students, and 17% with 30 or more students and an overall average of 28
students. BMS has nearly 30% of the 6th grade math classes with 30 or
more students.
The Integrated Math
classes at BMS all have more than 30 students, with an average of 32.5
students. TMS is slightly less crowded with an average of 28.5.
Both schools have more students taking Integrated Math than they have space.
The same approach for
Social Studies classes at both middle schools is as follows:
With Social Studies
classes, the data seems to follow the English data for both BMS and TMS. Meaning,
the courses for each grade are overloaded if the English classes for that grade
are overloaded.
For example, 20% at BMS
and 44% at TMS of the 6th Grade Social Studies(SS) classes are over
the 27 students threshold.
7th Grade SS is greatly
overcrowded at BMS as were the 7th Grade English classes, with 75% of SS
classes over 27 students and 63% at 30 or more with an average class size of
29.1. This would suggest BMS has more 7th grade students than they have
space if several of the core classes are overloaded. 7th Grade SS at TMS
are also overcrowded with 50% over 27 students and 13% with 30 or more students
and an average class size of 27.1.
BMS also has several 8th
grade SS classes over the 27 threshold (44%) and 33% at 30 or more students with
an average of 25.6 students.
The same approach for
Science classes at both high schools is follows:
The science classes also
follow trends from the data above.
BMS has 67% of 6th Grade
Science classes over 27 and 33% at 30 or above with an average of 28.6.
There are more 6th grade students than they have science class space. TMS
is a little better, but still has 56% of the 6th grade science classes over 27
with an average of 25.7.
As the previous core
classes also indicated there are more 7th grade students at BMS than there
are space in the core classes. At BMS 44% of the 7th grade
science classes have more than 27 students and 33% have 30 or more students
with an average of 26.8. Again TMS is a little better with 25% of 7th
Grade Science classes over 27 and an average of 26.6 students. Both are
approaching an average number of students that would make it impossible to keep
class sizes below the threshold without adding more teachers and cost.
BMS is also has 44% of
8th Grade Science classes above 27 students and 11% at 30 or above with an
average of 24.9. TMS is much better with no classes over 27 students in
8th Grade Science and an average of 23.6.
From the data above it is
clear there are more students in each grade at BMS than spots available
in most of the core classes. Similarly, TMS has several core classes
that are overcrowded but to a lesser degree than BMS.
In looking at other
classes taken by students, there is a clear overcrowding of these classes
also. This further supports there are more students at the middle schools
than they have space.
This conclusion is
highlighted when looking at the Health classes:
BMS has 88% of its 6th
Grade Health classes over 27 students, and 63% at 30 or more students, with an
average of 29.1 students per class.
BMS also has 50% of its 7th Grade Health classes over 27 and 25% at 30 or more,
with an average of 26.9. BMS has 38% of 8th Grade Health classes over 27
students with and average of 26.4.
It is always going to be
that there are some hours during the day where a course may be more crowded
than another, however, when the average number of students is more than the
threshold, or very close, it is more likely to have several classes that are
over that threshold. The charts above are a good example of this
happening in our schools. BMS clearly has more students than it has
spaces, unless they hire more teachers at a cost or overcrowd the classes and
over work the teachers, giving them a little extra compensation.
The variables that effect
overcrowding are the number of teachers and the number of students, both of
which TSD controls.
The number of incoming
residents students is fairly predictable, and TSD can control the number of
transfer students approved. It would seem logical for the decision on
transfer students to be made in the summer(after most “move ins” have
occurred), when enrollment is more predictable and TSD knows how many resident
students will be in the classes. Our understanding is that this is not
the current practice. However TSD is in the process of changing the
transfer practice. I have written a couple blogs on the process up to
this point. You can read them here and here.
Since TSD does not keep
track of the which grades the non-resident students are in, it is difficult to
say exactly how much of an effect this has had on the class size. For
example, BMS has 23 non-resident students and TMS has 27 non-residents, these
non-resident students could be split evenly or all could be in one grade.
Without the data collected and stored, it is impossible to know which is
accurate. This would make a significant difference in the class sizes if
they are all in the same grade.
In my opinion, letting
the transfer students in before the spaces available have been
determined does not make sense unless TSD decides to add more
classes/teachers at a cost. Transfer students can be helpful to the
budget if placed in classes that have available spaces. TSD has not made
adequate effort to place non-resident students where we need space until
the last couple years (and, it appears, only at the elementary
level). There still needs to be improvement at the elementary level, as
well as the secondary level. I am hopeful they are going to implement
some changes so that we see less overcrowding and non-resident students are
used to fill in gaps, not add to the overcrowding in our already overcrowded
classes.
Conclusion.
The TEA contract allows
for classes to be overloaded as long as the teachers are compensated, which may
not be a bad option at the MS and/or HS level. However, similar to
elementary classes, when class sizes increase in a high school class, this
can create class management difficulties and increase the work load of the
teacher. Also, with the move to a more inclusive environment(SpED), class
management will continue to deteriorate if class sizes do not go down.
Limited desk space may also pose a challenge if the class sizes are large enough.
It would appear that either a misappropriation of classes/teachers has occurred
or a miscalculation on the number of students attending the middle
schools.
The miscalculation is
evident with each grade at BMS and TMS.
The raw data from our
records report can be found on our documents page, here.
It has been a couple weeks since the
newly formed Transfer Committee met for the first time. With the
first meeting, the committee addressed the first task–inter-zone transfer
procedures. The transfer process is a pretty hot topic and I am going to
try and blog about the meetings.
Some Things I Learned
The committee has about 20 members, including the Principals
from each of the ten schools in the district, a few community members
and other district employees. Sean Dotson led the discussion, which was
done in the large group, and then small groups of 4 or 5.
Past practice appears to be that the Principals are the
primary decision maker as to acceptance of transfers. In
listening to the principals, a few of the elementary schools are denying
several applicants, while the high schools accept most applicants, with
the decision based primarily on capacity determined by the
Principals.
The first meeting focused mainly on the Intra-District
Procedures.
Policy vs Procedure. The Board sets policy, while the
Superintendent implements the procedure, which does not require Board approval.
With the Intra-district transfers, the committee is unlikely to deal with
the policy, and will focus on the procedure. This makes sense as the
policy is very vague and provides a lot of discretion.
Prioritizing. It seems one of the focal points for
the committee will be developing priorities as to transfers. Based
on the conversations, it appears interzone transfers(Tumwater residents who
want to transfer to another Tumwater school) will get priority over those students
that are seeking to transfer from out of district. Within the interzone
transfers, it also appears likely that those affected by the recent boundary
changes may get some time limited priority if the they want to remain with
their prior school.
Reasons for transfer. Historically, the application
allowed space for a reason the transfer is being requested. However, a
few years ago TSD moved to no longer asking for a reason. There were
several principals that pointed out the potential dilemma over deciding the
importance of one student’s need over another(i.e. is one family’s reason more
important than another family’s reason). Accordingly, TSD no longer
asks for a reason and, unless the principals have some knowledge about a
particular situation, the basis for a transfer request does not seem to factor
into the decision.
Timing. The applications have been routinely time stamped,
and TSD’s procedure mandates a response within 45 days. Some of the TSD
schools have accepted applications as early as mid-late January.
Accordingly, there has been some benefit to being “first in time”
with an application. There was some discussion about inequity with this
process as those who have more resources may be able to get in line first.
Some people also pointed out that the timing is really irrelevant, so it makes
sense to just have a deadline and then consider all applications at
the same time. If the reason for the transfer is not considered, and the
timing does not matter, maybe a lottery makes sense. If you have 20 applicants,
and 5 spots, put all 20 names into a hat and draw 5 out.
The next meeting is December 9th. The slated topics are
the Decision Principles–Keeping commitments to already enrolled students,
fiscal impacts, and applicable state and federal laws which affect
transfers.(2)Priorities——Inter-zone, boundary affected students,
Non-resident, renewals vs. new requests, siblings. If you have anything
you want me to take to the committee, please feel free to let me
know.
Mark your calendars for the community forum on January
27th, 7-8:30 pm at Tumwater Middle School. The Committee will be
there taking comments from the public.
Since I wrote the Blog in
the Spring about class sizes and noted several classes were above impact, we
requested the class sizes for this year to see how they compare. Since
the strike in the summer of 2018, the community has heard a lot of concerns
surrounding class size. This Fall brought on more
restrictions with the implementation of the K-3 legislation. This Blog
entry looks at elementary class size in TSD this year compared to last
year.
Starting with a little
background.
CLASS SIZE AND HOW IT
AFFECTS THE BUDGET
Class
size management is an important component of the budgeting process.
For example, the simplest way to reduce class sizes is to provide more
teachers, which comes at a cost. With budgeting, the “impact”
number is also an important component. Having classes at, or over, impact
also comes at a financial cost to TSD. From a budgeting standpoint, the ideal
scenario would be one where every class is just below impact.
The contract negotiated
between TEA and TSD specifies an ideal maximum class sizes(“impact”),
which varies with grades/classes. Depending on grade, level
impact numbers at TSD are 22-27 for elementary age. The
following table is from the current TEA/TSD contract from this fall. This is
the list of impact numbers at each grade level. Once a class exceeds this
number it is considered at impact.
Once enrollment in a
class is over impact, TSD is required to (1) provide a
paraprofessional in the class for 2.75 hours of the day (this appears to be the total
regardless of how many students over impact), or (2)compensate the
affected teacher with an “overload payment”(elementary: $22 per
day per student over impact). The wording in the contract leaves it up to
the teacher’s discretion which option they choose.
From contract Article
37.D.2:
“Impact
Paraprofessional Time.
The District and the Association are committed to work toward class sizes that
do not exceed the class size levels shown in the chart below. If a level is
exceeded, elementary teachers shall be entitled to two and three quarter (2.75) hours of “impact paraprofessional” time, assigned to
the individual classes that exceed the class size level, unless other
creative solutions are /developed at the site. Teachers may elect to receive overload
payment or other flexible options in lieu of paraprofessional time”
Studies have shown that
classes being at or over impact results in a less than ideal learning
environment(unless a paraprofessional is also in the class). The Blog
I wrote last year sites some of these studies and goes more in depth in this
discussion and can be found here.
SO HOW IS TSD DOING ON
CLASS SIZES COMPARED TO LAST YEAR?
See the chart below, the
red numbers indicate the class is over impact.
Class sizes from October
2019
The class counts listed
in red are classes that are over impact. This year we also requested
information on how many paraprofessionals are in the classrooms. In
looking at the data, it appears there are only 2 paraprofessionals who are
assigned to work in the classes over impact at the elementary level.
Looking at the chart above, there are 17 classes over impact, which would
mean most teachers have opted to take the impact pay over having a
paraprofessional in their classrooms.
The chart below breaks
down the percentage of classes at and over impact by school.This
Fall, 13% of the classes at the elementary level are over impact and
another 8% are at impact. Some elementary schools have more classes
at and over impact than others. Last year 22% of the classes
at the elementary level were over impact and another 17% were at impact, so
the number of classes at impact has significantly reduced over the last year. PGS
has the most classes over impact, followed by LRE and EOE. All the
classes at BLE and THE fall below the impact number set by the TEA
contract.
It should also be noted, that beginning this fall,TSD was required to have K-3 classes at a maximum of 17 or forfeit significant funding. Currently, only 3 of the 88 K-3 classes in TSD(3%) meet this criteria in strict application. This is actually less classes meeting this criteria than last year(11% met the 17 students or less criteria last year). But as I understand, the legislature put in place some ways around an actual class size of 17. The school districts are allowed to also count all certificated teachers including specialists as part of the teacher/student ratio. I am uncertain if TSD was able to get the numbers to work out to be able to receive the additional funding.
THERE ARE DIRECT
FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES WITH HAVING CLASSES OVER IMPACT.
At the time of our
records request the elementary schools had a total of 17 classes over
impact and a total of 30 students over impact. So that is 17 classes
that either have a paraprofessional or provide extra compensation to the
teacher. Providing the extra compensation to teachers pursuant to
the contract is $22 per day, per student, would result in a total of $660
per day and $118,800 for the school year. If, instead, TSD paid 17
paraprofessionals the required 2.75 hours in each class the would
cost somewhere between $134,000-$185,000. Notably, these numbers do not
factor in the cost of benefits, which is probably at least another 20% or so.
Of course, TSD does receive approximately $9,000 per year per student in state
funding so it can help the balance sheet to put students in classes over
impact.
In the scheme of an
$85 million dollar budget, the financial cost is pretty minimal,
and probably requires little consideration. However, the greater cost
is to the students in each of those over crowded classrooms, especially low
income and minority students. While the financial cost to pay a
teacher impact fees would be less costly than assigning a paraprofessional in
the classroom, from a student’s perspective and a parent’s perspective, studies
support the position that another professional in the classroom helps to
mitigate the negative impacts of overcrowded classrooms. I was
unable to find a study that investigated whether paying a teacher
more to have a larger class also mitigates the impact. With the current
budget situation, TSD schools will continue to be faced with some difficult
decisions regarding which of these choices is best for the students in
TSD. It would also be interesting to know which of these classes have out
of district students which may also contribute to the over crowding. We
have asked TSD for this data and have been told they do not keep data on which
grades in each school out of district students are currently assigned.
This might be data that would be helpful in determining how well we are
doing at strategically placing out of district students, but without this data
we can only assume a straight percentage which would mean that close to 3-6% of
the students in each class are out of district and therefore account for the
overcrowding in each of these classes.
As always, we welcome
comments and questions. Email us here.
The time was not
published on the calendar, and the agenda had the meeting starting at 8:30 am,
I did arrive about 8:45am, but when I arrived they were discussing the
unexcused absent policy. I am not sure of exactly what I missed of
the meeting, since they were rearranging the agenda to accommodate those who
were listed on the agenda. I do believe I missed the discussion on
Policy 6100 regarding “REVENUES FROM LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
SOURCES” found here. I would encourage
those of you interested in the meeting agenda items, to watch for the recording
to show up on the website-here.
I plan to have a
couple follow-up blogs about items discussed during this meeting, mainly the
need for a new elementary and middle school, so watch for those blog articles
in the future.
Policy 3122
The policy can be found here. The discussion
was mainly surrounding what they would count as unexcused absences leading to
suspension, and how they would be handling continued unexcused absences.
It is no longer attached to kids who are not attending school(ie home
hospital, etc). They discussed some special circumstances surrounding the
policy. For more information and more of the discussion, please see the
video when they publish on the TSD site.
Ballot Measure Discussion
Cory Plager-D A Davidson
It appears DA Davidson
was hired to advise the district and board on the types of bonds and levys they
could put on the ballot. He went through the basic types and then talked
about application of each one. The discussion included whether or not
they would put together a levy/bond proposal to include both the M&O items
and the new school or do one for the M&O and then later ask for the new
school. Below are the slides presented showing the different types of
bonds/levys and taxes generated by different types of levys/bonds.
The options available:
The Pros and Cons of a voter approved bond. The major con they discussed was the super majority. They would need 60% of the voters to approve, and they have to have at least 40% of the voters who vote in the general election vote on the measure. A discussion of timing based on which election the school bond would follow. However, decisions need to be made quickly to get any measure on the February ballot. The filing deadline to do so is December 13, 2019.
They discussed non-voted bonds. These have more restrictions and depending on the amount, would require a public hearing. They discussed using something like this to pay for planning a new elementary school.
They discussed the success of bonds passing based on having M&O (maintenance and operations) proposals linked to a Capital Project (new construction). They pointed out that single proposals pass at a lower rate than running multiple proposals at the same time. I am not sure what their data depicts as far as what areas they encompass:
They also looked at the assessed values in our area. Notice the upward trend the past few years, with a 7.7 % preliminary growth predicted for our area. He discussed this possibly being low, since they don’t have all the new construction calculated in.
The levy that passed a few years ago is set to end, and the funds collected will also decrease.
The tax rate history was
also discussed. The amount TSD has been able to collect in the past was a
great deal higher than after the McCleary decision. The “fix”
increased the amount from $1.50 to $2.50, which will start in 2020 and is
not depicted on this graph. Projected collections are in the next slide.
This shows the total increase based on the McCleary Decision fix.
This slide shows the amount collected if they were to put a 2 year proposal together based on different rates. They are calculating based on a 6% growth (previous slide has a 7.7% growth). I believe this was a discussion just based on collecting for the maintenance and operations proposal.
The district has approximately $12 million in maintenance and operations (M&O) costs that they are looking to obtain funds to pay for. Below is the itemized list of items needing funds:
Each of these items were
discussed, student devices include chrome books replacement and new
implementation, Staff devices-computers etc will need to be replaced, building
and classroom technology. Also on the list was preplanning and design of
a new elementary they discussed how this would be a shortcut to getting
the school built faster as this would take a year off the implementation if
they ran a separate levy to build a school. I haven’t looked at the
budget approved at the last meeting and am not sure if these are already on the
proposed budget or if these are new items.
Superintendent
Report
I will paraphrase his
discussion as best as I can.
He started out with a
followup. He discussed the issued brought up by the PGS staff due to the
increased numbers they have experienced this year. When they first
noticed the population growth happening they added another kindergarten teacher
and paraeducator positions. He discussed the strain this puts on the rest
of the staff-mainly the counseling staff. PGS has over 600 students.
The state funds counselors at 1 per 800 student at the elementary level.
Our schools are receiving more than is funded at the state level.
The district feels there is a need and have funded more counselors at the
schools. Adding administrators does take some strain off this need, but
is not as good as a counselor. PGS has a Principal and a full-time
Assistant Principal. They do not have funds to provide another counselor
at this time, and they are looking at problem solving in this area.
Kim asked if the staff
from Together which is housed at PGS could offer some services, Sean did say
Together does have a site coordinator and that does provide an additional
resource. He did say they were going to look at that option as well to
help.
The discussion then
turned to the projections at both the elementary and middle level with putting
together a bond and/or levy in the near future. The district is planning
on building new elementary school and discussed the possibility of a new middle
school. The slides used in the discussion were put together by Parametrix
last year for the Boundary Review Committee. (I plan to write a blog on
this particular topic). Using these predictions, Sean concluded that
“we know we have a need for additional facilities.”
He discussed the to-do
list. He went through the items on the following slide.
They discussed the bond
to upgrade technology, but mentioned this bond is used up. So there
will be a need to replace and upgrade those devices in the future. This
would be continued implementation to get all the schools to a 1 to 1 ratio on
chrome books as well as replacements. Jim clarified that there is still
money in the bond to complete the implementation, but they are going to need to
do something to get replacements. Sean did explain they are looking into
the benefit of the 1 to 1 chromebook benefits. This will be
discussed later as they get information about the benefits.
He discussed the safety
upgrades they feel are needed at several of the schools. Cameras need
installation and upgrades, sprinkler systems need installation and upgrade.
Power lines owned by the district need to be replaced.
If all the projects were
to be completed, they would need $12.7 million. This brought on the
discussion of going through with a bond right now to build a school, do you
back burner these projects, do you package these with the new school?
A 2 year Capital Levy was discussed to cover these costs instead of
running the school bond at this time. (see slide presentation above).
And then as this expires come back with the bond for the new school.
Trying to keep the tax rate steady. He discussed putting in the
planning for a new school in the capital levy to cut some time off the school
being started if they waited to propose the new school levy. They
discussed taking 3 years to get the building built after the bond passes.
The earliest a school being built would be approximately 2024.
The middle school and
high school boundaries were brought up. Sean did mention that they are
trying to address transfer processes before they can go into a secondary
boundary adjustment discussion. They are asking Jim Duggan to again help
with the transfer policies both inter district (transfers from other districts)
and intra district(transfers within our district). And in the spring
start work on the secondary boundary adjustment discussion with an
implementation in the following fall.
They hope to have the
transfer policies in place so that families that have been affected by the
boundary adjustments can make decisions well in advance.
Kim brought up her
opinion for the need to add a middle school with the elementary also.
(watch for my future blog on this topic). Trying to keep boundary
adjustments off until they add a new middle school.
It was brought up by Jim
that in order to get state funds for a new school you have to have a
significant amount of students in portables or you don’t get those funds.
Mel also brought up that
with the enrollment down the state will look at trends, which the last 2 years
has been down. The rest of the board and superintendent seemed to think
that this was not the case. (I plan to discuss this in a future
blog).
The discussion led to
what they were to propose for the capital levy vs. pairing it with the school
bond vs. do nothing. Kim brought up that if we waited until next year to
do the school bond, it would be after a presidential election and therefore
would require more voters to validate the vote, which the board or
superintendent seemed apprehensive about doing this
Andrea stated she would
support the early levy to cover the preplanning of a school. Rita brought
up that this discussion will be a big part of their upcoming budget workshop.
Kim asked to get information on just an elementary school vs an
elementary school with a middle school.
Sean did mention that
they would also be looking at what type of bond/levy the board would support.
Rita asked for a prioritized list.
Another elementary and
high school were also brought up as possibilities for future.
Some fun facts with
numbers in the district presented by the Superintendent:
90.5 -the percentage of
the school year remaining.
15,250 – the number of
meals prepared by food services each week.
83.1 – percentage of
students who averaged fewer than 2 absences a month.
10 – the percentage of
instruction missed by students having more than 2 absences a moth.
Board Member Comments
Kim Reykdal
Thanked the EOE principal
for being the first to participate in the new system the board is trying out,
where they meet with the principal in a work session to get information on the
work they are doing. She has been enjoying watching her daughter play
soccer at the middle school. Praised TMS for their fundraising, $20K raised.
She is headed to Spokane for Leg. Assembly to discuss WASDA’s
legislative priorities for the coming year.
Andrea McGhee
She met with the PGS
Principal and the counselors to discuss what a day in the life of a school
administrator is like. She met with a couple parent leaders to listen to
them about what is happening in their schools. She attended the Together
breakfast. She thanked Khalia for her time on the board. She
thanked Sean for his efforts.
Rita Luce
She discussed her
previous time at “Leg.” She stopped by PGS. She also praised
the new process meeting with the principal beforehand.
Melissa Beard (not present)
Khalia Davis (not present, resignation effective 9/25/19).
As always I would
encourage you to watch for the video to be posted for those of you to watch as
I am sure I missed some items. We welcome comments, questions and
suggestions, just email us as contactus@citizensfortumwaterschools.com
Also, if you have
comments or questions specific to items discussed, please email the board
members.
