Study Session Meeting

No content available.

[5] SPEAKER_14: Member Nguyen. Member Thomas. Here. Member Preciado. Member Crocker. Member Rodriguez. Here. Sierra.

[19] Nancy Thomas: Okay, our first order of business is that we will be having a study session and I assume, Superintendent, you'd like us to move down to the table?

[27] SPEAKER_21: Yes, that'd be great.

[36] SPEAKER_31: to bring down with us? No, we're not going to provide anything down there.

[45] SPEAKER_21: It should be on your spot there. Right.

[52] SPEAKER_21: I'm going to ask, just try not to sit with your back to the audience so they can see you.

[58] SPEAKER_31: You might want to announce to me how much we're going to save.

[72] Nancy Thomas: Okay. Excuse me, it was called to my attention that we probably have the agenda out of order. We should have public comment on study session items. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the study session item? Okay, thank you.

[136] SPEAKER_21: I'll just take my words from here. No, that's okay. You're here to answer questions. So, we do have staff in I guess we go through kind of reviewing the programs that we're looking at tonight. And Brian is available to answer some deeper questions if we need to kind of drill down on a number or something. But let's go ahead and go through the series of programs. The list that we created was kind of a result of the meeting that I had with our Budget Ad Hoc Committee. Me and Member Thomas and Member Cresciato kind of wanted to look at some of these programs. So that's why we're here today. We'll kind of go through it, but it is a study session. Letty's going to help as well with helping around the slideshow, and we have staff here to answer some of the questions as we get into it. But let's go ahead and get rolling. I know we have a tight time frame, but we want to make sure we get board questions answered. And if there's follow-up, we can push that to the next study and be able to look deeper.

[207] SPEAKER_36: Good evening. I wanted to share a short study session overview of our programs. I want to acknowledge all of the folks who are point people on these programs. A lot of them are primarily based at the high school. And so what we did is we went ahead and set it up so that we would be able to see On the left-hand side of the slide is essentially a summary, and it looks at what are the practices that we're using to enrich the education of our students, and really how, what an integral part of our work it is. On the right-hand side, again, students, number of folks who are served within the program, and also through the business department, it was a good collaboration. We were able to get the fiscal impact, and really what some of the costs are. Again, as the superintendent shared, we have a lot of the folks who know these programs who are here if there's some clarifying questions. But again, also Mr. Richards is here to also address areas of the fiscal side of the house. So first is we have the East Bay Induction Program. So in a nutshell, this is a program that exists in most school districts throughout the state of California. Many years ago, school districts were charged with actually the work of the final credentialing piece for our folks. And so it's a two-year program of induction. It used to be called BITSA, for Beginning Teacher Support Network. But now it's a program that this district has implemented for a number of years. What's very distinct about Newark Unified is that we also serve surrounding school districts who don't have, if it's because of a charter school, or if it's a private entity, a private school. And as you see here, San Francisco Unified School District actually also contracts with us. So for our own folks, we've got the credential candidates. We have 19 this year. We have support providers, which is a pretty common element of the induction program, where support providers are coaching our folks who are going through this two-year program. And as you see the chart, we also serve private, charter, and San Francisco Unified. And I wasn't sure if I should just kind of go through all of the slides or stop as there are questions. What would be the best? Keep going. Keep going?

[340] SPEAKER_21: OK. If Laura wants to ask questions, just stop us, I think. I think I'd like to ask questions as we go along. OK. Any questions on this slide? Yeah, I do have questions.

[351] SPEAKER_31: We're talking about for private, it costs the private organization $4,300 per candidate. It costs us almost twice that, more than twice that. If you divide 19 into 200,000. Right.

[367] SPEAKER_36: And I'm going to have Ms. Hrabowska also come forward to give a little bit more information on this. If you recall, this is the first year where we increased the fees to do this work. And there's a bit of a history. Those of you that were here before me that knew about how There was tier three funding that was then flexed into the general fund budget and also LCFF. But let me ask Laura to answer that question.

[393] Leonor Rebosura: Well, included in the figures for new work are guest teacher costs so that support providers can observe their candidates, and that's part of the program. You also have the stipends of the support providers and the benefits that go into it.

[411] SPEAKER_31: And the private charter in San Francisco pays for that in addition, but they do that on their own?

[417] Leonor Rebosura: Some of the charter schools, very small number of them, require us to provide them with support provider, but the cost is covered by the 4,300. Most of them actually provide their own support providers and pay for their own guest teachers if their teachers need to be released.

[436] SPEAKER_31: So we're talking about $10,000. per candidate. Does that go with what other districts that are running their own? What does it cost to me?

[448] Leonor Rebosura: It's about the same. I did a cost analysis and I submitted it to Leti at some point. It's about the same. Now we also understand that we budget two full days of guest teacher time per candidate in Newark, but most of the time they don't use it. They either use their preps and they don't get paid for it, or they'll use the prep and they get the hourly pay for it. But that's just part of the budget that we budget two days per candidate, including the benefits and the burdens that go with it. But oftentimes, we don't actually use that.

[481] SPEAKER_31: And 50 years ago, this was paid for by the state. Is that correct? Yes. It was rolled in when LCFF came in. That's right. And so they gave us money for that as part of the general fund.

[494] Leonor Rebosura: I believe it's part of LCFF, yes. And at some point, we also had a professional development grant. Brian, if you can help me with this. A professional development grant that could have been used for induction and professional development in the districts. But districts had the prerogative to use that funding however they wanted to use it. That's right. Okay, thank you.

[515] Ray Rodriguez: I have a quick question. Sure. We have... I'm just talking from Mr. Richard's plate. Do we have a breakdown on staff and how much Newark's part portion is of that?

[530] Leonor Rebosura: Yes, a report was submitted to Leti the other day. So yes, that's available. And we're working on that. Numbers are going up and down because we actually have charter schools still wanting to join us. So, you know.

[542] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, so if the money is neutral, assuming the money is neutral, then Can you just take a minute or so and share about what the advantages are to have Newark as the lead district?

[558] Leonor Rebosura: Well, one of the big advantages to having an induction program in the district is that our teachers are supported by in-house support, in that all of their work in induction directly relates to the initiatives, because I'm part of Ed Services, I'm part of DLT, so the work that we do in induction is completely And it's really interrelated into the work that they do for, say, their evaluation, for the initiatives, the professional development that goes on. And they don't have to go anywhere else. If they had to go somewhere else, the closest program would be out in Contra Costa.

[596] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you.

[604] SPEAKER_36: So this next slide speaks to our teacher evaluation system. Again, our E3 program is, teacher evaluation is a mandatory aspect of California public schools. What our school district has done is very unique to California, but at the same time, I think really speaks to fulfilling the mission and vision of embedded professional development. Our employees work with a peer coach, who also acts as an induction support provider. We have used the Educator Effectiveness Grant, which this is the last year for it, which is sunsetting. Through the negotiation process last year, taking place for the 18-19 school year, it'll be a very pared down process where there has been priority given to not having support providers for everyone who is actually going through the E3 process. There has been priority given to teachers who are the most in need for that, so that there won't be such a cost for release time, for stipends, for the coaches, knowing that this will be something that will impact the general fund for the 18-19 school year.

[681] Nancy Thomas: Have you created a plan and a budget for what what it will cost annually after the grant goes away?

[691] SPEAKER_36: I'm going to ask Dr. Wong to share some of the planning work that has started. Sorry, can you repeat the question? So the question was around the educator effectiveness funds are going away this year. So through the negotiation process, there is now a more, a smaller cost for next year. There's still a cost, but that's the budget been finalized for next year.

[715] SPEAKER_28: The budget has not been finalized for next year. There will be costs, but they won't be as substantial. It'll be a more scaled-down version than what it is right now, to ensure the costs aren't as high.

[726] Nancy Thomas: Well, for this year, though, it's covered. It is. But is it in the contract?

[737] SPEAKER_36: Yes, so through the negotiation process last year, it was actually folded into the collective bargaining agreement for next year, starting with next year.

[750] Nancy Thomas: Is it possible to negotiate an option to revisit this?

[761] SPEAKER_28: E3 is not part of, it's not an opener, a reopener for this next year. It's not part of that article. But we will keep costs down.

[772] Nancy Thomas: So it's not part of class size? So we can't renegotiate?

[775] SPEAKER_28: It's not attached to class size, to my knowledge.

[779] Ray Rodriguez: Can I piggyback on that?

[782] SPEAKER_28: I can double check on that, but I don't think it is.

[786] Ray Rodriguez: I just wanted to piggyback a little bit on Member Thomas' question. One of the frustrating things about having grants is that it's nice when you have the money, but at some point, if the money runs out, then you have to deal with working with staff and everything and the fact that we might not be able to continue the program. So what I would like is similar to what we did with Camino Nuevo is that when I was helping to run that is that we would have a lead of a year before the grant was over. And that gives everybody a chance to help try to raise money or get other donors to come in so that you can continue the program, if not hold and park. And that's what we did with Puente when we thought we were going to lose it. We negotiated with Cal Berkeley to see if we could keep the thing, you know, the program going. So I just want to make sure that, you know, whatever it is, the grant that we have, that we have enough lead time so that those of us that would like to try to keep it going have that opportunity before it's completely gone.

[857] SPEAKER_31: E3, we're talking about all teachers are using the system? This is all teachers that are evaluated?

[863] SPEAKER_36: This is now all teachers that are evaluated, but it had been phased in, and so now this is now has been fully vetted, and now it's all teachers will have access to it depending on the evaluation cycle.

[874] SPEAKER_31: So the cost of it, the program's been set up, and the procedures have been set up, and so the cost involved with that is gone. So the cost to keep it running is what? I mean, we have to evaluate teachers anyhow. Correct. So we can't figure in the cost of the evaluators, because that's part of the process. Correct. So what is the cost above what the evaluators, what is the $240,000?

[899] SPEAKER_28: So there are peer teacher coaches that are there to assist evaluatees and substitute coverage for observation of teachers. Those are the primary costs. Tommy, does that sound about right? Yeah, are there ever costs?

[918] SPEAKER_30: No, I've just never seen anyone sub.

[925] SPEAKER_28: Okay, I think there is, I think money's factored there in the event that there'll be need for subs. If you have to pull someone out. I think minimal subbing, but I think it's peer evaluation, peer coaches are the primary cost.

[938] SPEAKER_36: And what happened this last year and a little bit about this year was that we also had an online calibration system where the administrators had to be certified online to actually calibrate their evaluation, how to evaluate someone. So that cost should go away, because I think that can be internalized with HR or some of our other principals coaching new administrators. There also was a nominal cost. Well, there was a significant startup cost with the equipment, because we're videotaping lessons. So there will be a cost to that. And I'm thinking what we could probably do is once we have the budget of what it will cost for 18-19 school year, we can look at maybe through our Title II monies, professional development, that would be an area to look at, maybe within the LCAP. But that would be something that we could partner on once we see what it looks like. Offhand, I'm trying to remember right now, but I believe that an aspect of the negotiations was that not everybody would get a support provider. So that stipend would go away and it would be really focused on permanent employees who are actually with us. The other thing that was brought in was the five-year permanent teacher skip, which is out of Ed Code, something that had not been practiced here, where if a person has a successful evaluation and they're a permanent employee, there is an option to skip if there's mutual agreement. So that would be another way to also eliminate costs.

[1025] Nancy Thomas: Is there any other mechanism, like an MOU, If at the end of the year we decide we don't want to spend the money on stipends and whatever it's going to cost next year, is there a mechanism like an MOU with, you know, agreement with the bargaining unit that we would scale that program at?

[1050] SPEAKER_28: We can certainly talk to the bargaining unit about it, but they're not obligated to agree with us.

[1062] SPEAKER_36: Another slide. Now this is looking at child care and I'm going to ask Mr. Richard to help me with this one. So if I could have you kind of speak to child care and also Dr. Wong if they need to chime in.

[1076] SPEAKER_18: So as the board is aware, Two years ago, budget adoption, or a year and a half ago, budget adoption, the meeting before the adoption of the budget, NITIA brought forward a three-year plan of rate adjustments to address the board's concern about the contribution from the general fund into the child development fund. And so we are now in the second year of that three-year implementation plan. And as you can see from the very bottom line at the bottom right corner of the slide, we're going to go backwards up this slide, The contribution that's projected for the current year is down to $42,000, about one-third of what it used to be when it was at about $120,000. And we anticipate for 18-19 that will actually drop to zero when the third year of implementation of rate adjustments goes into play. Last year we did not have to contribute the full amount of the projected $84,000. It was about $60,000 last year. So they came in ahead. They're ahead in their enrollment again in the current year. so much so that they actually did have to actually add some staffing hours to address it. And so there's going to be a little bit of increased cost in addition to their increased revenue. But at this point, we don't project that there'll be an increased contribution from the general fund. If anything, we anticipate it will come under again as it did last year. But we anticipate that this will be the last year of needing a contribution from the general fund because now we will have fully implemented her multi-year plan. And this is the plan that provides the after school care for our schools that do not qualify for the ACES program. This is established at three of our Title I schools that are at the remaining elementary schools of the district. And there's 307 students this year so far enrolled in that plan at the various elementary schools at which it's running.

[1187] Nancy Thomas: Have we done any analysis, you know, market analysis of our competition? Because there are quite a few after-school programs. You know, I see at my grandson's school that the daycare van comes and picks up a whole group of students. Are we competitive?

[1209] SPEAKER_18: That was part of the assessment that Nitya brought to the board a year and a half ago. I don't know that we've done... Well I don't know that she's done a further update of that because I haven't asked her to as far as in the current school year because we had done that we looked that over with the board when we made the three-year adjustment comparing ourself to surrounding areas but that was all developed in her plan when we were looking at how we could balance her to bring her up. I have a question. Go ahead. There's one element that is not included in this number because it runs under its own separate resource code within the fund and that is the fourth bullet from the top that talks about students are served healthy food. There's actually a portion of the child care fund that is federally funded for the after school snack program that's run by our child nutrition department. It is actually completely self-sustaining. It doesn't receive a contribution from either Fund 13, Child Nutrition Fund, nor from the General Fund. It's actually completely self-funding within the federal program that's run through the Child Care Fund.

[1283] SPEAKER_26: So my question, I just want to make sure I understood you correctly. You said that even though it says on the slide that there is an expected contribution of $42,000, that you're saying that you don't expect there to be a contribution this year, 2017-2018?

[1299] SPEAKER_18: No, there is a budgeted contribution for this year. This is the second year of the three-year plan. Next year, in the third year, we don't anticipate that there will be a contribution. However, if what happened last year holds true for this year, I would project that that contribution, the budgeted number is higher than what the actual will be. Whether or not there will actually be one We won't know until we get a little closer to the end of the year to see how the revenue and the expenses are projecting out. But at adopted budget, we were at about 42,000. We have seen some growth in the program, but we also saw some increased costs. At this point, it's still looking like the spread is gonna be about where we projected it to be, but it may come in under that. It came in about 20,000 under last year, and it's tracking last year fairly closely, so it could very well do the same this year.

[1348] SPEAKER_26: So I'm wondering if it's possible then to have a discussion to increase the rates earlier so that it zeroes out for sure that we're not estimating this would be an easy way for us to be able to provide enough notice to folks, of course, and then project to zero out and then makes you think about like is this, you're saying it's a three-year plan, this is more general, for evaluating our programs like this, why is it just now that we're zeroing out as opposed to having zeroed out, like, this program should have been self-sustaining, at least my thought, in my opinion.

[1392] SPEAKER_18: Well, it had taken several years to grow to the point at which the contribution was the level that it was. And the discussion that we had at the time when we made the rate adjustments was that to spike the rates to what would be in the third year out immediately might be more than what the parent community could adjust to on such a short-term notice. And so we did it over a three-year implementation with the plan that by the third year we would be set at a rate and it would give enough notice and enough planning time for our families to be able to adjust to it over the course of time. And so that all three years, that information had been shared out with the parent community at the time at which the board approved it.

[1436] SPEAKER_31: On point of information, we have three of our schools in which there is free after school care. Does that open to the whole school or is it just selected part?

[1447] SPEAKER_18: It's capped in its level of participation by the state at a certain number of students.

[1453] SPEAKER_31: OK. Is there a waiting list for those?

[1455] Jodi Croce: I don't know. Do you know? No.

[1461] SPEAKER_36: Yes. OK. I know for the, are you referring also to the Think Together program?

[1466] SPEAKER_31: She's referring to ACES.

[1467] SPEAKER_36: The programs that are available at the school? Yes. So for the ACES grant at the junior high, there was actually a significant wait list. Last year, about almost 70 students This year, within the LCAP, we actually allocated enough for another 30 students to get off of the wait list for this year. At this point, though, I don't have the final numbers.

[1489] SPEAKER_31: I'd like to make a note that it costs $140 per kid to keep those 300 kids there in terms of cost to the district. And I think that that is not a bad deal, because if you don't have child care, you've got to find some place where it is. And so I think that I think that it has been a good metered way to do it. Having the deficit there was something we didn't want. But I think you have to approach it carefully when you're talking about kids and child care. Because parents need to have certainty. You know that.

[1524] SPEAKER_26: No, you're right. And I guess I'm actually thinking even just as a mom.

[1527] SPEAKER_31: But I know what you're saying. And I think that that's true. But I think that it has been, sounds to me as if it's been managed the way we need to manage something. cognizant of the fact that the families need to be treated with respect.

[1543] SPEAKER_26: And it's the notice part that I absolutely have an issue with. Absolutely. And as long as you provide notice to folks, then you're giving people a heads up that, you know, this is part of any business that you need to zero out because otherwise you're taking money away from your own kids for the educational purpose of teaching as opposed to just the child care component. So I think it's just the notice piece that I have an issue. I guess it was more of, I guess, program evaluation that I'm We're on this three-year plan, but I'm wondering, I mean, I know I haven't been on here in terms of the board, but like thinking about even the last seven years, the last five years, like why was it only the last three years that we decided that we wanted to zero out as opposed to?

[1581] SPEAKER_31: It was a shock that we had a problem with it. In other words, it has not cost us anything before that. Oh, okay. Okay. So it was one of those things, as I remember, it sort of spiked in.

[1591] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. That brings up another issue that I'd like to know how staff feels about it, or whether there is a rule about it. When we were subsidizing food services, we kept track of the subsidy. And when they started making money, they paid us back. If this program makes money, shouldn't they be paying the general fund back? And are we keeping track of that?

[1625] Ray Rodriguez: I'd have to look into it. I have, unless there's something in that particular budget that most programs I expect to spend all their money. And it's the understanding, and maybe we should just be clear, remember Thomas, that any overage, if we have excess, then that goes back into the general fund. That wouldn't be kept, in my opinion, in a child care fund. Is that, Mr. Richards, is that the case?

[1662] SPEAKER_18: The fund was receiving a contribution from the general fund prior to my coming to the district. So I don't know what the history is prior to that. sitting here running through my computer trying to go back far enough years to see if there was a year when it had a net profit. It hasn't been an item that's been addressed, frankly, because it hasn't been in that situation.

[1682] Ray Rodriguez: Right, right. So we're getting there. So maybe this is the time for us to be clear that that's what we want. Now, with the chalk here, when I first came on the board, we only had one chalk and that was Milani. And that was the things that we wanted. to have child care at all the schools, and basically we have that, other than Graham and Schilling where we have other programs. But on the child care, to get back to what Member Garciano said, it was my understanding that the board had asked that child care be zeroed out right away, and then we would implement any rate increases to make sure that happened. It wasn't my understanding that it would be over a couple of years. It was my understanding that it would be done right away. And I know when you implement something like that, it does take a while. So my question is, could we have done that within the first year, or why was it

[1748] SPEAKER_18: Her proposal at the time was a three-year implementation plan that was brought forward to the board and under that three-year plan we had projected that it would reduce the contribution by one-third in the first year, two-thirds in the second year, and a hundred percent in the third year.

[1768] Ray Rodriguez: Now the other question I have, a lot of parents qualify for free or reduced lunch. They might qualify for reduced child care where it might be paid by the state or the federal. Is that part of the child care? I know it's part of Kidango, I don't know if it's part of this child care where there's certain parents that would receive a lower, they would pay less because of their income.

[1795] SPEAKER_18: Canango is a preschool program as opposed to an after school care program. The after school program that has the component where there's no parent cost is the one that's state funded, which is the ACES program that runs at Graham Schilling in the junior high.

[1810] Ray Rodriguez: And then there's a misconception that when you say childcare, you're talking about babysitting, and that is not the case at all. These kids actually, it's like an after school you know, education program, basically. It's not just a babysitting program. I just want to make sure people understand that.

[1831] SPEAKER_36: I'm good. And now I want to speak a little bit about one of our programs that really is supporting our college and career readiness indicator. Ms. Matsumoto, who is the lead at the school, at the high school, really works to ensure that these CTE teachers have industry experience There's a professional development that's provided and this is all through source through our California Partnership Academy and our Carl Perkins grant. The Carl Perkins grant really gives us the in-classroom materials and supplies that really are distinct to CTE programs. And I want to show the next slide. The next slide really speaks to some of the good work that's happened throughout the year and as we see graduation rates and placement. And also speaking to students who maybe not be the traditional college applicant right out of the chute, but really speaks to offering our kids options during school year and when they graduate with choices. So a little bit about this program to back up is, again, grant funded. What's given is what's spent. And it's one of those programs where Again, provides rich professional development opportunities, but then also in classroom materials and supplies that are very distinct to this program.

[1918] SPEAKER_31: The cost to it, if the supplies are taken care of by the Carl Perkins, what is the actual cost? Is there a lower pupil ratio?

[1927] SPEAKER_36: My understanding is no, right, Brian? Not in terms of this is really speaking to the inside of the classroom, correct, and the professional development for the teachers.

[1936] Nancy Thomas: Could I speak to that? Actually, I think the requirement is that we get $78,000, but we have to show a match for that. So we match it by spending $33,000. They allow us to use the Carl Perkins to match. We also match because there's a teacher that has a release period, which is about $20,000 or $22,000. should match or needs to match, but it doesn't need to overmatch. And so for spending an overmatch, is there any savings to be had there? That's the question.

[1980] SPEAKER_36: I'm not aware of an overmatch. Are you seeing an overmatch in our budget, Brian?

[1987] SPEAKER_18: Again, because in-kind contributions can only be scored against the grant to the extent to which they actually get up to the match amount, In this case, the in-kind contributions are in the form of, yes, they do allow us to use the Perkins to call that part of them. It's interesting. The state can match the federal. The federal can match the state. But the other piece to it is the in-kind contributions, which is a portion of the teacher's salary because she's still part of the teaching FTE because she's actually teaching courses as well other than the one release period. So even the period that she teaches counts as an in-kind contribution because she's still part of the site's FTE and that site allocation of its FTE toward the program counts as part of its match as well. And so between the .2 of the teaching, the .2 of the release, and the Perkins, we meet the requirement of making the match.

[2042] Nancy Thomas: So the match is only $45,000? Her teaching of what? She teaches more? If we can use the Carl Perkins, that means we have 45,000 we have to match.

[2059] SPEAKER_31: If we can use the Carl Perkins. to match against the $78,000?

[2067] SPEAKER_18: Yes, and .4 of the teacher plus the Carl Perkins is how the match is made.

[2073] SPEAKER_31: So the impact of $111,000 or $112,000 could be reduced down to $45,000 and still be legal?

[2084] SPEAKER_18: No, OK. The $111,000 in this case, those are the two grants added together. That's the Perkins grant plus the Partnership Academies grant. what the additional expenditures are that it is that are over and above the fact that she would still be a regular teaching FTE for a portion of her day because she's part of the site's regular allocation. They don't get a bump up in their allocation for having the MCA there. She's part of the regular allocation of their FTE for part of what she's teaching.

[2113] SPEAKER_31: Still, to have the expenditure be $112,000, you're talking about that's all her salary?

[2121] SPEAKER_18: No, I'm talking about that's what the grant funds are purchasing. That's just the total amount of the grant. We don't do an additional contribution from the general fund toward the grant. The grant allows us to use the fact that part of her salary is in the general fund because she's a regular teacher at the school as part of the match toward the grant.

[2138] SPEAKER_31: Then it should be nothing coming from the general fund. There isn't. There's nothing. That is correct.

[2143] Nancy Thomas: There's program expenses, but they're probably not in excess of the grant.

[2149] SPEAKER_18: Correct. The program expenses are contained within the two grants between Perkins and the Partnership Academy.

[2154] SPEAKER_31: So the cost of the program, then, is just the cost of the teachers that you have anyhow, plus the one period that the person has for release.

[2166] Nancy Thomas: The MCA classes, in general, are a lower. But you can count the lower enrollment the number of students in the class that's below the maximum, you can count that as matching two.

[2190] SPEAKER_31: So is there a cost, or is there not a cost? I'm still not hearing the answer. I mean, I'm seeing that we're getting money, $78,000. I'm seeing that we're getting Perkins, of which we can go as matching funds against that $78,000. We have another $45,000 that we can use with the teachers.

[2206] SPEAKER_18: Rather than doing an additional cash match and beefing up more expenditures within the program, we utilize the fact that we can count a portion of her salary as an in-kind match based on their regular allocation and be within the rules of the grant. We utilize that rather than matching it with additional cash. So we are not required to match it with additional cash and we do not.

[2228] Nancy Thomas: And lower class sizes also can count.

[2233] SPEAKER_31: But the fiscal impact you're saying is zero.

[2237] SPEAKER_18: correct as far as additional costs from the general fund, that would be correct. Because if we were to have this program go away, then Ms. Matsumoto would still be a teacher in the district with tenure, and so she would still be teaching, and the site would still have the same staffing allocation model that they would have had otherwise. But this gives them extra to be able to run their program in this particular format.

[2259] Nancy Thomas: They wouldn't be able to go on their field trips, and they wouldn't have the equipment. Correct. I mean, that's true.

[2269] Ray Rodriguez: One of the things that we're not looking at is when you have special programs like this, the fact that this draws or brings in students just for those programs. That might go to Fremont Christian, for instance. But they might be coming over to Newark because we have a program like this. So if the program goes away, it's not just dollars and cents here, it's the amount of kids that would no longer be there and we would lose all that ADA. And then every time you have a grant, it shows 2017, 2018. Now, is that because we're talking about this year's monies or is that saying that this grant ends at this time?

[2316] SPEAKER_21: Let me try to explain if I can. If I'm wrong, Ms. Matsumoto, correct me. My understanding of CTE programs is we're generally working in a year behind. So the funding for this year is a reimbursement for last year's expenditures. largely within CTE dollars, and what they have to go through is a program approval process. So once they go through the program approval process as a stand-alone approved CTE program, they verify, what's your enrollment? Is it aligned with industry standards? Do you have an advisory council? And you kind of have a checklist that you go through, and then based on that, you get a reimbursement of a lot of those expenditures. I don't know where it is in California, but generally, Generally, it ends up costing you about a third of it back in expenditure for the CTE program. I don't know about Carl Perkins. Is that generally specific to equipment?

[2369] SPEAKER_09: No. Perkins is reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Basically, the business office puts it in every quarter. And then the California Partnership Academy, they give us half up front. And then they give us half midway through the year.

[2382] SPEAKER_18: So it is all current. In California, both of these run where the current year allocation from the CDE is spent on the current year students. In fact, it's required to be neither of these programs allow carryover. So we have to fully expend them within the current school year. We don't actually get the cash back as much on the final 10% on them until after we file the final report. So we end up with a receivable at the end of the year that clears in the new year. But we do receive it in chunks throughout the year, but it is not a following year reimbursement style program.

[2419] SPEAKER_26: I just have a question. Is the grant, is it ending 2017-2018? Or will this continue as long as the program continues?

[2429] SPEAKER_18: As long as the state continues the program and we continue to file our application annually and continue to participate in the program, it is an annually recurring program.

[2436] SPEAKER_26: So based off of that, I'm okay with moving on because of the whole idea in terms of the budget rejection pieces to figure out if this is an expenditure on our general fund and if it's not, and we misjudged it, that if we can move on to the next piece, if that's okay.

[2449] Nancy Thomas: But if I could just add one comment in looking at the enrollment in the classes, it's up quite a bit from several years ago, so I think it's doing a good job.

[2460] SPEAKER_21: It's a stable program. We need to do more of these.

[2466] SPEAKER_36: OK, so now we're going to move on to PBIS, or Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. And I want to remind you of the presentation that you all saw earlier. Was it this year, or was it last year? I believe it was this year, when we demonstrated how this is a district-wide initiative and also speaks to the California School Dashboard. You're starting to see restorative practices and PBIS California-wide, because really, this is a program that, when done to fidelity, really gets the support that we need for our kids. Program outcomes, just a little bit of data, specifically at the high school. And I also want to share that, with this program, What we see is that our students are receiving positive interventions during the school day. This is a program that really speaks to that green section of that triangle, which is the majority of our students who need this as part of the climate at a school site. A little bit about the fiscal impact and some of the work that we do. This all lies within our LCAP. But I also want to share that because we do this work and we have been doing deep work, Alameda County Mental Health Services, we are able to partner with Alameda County in many ways, where they're able to help to provide us with partnerships with EBAC to get some counselors at our school sites, get some interns into our schools, and to really help to meet the need, mental health issues of our students. So it's looking at support, certainly for the general population, but then it also gets us access with county mental health services for our kids who are a smaller portion of our students, but nonetheless need some support. So this speaks to, there is within the SPSA, the site plans, principals have, and school site councils have written in some support. A lot of it speaks to incentives and release time for teachers and the principal to meet, so look at students. And up above, it speaks to just the training modules. Going back, as you can see at the very top, we still have some schools that are still in the planning phases. But as we continue to deepen the work at Schilling, at our high school, junior high, and Graham, we really see how they continue to do that work. And with that comes less support for substitutes, less support, and it's not really the same as a year one or a year two where our sites need a little bit more support from Santa Clara County Office of Ed. Oops, questions.

[2626] Ray Rodriguez: Any questions? It was my understanding that the county mental health, as it applies to K-12 students, was all 100% turned over to the SELPA. So why would the county, because I thought that was all SELPA now. The county, if it's, when you're talking about county, you're not talking about, The Board of Supervisors you're talking about, I don't even count.

[2659] SPEAKER_36: Not SELPA. We are, and also, yeah, I'm not sure about the SELPA. I think the SELPA does also have it, but I'm also talking about the work also with our supervisors and what they're providing us.

[2669] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, so the county is still helping us when it comes to- Yes.

[2672] SPEAKER_36: So if you remember, I keep going back to the old Joy's position. So we still have a partnership with them where they are still funding, if you remember, 50% of that position. We haven't been able to fill it because we're not providing, the match has been frozen, so we're not providing the match for a full-time But they are still providing the 50%. And then we have a separate grant with them for our parent partners. So that's still provided. So all of that work, along with the EBAC counselors, are all tied into our PBIS work as well.

[2703] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[2705] SPEAKER_26: Other questions? No, I mean, it's more of just thinking that I'm glad we brought it up this year to evaluate, and then thinking about just like in program evaluation maybe like next year we also look at it and see where we're at in terms of these things because maybe it's just the name for me that the positive behavior intervention support I figured like my thoughts instead of doing something like this we need to do academic excellence and support programs but maybe it's just the framing of already that's just the program but it makes me think about evaluating our programs and their effectiveness so that we're, now that we have our three strategic imperatives moving forward, that we're, everything is aligned to that, and then we're spending our dollars in that.

[2752] SPEAKER_21: And you're right, I think this is the behavioral support, and part of what we're trying to develop is academic intervention support, if you will, so I think that's something we're trying to refine with CPSA and our work with CCE, but no, you're right.

[2767] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, it's kind of like, This is 152,000 is a lot of money. And what are some of the trade-offs, like trying to reach our three imperatives, strategic imperatives, that is that money cutting into what we should or could be doing in other areas? And are we getting the maximum benefit? Are we measuring how it's impacting our schools? implementing it with fidelity and following up. And so at any one time, we can say, here's the improvement year to year, and it's due to this program, that kind of thing.

[2808] SPEAKER_36: Yes. I'm sorry.

[2810] Ray Rodriguez: No, no. We've always talked about the fact that it's our responsibility to educate the total child or the total student, not only academically, but socially and all that stuff. No matter what kind of program we're talking about, everything should be geared, like Member Grisalda said, to making sure that our students are progressing and becoming academically, you know, better prepared academically and socially, so when they exit, they're ready to, you know, meet the outside world. So that should be part of everything, any program we have.

[2848] SPEAKER_31: This is the base of academic learning. Right. And the kids got to be stable in terms of their behavior, in terms of their environment, and predictability of the environment and safety of the environment before they can go to the next step. It's very hard. Very few kids can take a situation where they don't feel safe and it's not consistent and move on. So this is the base of, for me, all academics, is that having good mental health base for the kids and consistency and predictability.

[2878] SPEAKER_21: I would suggest, for the interest of time, let us come back, as suggested. I'd like to look deeper at what exactly happened by school and since budget rates and see what that looks like by school. That might be helpful for us to see the impact of it over time.

[2893] SPEAKER_36: And we can bring that up once the new indicator, and I'll be speaking about that in the next meeting. Project Lead the Way. So Project Lead the Way is at the high school. And again, this is funded through NBROP. But a little bit about Project LEAD, the way we certainly have had a wonderful introduction to design and principles of engineering. And really speaking to, again, our college and career indicator and giving options for our students.

[2924] Nancy Thomas: I noticed that we have two principles of engineering courses. And one is 20 students and one is 15. And yet we have 30 computers, and I'm sure we could get 15, five more if we end up doing class size increase. Why are we, those two classes, you know, I think we should look at filling those two classes.

[2952] SPEAKER_36: So we could certainly look at that.

[2953] SPEAKER_31: Are these classes run by the ROP? And if that's the case, they pay the salaries? No. No, these are our teachers. OK, but it's funded through, there are teachers, but it's funded through. So they determine the class size and they pay for the teacher for that period. Am I correct?

[2968] SPEAKER_26: No. I was going to say, I don't think we should get into the weeds in terms of that. I think for us, again, looking at the budget is figuring out, does this have an impact on our budget? In terms of increasing enrollment for all of our programs, I think that's kind of a big picture. Maybe we have that as a separate program evaluation. type of discussion, but for me, it's the framework of, like, I guess it's not how many students right now, it's more of figuring out, like, how much does it cost us, and then... How is it impacting the budget?

[2995] Ray Rodriguez: Exactly.

[2996] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, well, it is impacting the budget when we don't have classes that are full, and that's my point.

[3000] SPEAKER_26: Okay, so then, that's fine. My point is... Then you need to say that, I don't think the classes are full, but we don't have to get into the, I guess, the details of, like, 15 here, 20 there, 9 there, it's more of just, like, I think that maybe this would be a potential growth, that we can think about kind of pushing to encourage people to participate in these programs so that they're capped to the full and then we're getting our resources.

[3026] SPEAKER_31: Is my understanding that the ROP pays for that period, is that correct?

[3030] SPEAKER_36: No, these are our teachers but ROP pays for is the professional development which is very costly for Project Lead the Way supports our teachers to provide it.

[3045] SPEAKER_26: increasing to make sure it's... So from the general fund, the way I read it here, it's everything's being paid for through RLP.

[3052] Nancy Thomas: No.

[3053] SPEAKER_31: That's what it is. No, they're only, they're not paying, they're paying just for the... We are paying for having a teacher in there. So if we are paying for a low enrollment class, two of them, is that correct?

[3068] SPEAKER_36: It's very much like MCA. So if these are our teachers, and then the They're not really extras, but really the elements of the materials and supplies, the professional development is by MDR.

[3080] SPEAKER_21: It's a very prescriptive training. I guess for me, maybe for consistency. We have staff involved that we should add on there.

[3087] SPEAKER_26: For the MCA, it had currently served, it had funding source, and then it had fiscal impact. So if the fiscal impact said, X in grants or X in professional development, X in expenditure, just as a framework.

[3100] SPEAKER_21: I mean, I'm not trying to be... How many teachers or number of sections do we have tied up in this?

[3103] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, and... And the fiscal impact. It looks like we're negative on this one. Okay.

[3108] SPEAKER_26: The way I read it is we're actually sealed off. Right. It's a reward.

[3112] Nancy Thomas: That's how I read it. No, it's costing us money.

[3116] SPEAKER_21: How many sections do you have?

[3117] SPEAKER_31: It's four sections. Great. Four. Four sections.

[3120] SPEAKER_21: And what are the size of the classes? No, we're paying for the teacher.

[3122] SPEAKER_31: What are the size of the classes?

[3124] SPEAKER_26: And well, we don't think we'd have to.

[3125] SPEAKER_31: Well, that's your cost.

[3127] SPEAKER_26: OK, so I guess for me, but knowing that there's four sections, just figuring out. And that's fine. We can figure it out. I guess.

[3133] SPEAKER_21: Should have been on the slide was your point. Yeah, exactly. What's the negative on? Exactly.

[3137] SPEAKER_26: So like, here's my, here's my. I hate numbers. No, it's more of like, so if this, I know it's not. But if this is a $2 million fiscal impact, and it serves five students, then it might be something that we look at. That's more of my framework. That's it.

[3153] SPEAKER_30: I was just going to add, also remember our beloved teacher, engineer teacher, left this year. So these classes were full. And when students found out our beloved teacher was gone, there were some changes. So I think this year there was that impact. I project next year we will have a full section.

[3184] SPEAKER_18: However, again, with regard to cost, keep one thing in mind. Again, we don't augment their allocation of FTE to allow them to have this program. They're not getting a bonus kick of FTE, so their FTE allocation because we're not tacking on additional sections to their FTE base for project lead the way the amount of FTE they would have would still be the same with this program or without this program. It's just their students are taking these courses in lieu of taking what would be otherwise other regular courses that they would otherwise be taking and we'd have additional FTE in those areas.

[3214] SPEAKER_26: Okay, so for me that would just, saying that here would just be like, we wouldn't have talked about this for five extra minutes. It would just be like, we're good and we'll go to the next piece.

[3224] SPEAKER_21: Thank you. Good point.

[3226] SPEAKER_36: Okay, so Puente program. So many of you are familiar with the Puente program, which has statistical data of really meeting the needs of students across the state of California. For our school district, we have a very high passing rate of our students and transition to college after graduation, 22,000 per year. We receive from the University of California the funding and the support and the professional development for our staff, but within their own SPSA plan, the school site council is paying for this. So this is of no extra cost to the district. Any questions?

[3271] SPEAKER_36: It is. Mission Valley ROP, and I'm gonna look to Mr. Richards on this one to help me with, in terms of the cost and how that works, and Superintendent, with certainly our partnership with Mission Valley ROP. We have classes that are held on campus and off campus for 184 students and then there's the funding source and I will ask Mr. Richards to chime in on fiscal.

[3302] SPEAKER_18: So the $969,359 is the old ROP allocation that predates the local control funding formula back when ROP was a program that was funded based on its ADA and then its numbers for 2007-2008 got locked as their permanent funding amount and then that amount got rolled into the local control funding formula when we left the revenue limit and converted to the LCFF. So under our three-year agreement with the other districts that are part of the JPA that forms Mission Valley ROP, all the districts agreed to continue to fund the ROP based on what it was receiving in 07-08. And so from our district, that's the 969,359 that was rolled into the LCFF base based on what it was when it was a categorical program. Now for the first year of that agreement, ROP was also getting a portion of our lottery dollars because lottery, the ROPs were also locked with that amount from 07-08. The lottery funding was recalculated last school year, and Adult Ed and ROP were removed completely from the lottery funding calculation. So they no longer receive an allocation of lottery dollars from the district. That changed during the fiscal 16-17 school year. And so they're no longer receiving that, but they do still receive under our current agreement, although this is the third year of that three-year agreement because it was part of They had to show that we were maintaining effort because they had put in for the CTEIG grant. And when they were awarded the grant, it was part of the grant application that all three districts would continue to fund them at that rate. This is the third and final year of that agreement. And then the money coming back the other way, part of the agreement with Mission Valley ROP, they cover 50% of the career counseling position at Memorial High School as well as 10% of one of our assistant principals. We didn't actually, we just started billing them for the 10% of assistant principal last school year. Last year it was Mr. Wasser, this year it's Dr. Holm. And so a portion of their salaries is now chargeable to the ROP. And so we've been billing them for that last school year and this school year, as well as the career counselor, which they funded for many years.

[3452] SPEAKER_36: And then advanced placement and EOS. We have done a wonderful thing in this district, which is the PSAT. And all of this is funded with students who qualify for fee waivers. The district does look at the College Readiness Block Grant to help to supplement. And then we also have this noted in our LCAP. We have a commitment to try to bridge that equity gap for our students. And this is one of the ways that we do it. A little bit over 1,000 students were enrolled in AP classes. Certainly, that's not an unduplicated count. I mean, we have some students who take two to four AP classes and have a high passing rate. And this is some of the work that's also embedded in our LCAP, as I mentioned.

[3500] Ray Rodriguez: You still have to have a four in order to get college credit starting.

[3503] Nancy Thomas: So 97% pass at three or... Oops, sorry.

[3507] SPEAKER_36: It's a three to get college credit? It depends on the institution.

[3510] SPEAKER_09: That means the grade... That's the passing of the... About 60% is the scoring of three or above. Okay, so if you get a three, then you get UC and Cal State.

[3532] Ray Rodriguez: Excellent.

[3533] SPEAKER_31: Thank you. What's the cost?

[3537] SPEAKER_36: So I don't have those numbers, and we can get that. But that is out of our college. So it varies, because it depends on the number of fee waivers. But we've been bridging that gap through the LCAP and through the College Readiness Block Grant. But we can get those numbers to you. It's changed every year.

[3554] Nancy Thomas: I think the biggest cost is the low enrollment.

[3556] Aiden Hill: Right.

[3560] Ray Rodriguez: about that for years. And then there was discussion on, you know, looking at the whole AP program and how we can, I know it's probably impossible to combine classes, but looking at ways that we can increase the enrollment.

[3575] SPEAKER_26: And one of the things that, I know it's not for this, but I want to do on the video, is again going back to our strategic imperatives, figuring out like, is there another STEAM-like program that we can, like MCA, that we can incorporate as part of like a mini school or whatever that would attract a specific group that would then fill the whole class.

[3592] Ray Rodriguez: Or have AP at the lower grades.

[3595] Nancy Thomas: Although, every time you have a program that has a cohort, it makes, it constrains your building of your master schedule. I think there's trade-offs, but yeah, in general.

[3608] SPEAKER_26: But if you get more enrollment, right, that would offset, like you just have to figure out what, I mean, this is a different discussion, so I shouldn't have jumped in there.

[3615] SPEAKER_21: Well, the bigger question here is how do we get 60% up higher so more kids are scoring a three year higher on the AP exam. That's the bigger challenge there. That prepares them more A through G. That lifts all boats. And I think that's something that we need to build a plan around.

[3634] SPEAKER_31: As we're saying, half our students are enrolled in the AP course. Well, we've got 2,000 students.

[3641] SPEAKER_21: Some of those are duplicates.

[3643] SPEAKER_36: Yeah, some of those are duplicates. And later this evening, I'll talk about that, about enrollment and then success rates. That's two distinct things, and I hear your point. I will say that the high school, the counselors and the AP teachers have done a phenomenal job of trying to get the word out and get more students enrolled in AP courses. They do evening events, do college readiness and what it takes. And having student panels, I remember last year, a student panel of students who were taking AP classes. And it was an auditorium full of parents and freshmen and sophomores to learn more about what that is, to try to get our class sizes up and more kids to take advantage of what we offer. And then lastly, we have a swim program. And again, I'm going to turn it over to our historian, Mr. Richards. I didn't know we had a swim program.

[3693] SPEAKER_18: So Summer Swim, well, You may, if you're new to the district in the past couple of years, you might have not any idea what this is, but Summer Swim had operated at Newark Memorial High School for many, many years. And we, because of construction at the school site that was originally, you'll recall, because the roofing project ended up stretching over two summers, we actually ended up having to close the program for two years rather than just one. So the last year in which it was actually active was the 15-16 school year. And it generated about $23,780 in revenue and cost about $26,500 to run. So it was running a net loss of about 10%, about $2,800. But it's been a very popular activity over the course of summer for many years in the district. We have not had a discussion with the high school yet about upcoming summer. That'll be the new year budget. So we'll be looking at what that may look like going forward. But we haven't had it the past two summers.

[3755] Nancy Thomas: This year's budget is about $30,000.

[3759] SPEAKER_18: Well, this year's summer is already gone. So nothing actually happened.

[3762] Nancy Thomas: So it would be next year that it would be uplifted by whatever percentage.

[3766] Ray Rodriguez: And the historian is actually a member of CROC.

[3768] SPEAKER_31: Oh, OK. My kids went through the program, which I think anyone who's been in Newark and learned how to swim probably went through the program when it was at the junior high. My question is, what is involved in the expenses? How do you figure what the expenses are? Is that just labor, or is that pool things?

[3787] SPEAKER_18: Largely, it's probably the lifeguard. Primarily, it is paying for the people that are actually taking care of that summer program.

[3795] SPEAKER_31: So there's no pool expense? It's all supervision.

[3801] SPEAKER_18: The pool, the cost of keeping the pool, because we still have practices and things that are happening for, because water polo season starts at the beginning of the school year, there would still, and we still have to treat the pool continuously unless we drain it, so we still have the operating costs of maintaining the pool over summer.

[3820] Nancy Thomas: Like other programs that we've talked about, like child care, this is a community, and the fees should pay for it else.

[3828] SPEAKER_26: So I would echo that. I think that we should zero this out in terms of it should just be shouldn't cost us to run it, right? And if it's an after school activity, I mean, people go to the Silliman Center, right? You pay a fee to take the classes. And if it's more, then maybe we're not competitive, right? So it's just, for me, for us, we're not in the business, we're not a business, we're not trying to make money. We just pay for its costs and let it run its course.

[3856] Nancy Thomas: And in the past, there was no school. Since 2004, the Sillman Center's been there, but this program predates that, I believe.

[3864] SPEAKER_31: It does. And there are times when the program made money, from what I understand. So I don't know whether this is for one year. It should be zeroed out. But you're right. It should be zeroed out. If the expense is just labor. Right. Well, but it may be pool maintenance if there's no one else using it. Well, for example, the Blue Flame Fins. Are they using it during the summer? When it was available, they were definitely renting it, and so it's the kind of thing that would be something that would go into a... And that would be under facility use and not necessarily part of Summer Swim that's accounted for separately. Oh, separately? Those are just Summer Swim? Yeah. Okay.

[3902] Mark Triplett: The last two years, Bluefin has put in approximately $15,000 in facility use fees.

[3909] SPEAKER_30: Say that again? The last two seasons of Bluefin has put in about $15,000. And you still use these?

[3917] Nancy Thomas: For paying for the heat, primarily in maintenance of the pool. That's from the Blue Flames?

[3925] SPEAKER_21: That concludes our session. We'll try to dig into some more of this information and bring it back next time. And then we'll have an advanced copy of what's in the next study session.

[3937] SPEAKER_31: I think what Frankie and everybody were saying is anything that is in a program like this shouldn't pay for itself. I mean, there may be times when you have a year when there's a little more one year and there's more, if it can save from one year to another, sometimes there are variations that would happen, as in child care.

[3955] SPEAKER_21: So kind of this idea of just self-sustaining plan, what's the plan? Right, right. Let's put it in paper. Right, right. OK.

[3965] Nancy Thomas: OK. We are going to be going into closed session, Is there anyone that would like to address the board on any item in closed session? Seeing none.

No minutes available.