Special - Part 2 Meeting

No content available.

[25] Ray Rodriguez: We discussed public employee appointment or employment discipline dismissal release. And in conference with labor negotiator with NTA and our 2 unions, the Newark Teach Association and the Classified Association. So basically, we talked about the, Principalship at Snow, which is going to be on the agenda on consent on 7.1. So there was no action taken, but it is on the agenda to be voted on later on today. Can you join me for the pledge, please?

[78] Bowen Zhang: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[92] Ray Rodriguez: For those of you that weren't here earlier, we added to the agenda public comment before the study session. Ms.

[102] Abbey Keirns: Parks, did you want to come up? I just wanted to follow up on another agenda item.

[114] Ray Rodriguez: No, no, we don't have public comment on non-agenda items at this meeting. What we have is public comment before the budget workshop that we have.

[126] Nancy Thomas: Didn't we usually add that?

[128] Ray Rodriguez: No, this time, because it was really a special meeting focused on just finishing up what we didn't do last meeting, we didn't add it on.

[135] Cindy Parks: Well, I can twist it under that because it's finance. But the problem is that you're not consistent. Your past practice has always been, and you've even commented, that whenever you have a special meeting, that you always afford the community time to talk on non-agenda items. So this is removing from that consistent practice. But I'll go ahead and, I mean, my subject matter is along, in essence, it ends up being about finance. sitting back watching the dynamics of last Thursday's meeting was very enlightening. When someone's decisions, when some of these decisions are made in the district, I sit back and I wonder why. Some of the why's are very easy to find out, figure out. One example, the merger of Bunker and Malani, that was easy to figure out. It was a way to raise test scores. It clearly wasn't a reason given which was to make the influx of students move into the new homes. As I stated last Thursday, it seemed odd to me, with the issues plaguing the high school, that the job description would be altered to include the oversight of 7 to 12 curriculum and instruction. The explanation provided varied in the need to entice, talent, recruit an experienced leader, stabilize the site by hiring a seasoned sitting principal. Also the need for a fancy title. So by adding the curriculum instruction supervision, it would be attractive because it wouldn't be a lateral move for an experienced principal. Once I learned the current position your recently hired assistant principal, Karen Foucault, holds with Visalia Unified, it made a little more sense. She currently holds the learning director position, which is multifaceted. It includes, among other things, curriculum, instruction, and professional development. Will the new principal oversee the new assistant principal as she carries out curriculum and instruction responsibilities? a few of us mentioned increasing salary for the principal job. What I didn't realize was the current salary for the high school principal, the director of teaching and learning, i.e. curriculum and instruction, and the director of special projects are all at a range of 136. And the director of special education is a 137. Even though you've added more supervisory job responsibilities, how do you increase the salary for a high school principal you're in the middle of a financial crisis. Are you going to raise all 3 or 4 salaries. How do you sell increasing administrative salaries to see a CA and TA. After the meeting last week I expressed my concern to Mister Rodriguez. I told him as I. It was as though you were Is the predetermined outcome to hire Tom Wynn? Understanding my concern is not with the candidate, it's with the predetermined process. How many staff members feel it's worthless to sit in on these interview panels? Are you to the point where you don't even need to post some jobs because you already have a predetermined outcome for hiring? It's an integrity issue and it's a spending issue which you can't seem to get under control. I guess time will tell.

[325] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Mr. Medina, Did you want to approach us on the study session, which is the budget workshop we're going to have? That's what we're open up now. Oh, OK.

[336] SPEAKER_04: Checking now or what?

[340] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, if you want to. It's basically a study session on budget reductions, which the board wanted. And we're also going to talk about K-3 class size reduction.

[361] SPEAKER_04: From what I saw last week, it seems a couple things are going into a direction that I feel that the board needs to actually come together. I think there is a lot of, we're a small community here. And one of the biggest things that I've been seeing just coming to some of the board meetings, I like to have a unified team. And I see you guys as a team. And I think in order to make some of these tough decisions, We have to form that unified team. And as an observer and new to this type of public comments and seeing you guys there, I know that you guys are in tough positions. You guys are in very tough positions, especially with the budgets. I'm in the budget committee. And I know there's some really, really things that you guys got to come to the consensus of Having a direction. I feel at this time that the board and the staff needs to really work together as a team. I don't see that right now. Some of these decisions that you guys are gonna make, it's gonna affect 10, 15, 20 years from now. If you guys need additional training and team building, I definitely can bring some people that are pretty top notch to this community. But I think we have enough common sense in this board and the staff that you guys can make it happen. So I encourage you guys to actually work together and make decisions that are going to be for the kids, not for any personal agenda, not for anything that's going to be affecting your political outcome or any of that. I think you guys are adults. And I want to see that team effort come and be very much in front of us. And if you guys can't do it, it's OK. Step out. It's OK sometimes to just move back and let someone else come in. Because sometimes that's needed. As a team and a leader of this community, you have to be able to recognize that. We're a small community. We have a lot of hope. I see a lot of hope in this community. I see a lot of good faces here. I see a lot of good hearts. But I need to feel it. And I think this community is ready for that. And if you're not ready to put that energy level, then some of these decisions that you guys are going to be making, it's going to really affect us. And we're going to get behind and behind and behind again. 15 years ago, there was some money here. But it got thrown away. It got wasted. I just talked to a couple of parents, and they told me, oh, Ramon, you don't know all this stuff. It got wasted. I'm learning, but I need that same energy from every one of them. Not from just the new people that got on the board, but from everyone that's been here for 20 years.

[548] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Thank you very much. OK. Seeing nobody else, superintendent, we could start the. OK. Go ahead.

[560] SPEAKER_10: Sure. Beverly? If you can't get started, I'm going to run a couple things up your back.

[569] Ray Rodriguez: Beverly, you're here to help us through this? Thank you. Okay, Mr. Nguyen.

[599] SPEAKER_29: Should we wait for Mr. Sanchez to return or should we just start?

[603] Ray Rodriguez: No, I think we're good.

[605] SPEAKER_29: Good evening board members, cabinet members as well. Tonight we're going to talk about the scenario two per board direction approval. We're looking at, in addition to reducing our expenditures, but we're also looking at generating revenues as well. So I have here Beverly with Broadland Services. We're going to discuss about ways to looking at our budgets, reducing our expenditures, but to generate revenues. With that said, I'm going to have Beverly talk about some scenarios of reducing and also generating funds.

[644] SPEAKER_28: As everyone knows, you asked for us to look at ways to reduce the deficit. and the board made the decision to look at scenario two, so this is what this is, and wanted some ideas on what might be in the scenario two reductions. One of the things we did is we gathered it for you. Okay. One of the things we did was just went through and This year, we should have reduced three more teachers, but we didn't. We saved it with some elementary that would have some issues. And we don't want to have to, you know, cause any issues at the elementary schools, especially in the smaller schools. I mean, pay three. So, we knew this year there were probably been, should have reduced three more. And so, now we're talking about not next year, we're talking about the year after. So we see the trend happening now. We are already declining again. I think we've already declined 80 students right now. So we estimate at this point there's probably about three more staffing we need to look at. We need to properly staff our schools. And one of the first things you need to do is look at staffing because that is important and that's an ongoing cut that will help reduce the deficit. One of the things we need to look at is increasing the students who are here, their attendance. Just a small percentage will generate a lot of money for us so we need to work on making sure that the kids that are here get, are encouraged to come to class every day. There are definite, mechanisms you can use, calling parents when the kids aren't there, that are things that can generate a lot of money for the district and can make sure that the students in the seat to learn. I mean so it's twofold. It helps generate money for the district and make sure the students in the seat to learn every day. We also looked at expanded child care. We thought child care encourages more people to come to the school. If you cut it back, then maybe kids won't come to the school. But we expand child care. And the child care in this district is very lucrative. It makes money. I mean, we actually collect and direct from it. That helps the general fund. So if we expand it a bit, then there'll be more money coming into the general fund from the child care. Also, we have special reserve funds that generate interest for us. Now, you shouldn't use the balance in the fund, but if interest is used, you have the option to use that interest for the general fund, not the fund balance. And the good news is this year we see that there's going to be a little bit of money left and we're going to replenish some of the special reserve that we have borrowed from before. So we're really going to do everything we can to put things back in the special reserve. One of the things that happens at the end of the year, and it's happening at the end of this year, there was a lot of positions that we never could fill, a lot of them in special education. So we got to take that money and put it back. It comes into the fund balance. So that will be a decision you make as the books close, that kind of money. So it's a decision you can make, but we're going to recommend to put some of that extra money back in the reserve for you. Also, we have.

[860] Nancy Thomas: We have a question. Sure. Yeah. I thought it was a quid pro quo, whatever they say. You know, we reduce the salaries, but we spent that much and more on the positions that we couldn't fill in special ed. Is that not true? That is true, yes. So there shouldn't be any money on the balance. There shouldn't be any money. Right.

[887] SPEAKER_28: There can be money, because there's other things that aren't spent, things that in the schools, they didn't spend their money. And so it's a combination of things. It isn't just the salaries.

[899] Nancy Thomas: OK. So it's not just special ed?

[903] SPEAKER_28: It's not just special ed. It's across the board. You know, people plan to spend money on supplies. They spend money on services. And they don't. So we try and make sure that at the end, we close down What was the closing date, March 30th?

[920] SPEAKER_29: March 30th.

[921] SPEAKER_28: Yeah. So a lot of people just didn't get their money spent. And they don't get to save reserves or anything. It goes back to the district. Yes. So it's on our ending balance. Does that make sense?

[932] Nancy Thomas: Except that there was some big encumbrances added. Usually you don't encumber unless you have a purchase.

[939] SPEAKER_29: So normally what happens is that most school districts, they have a cutoff date, whether it's in April or the end of March. where you have to submit your purchase requisition in to buy books and supplies. If you don't, then there's a probability that the purchasing department will not approve any purchase requisition thereafter. So that's why you see a lot of budget transfers to move into the $4,000 object code so that way the school sites can purchase supplies.

[971] SPEAKER_28: Yeah, they do try and purchase. It's common in school districts that when the deadline comes up for supplies and services, that they'll suddenly purchase a lot of things right there. But they don't always make the deadline. There are things that are needed, so we let them go a little bit after the deadline. But most people just say, the year has gone by, so what they needed for supplies is already there. There's not a lot of need for a lot of supplies at the end of the year.

[999] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, so the encumbrances. They're not real?

[1003] SPEAKER_28: No, the encumbrances will fall out if they were not spent.

[1008] Nancy Thomas: So we encumbered money that people didn't ask for?

[1011] SPEAKER_29: No, I mean, there are purchase orders coming in, so we encumbered that. When we receive the invoices, then that will be offset.

[1019] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, but the encumbrances should be based on real purchase orders.

[1023] SPEAKER_28: Yes, it is real purchase orders. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Also, we're looking at the capital outlay special reserve. It's a larger balance in there. So we could use some of the interest in there. And one of the good things about the interest in the capital outlay, you can only use it for capital outlay purchases. So I'm thinking you could save the general fund money if you need to in maintenance and operations or any of the big equipment purchased. You could use the interest from that fund to help it and it would save money for the general fund. And that's a bigger opportunity there because there's a much bigger balance. So there's actually a lot of interest coming in.

[1066] Ray Rodriguez: No, member Gutierrez.

[1069] SPEAKER_26: I did, but it was part of what member Thomas was asking. So you guys answered it. Thank you. OK.

[1075] Ray Rodriguez: So moving forward, board, I'm OK with kind of freelancing where we ask questions without clicking on there. So the only time I might ask you to hold back on a question would be if not all of us have been heard, okay? So, okay. Go ahead, Beverly.

[1096] SPEAKER_28: Okay. The next thing we have on there is school consolidation and closure to actually look at that and study that. It's not being recommended, but it's something we can actually look at. Also, the parcel tax is in there.

[1115] SPEAKER_26: Sorry. So looking at the number right now, you guys have an estimate that a school closure would be about $494,000 in savings?

[1126] SPEAKER_28: Right. But there are impacts coming from a closure that we need to talk about. So that whole conversation has to take place.

[1133] SPEAKER_26: Of course. And just to get clarification, that also means that's in one year. So that would be the savings we would save for the one year that it's closed?

[1143] SPEAKER_29: It will be ongoing because we won't have a personnel staff. We'll have to pay for utilities, expenses, etc.

[1161] Nancy Thomas: So you are not recommending it, you say?

[1164] SPEAKER_28: Not at this point. You need to study it and look at it because you have to think. what kind of impact is it going to have on the community? Closing a school, you lose kids when you close a school. But you just need to look at all the factors.

[1177] Nancy Thomas: But doesn't it take a year of doing that kind of research, which means that we couldn't do it for 2021 unless we start now. So if we say we're not going to start now, then you're not recommending we start now. Well, what I'm suggesting,

[1195] SPEAKER_10: I think what we're saying with this is these are some factors to consider. And yes, it does take a year to even consider it. And if that's something we're going to do, I wouldn't recommend we start considering for this next school year. If we do, if the board does indicate they want to look at that, we'd have to spend all of next year studying this to really look at is this something we want to do.

[1212] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, but that would be for 2021, right?

[1214] SPEAKER_10: The study would occur in 19, well, would occur in 2021. That's correct.

[1220] Nancy Thomas: That would, yeah. No, the study would be for now. For a year, and we're hoping to start in 2021. So it would be a year from next year.

[1230] SPEAKER_10: So if that's something the board wants us to look at, we could look at that.

[1234] SPEAKER_28: Start looking at it next year.

[1235] SPEAKER_10: And some of the impacts that are mentioned on the sheet are the one school approximate to member Gutierrez's question is really largely main office staff and principals. Anyone else that's in the classroom would not be we wouldn't be reaping any savings there, because they would, in theory, be transferred to another school. Possible loss of enrollment. If you close a school, there's no guarantee that they're going to show up at the other school you assigned them to, depending on how you handle it. And there is some vulnerability of a charter school moving in. And those numbers could, in those two second categories, the reason there's x's is that those are unknown right now. So I think part of it is, I think, a consolidation of closures on the table. I think it's up to the board to give direction to staff of, hey, we do want to look at a study. We want to take a year to really weigh all the factors. As mentioned before, all things are on the table. But those are the conversation. And you're going to hear more about the parcel tax, I think, as a little bit of an update from the Enhancement Committee. So there's another slide to come on that that you're going to bring forward.

[1303] Ray Rodriguez: So I wanted to ask something on the school closure part. I always look at that as a gross because I When you look at the principal's salary, the principal can move into other positions. And then classified, they have bumping rights. And then you have the possibility of losing enrollment because they don't want to move to another site. So then after you subtract all that, then you get to the net. But my figure on closing a school had always been closer to about the savings of about $250,000, not $494,000. And that's based on all the others. That's a net. So when we really get into it, then we can break it all down.

[1352] SPEAKER_10: Exactly. So I can add what brings the number up is the savings on utilities is the other factor. Right. That's what brought that number up to a higher number. So I don't want the public to think that the principal and that staff is making that much money. OK. Because that's not the case.

[1372] Bowen Zhang: So my question for the year 2020 to 2021, last time when we did this overview, is we're going to need to cut around $1.3 million to have a balanced budget, right? So since you just said closing a school is not recommended, so do you have a list of budget reduction that doesn't include school closure and still add up to $1.3 million?

[1400] SPEAKER_28: We could.

[1401] SPEAKER_10: That's what we're beginning to bring to you tonight, is to start building that list.

[1404] SPEAKER_28: This is just the start.

[1405] SPEAKER_10: So let's keep adding and sharing what we've done so far.

[1408] Ray Rodriguez: Excuse me a second. We've all, except for Member Martinez, has spoken. I know Member Thomas wants to speak. Member Martinez, did you want to speak before that?

[1420] Elisa Martinez: I guess maybe I was just going to ask if we can kind of get through the whole thing. and then I think we have to go back to those recommendations. Sure, but I just want, that was my intention.

[1439] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, so I have to remember, Thomas, we'll just try to finish the presentation.

[1443] SPEAKER_28: But if you read the actual plan where we have the strategic plan, the fiscal, one of the things it talks about is when you talk about school closure, you have to talk about all the negatives that come from it. And one of the things, it can wipe out real easily all the savings you may get from it. So you have to just make sure you weigh all the factors in the community. Yes.

[1466] Elisa Martinez: And my only point is, we've had the exact same conversation. I think that's what, I think us as a board, we need to make a recommendation. Do we want to go ahead and actually now start understanding what the X's really look like so that we go away from this, but possibly to here's what we really think it is.

[1484] Nancy Thomas: And I agree. And my question is on the first bullet, because that's six Certificated FTE, what is that based on? Who are you talking about in the Certificated FTE for 2021?

[1500] SPEAKER_28: Right now, we know three elementary.

[1505] Nancy Thomas: So that's over the six elementary we're going to stop next year. We're reducing six elementary in 19-20. So you're saying we can reduce another three after that?

[1517] SPEAKER_28: You're likely, because it depends on how the enrollment goes down. But we know that the enrollment had three more for next year than it should have. And there's probably going to be more enrollment down. But notice we don't say, we just say teachers. We're also having the declines at the secondary schools. The declines are across the board. I mean, once the enrollment comes in for the year, we'll know where we're actually down. But we are concerned now that the enrollment appears to be down about 80. And we didn't plan on that at this point. We had planned a lot less. So it is still early. I think kids are still enrolling. It's a new enrollment system this year. So people are enrolling later. So that's what we're hoping is that people will keep enrolling. We thought we were really low in kindergarten. But it's just they're slower in getting onto the new registration system. So we're not panicked yet because people just haven't used. And the secondaries have not enrolled all their students yet. But we're estimating if we continue down, there'll need to be some more corrections in staff.

[1583] Nancy Thomas: But I just want to clarify, reduction in staff because of reduced enrollment is more than balanced by the reduction in revenue. At least for one year, we get a little reprieve, but that's not an ongoing cut.

[1601] SPEAKER_29: The goal is to staff according to an enrollment ratio.

[1608] Ray Rodriguez: So we had figured about 40 minutes for the study session. We're about half there. So just to get the rest of this.

[1617] SPEAKER_29: Thank you. So currently right now, as of today, we have 5,736 students enrolled in our schools. We're projecting that for 19-20, about 5,701. We're going down by 40-something students in 2021 and then 2021-2022. And in regards to the school closure, as an example, this is how much the district will be saving, a breakdown of As an example, a principal, an office manager, a librarian, part-time librarian clerk, that includes statutory benefits as well. Custodians, senior custodians, because we have a senior custodian in the daytime, an evening custodian in the evening. Then break down how much the actual utility costs for gas, water, electricity. So we're looking at about $500,000 in savings, ongoing. if we were to close the school. And we mentioned to the governing board a few months back in regards to we did made some classified staffing reductions as well as moving the custodians to the cafeteria funds in 19-20 to offset some of our deficit spending in fund one. We reduced 20% of our expenditures in books and supplies in 2016-17 by about $300,000, but it's creeping up a little bit. We are adequately staffed for office managers. We have bilingual classroom aid using supplemental funds. Again, we have a hard time finding replacements for classified staff, especially for Maintenance and operations staff for plumber, HVAC. We did hire a electrician, thank goodness. And so we're still looking for an HVAC and a plumber position. But the salary that we pay is not as lucrative as compared to other districts in the private sector. We, again, want to thank the board to pass resolution 2130 to reduce 13 positions Certificate positions for the 1920 Which came up which will come out about 1.4 million dollars or a little bit less than 1.4 So we had several meetings With regarding the revenue enhancement committee. We look at the educational foundation. We looked at the use of facilities and And the board had approved the new fee schedule. So we're projecting that we may increase our cost recovery for the facility use by $10,000 for 2021. I meant 1920. But we also looked at solar. And we also looked at, again, what Beverly mentioned earlier, trying to increase our average day attendance. And we're going to talk more about this. At the next board meeting, the Revenue Enhancement Committee will present our findings to the governing board in regards to how we can look at generating revenues. We looked at partial tax, expanding the STEAM program, robotics, coding, and also intervention to our students. Students that are struggling at home, maybe they don't have a good home environment to study, maybe can expand the library hours, having teachers, certificate teachers available to help our students. And students maybe that are well, that are very intelligent, but they lack the motivation. So that's why we can have interventions where they can do the homework at school site, at the library, in the library. Getting them ready for college. With that said, if any board members have any questions, we're more than happy to answer them.

[1880] SPEAKER_10: So just a clarification, board resolution 2130, the board already acted on that? Yes. Yes, sir.

[1886] Ray Rodriguez: I have a question. The reduction of FTE for certificated, is anybody going to be laid off that you know of? where we're actually giving a person a notice not to return?

[1906] SPEAKER_27: So far we only have one person that was laid off.

[1910] Ray Rodriguez: And what happens in a case like that? Do we give them options to return once we have a better grip on enrollment, or how does that work?

[1921] SPEAKER_27: Yes, we're currently looking at options for this specific person, but he's been notified that the position itself is being because it's no longer needed at the high school.

[1932] Ray Rodriguez: Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Board, any questions? Okay. We're good.

[1943] SPEAKER_29: All right. Thank you.

[1945] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. So we already did the pledge. Now we go to the open session.

[1971] Bowen Zhang: So I thought for that one, at the end, we're going to all ask questions about the budget.

[1977] Ray Rodriguez: No, go ahead.

[1981] Bowen Zhang: Did you want to ask questions? Like about the previous item, about the budget. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, so I have a more like a longer picture question because when I first got onto the school board, we're talking about 2.2 million budget cut. I think at that point, maybe I was missing something. I think the impression that given to everybody in the community is after cutting 2.2 million, we balanced our budget. So at what point did we realize we're actually not $2.2 million short? We're actually, there's additional $1.3 million that we need to cut. So how do we go from needing to cut $2.2 million to realize like, oh, that's actually not enough. We need to cut an additional $1.3, $1.4 million.

[2028] SPEAKER_29: Right. The goal was we passed a resolution, the governing board approved that we do not have deficit spending in the outer years. So we want to make the necessary reductions so that way by 2021, or I'm sorry, 2122, that there will be no deficit spending. That was the reason why.

[2056] SPEAKER_10: Scenario two.

[2057] SPEAKER_29: Scenario two.

[2059] Bowen Zhang: Well, we voted on scenario two like last week, no, I mean two, three weeks ago, I believe. Right. Three weeks ago. But what I'm saying is in early January, when we were talking about budget cut, we had, we said, initially we said we're going to cut 1.8 million. And later we said we conservatively project our enrollment. So we increased the number from 1.8 million to 2.2 million. But at that point, my impression, and maybe I was wrong, the impression is after cutting 2.2 million, we're good. We're supposed to be out of the woods. We're like at least one year we're balancing the budget. And at what point did we realize that there's this 1.4 million missing hole there?

[2099] SPEAKER_10: Go ahead. A couple of the factors that I'm sure Beverly can help as well. We are still, we had based that scenario to, and this year's budget understanding, and we kind of took a step and agreed that we were going to go on a projection of minus 40, 44, I think was the actual. 44 students declining enrollment. So each year over the three years that it would decline, but 44 students. Currently, we're at 80 below. So that's additional 40 that we can handle, which is about half a million dollars right there almost. But what else would you say about how this number grows relative to the 2.2? And that's what's attached to the agenda is the actual, what you're referring to is the 2.2 million that was passed by Resolution 2130. Yes.

[2144] SPEAKER_28: On that 2.2, if you looked at the next year, even with that 2.2 in cuts, you saw the next year there was still a $1.4 million deficit. If you looked, there was still a deficit. And, you know, we couldn't cut everything in one year. It's devastating on program and people to cut everything in one year. So it was a slow, slow transition down. So if you look on the multi-year projection, your multi-year projection will change based on how your enrollment comes in. And there's another thing that happens. Employees are important. So we need to give things, and you know you have to cut if you want to give something to the employees, which we all know is a very important thing to do. A district this size, you have to keep the morale up, and you have to have people doing, unfortunately, everybody's doing double duty everywhere. And even with reduced students, but you don't have the staff that bigger districts have. So one of the things to be just aware of is that we had in that scenario is that if you add

[2211] Bowen Zhang: Salary, you'll have to increase your cuts, but 1.4 was what the actual Deficit was in the following year Does everybody remember that well, I remember doing the interview process When I interview for the board the question is in usd is facing a 1.1 point 8 million deficit There's no mention saying that after that there's another 1.4 million there Like I said, at least as a candidate, my impression is after that 1.8 million, we're out of the wood.

[2246] SPEAKER_28: It's unfortunate because every year the HRS and STRS is increasing dramatically. And without even doing anything, your expenditures are increasing. And statewide, we were told yesterday at the budget, I was in Sacramento, they were in San Jose, that special education expenditures are increasing on all districts. So we don't have enough money coming in and ongoing money. The COLA is not enough to even support what is going on in special ed, what is going on with the PERS and STRS increases. And when you give raises on top of that, you can expect to be cutting at least, you know, two more years.

[2288] Bowen Zhang: Yes. Yeah, so my concern is next year come this time, say if we vote on 1.4 million budget deficit, I mean reduction, I hope we don't come back later on and say, actually, there's another 1.1 million we need to cut in addition to that 1.4 million.

[2305] SPEAKER_26: I think just to add for some clarification, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Beverly, but for us to not be in a deficit for 19-20, you, we would have to go with the first scenario, which was 3 point something in reductions, million in reduction, right? Correct. And that would mean this year we would need to cut 3 point, what was the number? Like 3.4 million? 3.4. So 3.4 million. So then 19-20, we would have basically a zero deficit. But that means a large cut.

[2334] Bowen Zhang: Right, right.

[2335] SPEAKER_26: And that's still not including possible raises.

[2338] Bowen Zhang: Right, right, right.

[2339] SPEAKER_26: So since we are within the negotiating, that's something that we have to keep in mind. So I think the scenario is we cut 3.4. 19-20, we start off with a zero balance. But it's going to be at a deficit anyway if we were to consider raises. Right, right, right. The reality is, moving forward, unfortunately, we're still going to be at a deficit for a while. The goal with these numbers was, correct me if I'm wrong, but really, year 2021, we would have a surplus if we were to do these budget accordingly. Is that correct? Correct.

[2376] SPEAKER_29: Yes. And I will share that on the 30th of November report.

[2381] Bowen Zhang: When we project enrollment conservatively, that's probably three months ago, we said 19 to 20, we'll have a decline of 35. And later on, it's 45 decline. But you were saying, I know, I understand we're switching to a new registration system. You're saying right now we're negative 80 already?

[2399] SPEAKER_29: Well, there's about 80 students. Actually, 90 students are not returning. They say that they're not going to return next year. But bear in mind, we also got registration, new students coming in. So it's a combination of both. So right now, we're still within the range, but we're getting close to our threshold.

[2419] Bowen Zhang: You mean it's getting close to the threshold of 35, decline, negative 35? We're projecting a 5,709.

[2423] Guadalupe Lopez: OK, I see. So this time, we're at least confident that we're going to be close, so 5,701.

[2427] Bowen Zhang: And I think at the end of the day,

[2439] Elisa Martinez: So, yes, so coming back to your original question, numbers have shifted, right? And I think it keeps coming back to that second interim when we had that much more significant decline in enrollment. And I think that it's important to have this discussion that, you know, ideally, yeah, that's it, next. But a lot of it, and I think it's important to understand, it's that enrollment. and our average daily attendance. I mean, if we really think about the factors. So just to manage everyone's expectations, I think, including ourselves, members, that ideally that it is. But I think you asked a question around, well, OK, is this it? If the assumptions hold, then this is it, right?

[2487] SPEAKER_28: Correct. And one of the problems, it's not just in this district. We have the additional problem here in that we have declining enrollment. So, you know, one of the things we put on this list is that we're going to work on increasing the enrollment which would be a very a good factor for you. Other districts cannot keep up with the and it challenges us too with the PERS and STRS increase because the revenue coming in is not covering it for us and it doesn't look like the state is looking to alleviate. We did get confirmation yesterday that for two years there's going to be a slight reduction for us. So that is going to help us. We can actually put that in the budget now. So that helps but it's just a temporary help. We need a permanent help, you know, some sort of factor coming in to help us with the increasing PERS and STRS. Because what a lot of people don't know is PERS was going up higher than STRS, literally, at this point. So that's something we have to keep in mind. So the factors are changing right now, the LCFF. went down slightly next year. It didn't go up. It went down slightly. So the COLAs, it depends on where the COLAs are going to be, but the COLAs are not keeping up with the increases in costs. And it's not just us having that. Other districts are having it too.

[2567] Ray Rodriguez: OK. I'm sorry. We need to move to business. Member Thomas, did you have something else?

[2574] Nancy Thomas: Well, I just wanted to know what our current enrollment is. have we lost?

[2580] SPEAKER_29: Well right now we are at, as of today, our enrollment is at 5,736. Like what I mentioned.

[2590] Nancy Thomas: And what was it at the beginning?

[2594] SPEAKER_29: At the beginning it was at 5,702 but our enrollment increased because our students, based on CalPATS report in October, it was 5,702 or something like that. But enrollment increased because students that attended our school that didn't turn five until after December 2nd. So enrollment increased. We get poor rated revenues.

[2621] Nancy Thomas: So we really, so enrollment really didn't increase. We were paying for enrollment that didn't show up in the books.

[2629] Ray Rodriguez: Exactly. Thank you. So let's move to our business. Thank you for the study session. Ms. Angela, did you want to approach us? Anybody else before we start talking about class size TK to three?

[2648] SPEAKER_08: Go ahead. My name is Angela Ringlein. I'm a Kennedy Elementary parent. I also have a student at the junior high. Three students at elementary and one already enrolled for next year. My husband went to Kennedy. My heart is in this district, but my heart breaks when you guys talk about increasing class sizes. I understand the district's need for financial stability. However, it cannot be at the expense of students, especially lower grade students. Distributing class sizes is merely a stopgap to financial stability. The district is longing to be attractive to younger families coming for Facebook jobs or moving into new housing developments. And I guarantee that none of those families will be attracted to such high class sizes. Whether they're the result of overflowing and distributing among schools or potential school closures, the bottom line is we know that smaller class sizes improve grades for younger learners. As class sizes increase, there just isn't any time for individual attention. If my daughter pulled through in math because a teacher was able to give her a little extra attention, then that is lost. She will get even less personal attention with a higher class size. We will lose students. We will lower test scores and overall learning. We will see families go to other districts or private schools. This is not the solution to financial solvency. It is the lazy answer with our students as the victims. Look for other ways. There are a lot of options, like a language immersion program or a STEM magnet school or moving sixth grade to the junior high. But this is the worst thing you can do for the students and families in this district.

[2739] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. OK. Who else? Anybody else? Mr. Medina.

[2749] SPEAKER_10: One more.

[2751] SPEAKER_04: This morning, I did 20. I tried to build 20 emails for parents. So your system right now, I'm trying to find out from my parents in music school, they don't have emails. So you can't get, so they can't register because they don't have emails. So I was trying to figure out, get them emails. And I wanted to attend, the superintendent came to music school and I was late there, but I was trying to help and I couldn't help all the parents. So I think one of the things you guys need to realize is that there are some things that we need to kind of engage with those parents that don't have emails. And that's a lot of our parents, I think. And we also need to figure out a way that, From a community perspective, I need your help. I need you guys to come out. You can't sit behind us. I need you guys to come out and take the negativity of Newark social media and start battling with us. Because we think, I believe that the negativity promotes parents. Two of my parents that live in my neighborhood, they don't come because of this negativity or what's going on there. So I need help. And I need that type of motivation from you guys to come in and come out to the community and engage with the parents and let them know that they are wanted here. And there is really good people here that are willing to work hard for their kids. So one of the things that I do want you guys to understand is the system has a lot of issues for some of our parents. And we need to get that going because in order for them to get some numbers straight and give you guys some good data, Is that 2,000? But we have a lot of kids that some parents don't know. I had three kids this morning at the office that didn't know that they could come and enroll because they're going to be five, I believe, in October, they said. So there was one October, one in November, and one in September. And the parents weren't even thinking that they were going to wait until next year. So I think there is that communication that we have to engage with some of our community members. to let them know that we have programs to have daycare at music school. So I was engaging with some of the parents and letting them know, hey, but I need that engagement to come from you guys. Ray, you need to step out. We need you. You speak Spanish. Let's get going. You know, Nancy, we need those, you know. Elisa, we need to come out, you know. I need everyone to come out. I saw, I saw Mr. Boyer come out, and he came out and said hi to us. And during one of the activities, we had a music. So we need you guys. We need the staff to come out and see what's going on in order for you guys to make good decisions. So I'm hoping that you guys get this motivation that we have. That energy, I can pump you with a lot of energy. So let's get going. There's a lot of work to be done, and we need to start from the base.

[2938] Ray Rodriguez: OK. Thank you. Thank you much. OK. Superintendent?

[2946] SPEAKER_10: Let's go ahead with the class size limit.

[2948] Ray Rodriguez: Class size?

[2954] SPEAKER_10: This is a follow-up. We wanted to clarify some of the questions.

[2957] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, we basically started talking about this at the last meeting. And so this meeting basically is an extension of that, although we did adjourn the meeting. And just to recoup some of it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Nguyen, It was my understanding that we're at, in just about all our sites except for Birch Grove, we're at about 25 to 1.

[2985] SPEAKER_29: So right now, we are at 23.89 to 1 for transitional kindergarten all the way to third grade.

[2994] SPEAKER_10: So if I may, we're going to answer that in the slides. OK, go ahead. Listen to the slides. I want to remind everyone, we're also bringing it back for board direction, and we were bringing it to the board initially because we need board approval to be able to suggest that we want this flexibility. So we're going to kind of explain those pieces of what that means. So I think I'm going to ask Ms. Saavedra to start with the first couple of slides. Sure. Because that's just where it comes from, this collective bargaining agreement.

[3022] SPEAKER_27: So every year the board is asked to vote on making the determination to invoke Article 8.2 should they find it necessary to do so. This provides the district with the flexibility to increase class size limits from 24 to 29. As you heard our CBO, Mr. Nguyen, he was explaining that we are properly staffing according to enrollment ratios. So it is now that we bring back this article 8.2 for you to take action tonight.

[3058] SPEAKER_29: For 19-20, we are staffing our enrollment ratio at 26 to 1. Back in March 2018, the governing board.

[3067] SPEAKER_10: So let me kind of, I want to just slow this down just a little bit. And I know we're over time, but this is really important. Staffing at 26 to 1, what that means is a school has a certain number of students that are enrolled. And we use that ratio to allocate teachers to that school. And this is specifically for in the classroom teachers direct contact staffing, specifically out of general funds. So I want to just make sure. I know the board knows that, but many people in the audience know, but I think for people watching at home, I want to understand what are they talking about, because sometimes we use that jargon and it's not easy to understand.

[3104] SPEAKER_29: Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. So for 19-20, we are going to staff for transition to kindergarten to third grade at 26 to 1 ratio. We're asking the governing board to approve agenda item 12.5, which allow the district to have the flexibility to go up to 29 and 31, class size limit and class size maximum. So I'm going to give you an example.

[3128] SPEAKER_10: Go to the last bullet. I think that's important.

[3130] SPEAKER_29: Go back. Right. So again, what I mentioned earlier, for 19-20, the staff are making our class size to be 26 to 1.

[3142] SPEAKER_10: Which would be the status quo. on par with this year, and we're not planning to increase it from where we currently are.

[3148] SPEAKER_29: Right. Thank you.

[3150] Elisa Martinez: Sorry, can I just? Go ahead, please. For clarification, I think, because this is a really important distinction, is you're staffing at an average of 26.1. So I think I want to address the issue of some, so I'm shaking your hand. Great question. Great question. So I just want to get that clarity because I want to make sure that we're not staying on average so that we're not at 29 and 20.

[3175] SPEAKER_20: So what we did for this year, it wasn't on average. We literally said for every 26 kids at TK3 at the schools, one teacher. And so it does play out differently and I know Mr. Nguyen has some examples of what that looks like. So some sites are smaller, some are larger, but the staffing ratio was not on average. It was definitely 26 to 1 within TK3 grade level. the allocation of teachers.

[3202] SPEAKER_10: But the average actually came up to be lower.

[3204] Nancy Thomas: Can I ask a question? OK. So a year has passed. Birch Grove had 29 to 1 in some of their classes. Kennedy had 20 to 1 in some of their classes. Next year, the staffing will be based on the enrollment that we have this year. So they shouldn't be experiencing 29 to 1 at the beginning of the year.

[3230] SPEAKER_29: May I ask some comments here? So currently right now, we have three classrooms that are at 28 to 1. And then we have 10 classrooms that are at 27 to 1. But majority of the classes, we have 14 classes that are at 26 to 1. We have 10 that are at 25 to 1, as well as we have 10 at 24 to 1. We have four that are at 23 to 1. So the reason why we have some cases where we have 28 to 1 or 27 to 1 is because, let me bring my notes up here, because as you can recall that I explained that some of our TK students do not turn 5 until after December 2nd. So we want to keep them in our classroom so that way we can get 88. revenue in the outer months. And then there's also where we want to keep families together, where if there's students that are already attending a school and we want to keep them in the same school site, we don't want to move them around. And then there's also a scenario where we want to limit the combo classes. So that's why we have some classes that are a little bit overflow at 27 to 1. There's 10 classes at 27 to 1, and there's only three classes at 28 to 1. But every other classes are at 26 and below. So again, our average class size for TK to third grade is at 23.8 to 1 right now.

[3334] Ray Rodriguez: Member Gutierrez? Did you? OK. OK, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[3339] SPEAKER_29: So as an example, if we were to go with what we have right now in terms of 26 to 1, Three classrooms, like I mentioned, that are 28 to 1. And then there's 10 classrooms at 27 to 1. We would be spending about $24,000 a year if the government board does not approve the class size limit, class size maximum resolution agenda. And another scenario, if the board does not approve the agenda 12.5 to increase the class size limit, class size maximum. And we will be at 24 to 1 as an example. And these are the classrooms that have 3 at 28 to 1, 10 at 27 to 1, and 6 at 14 at 26 to 1 as an example. We're looking at about $63,000 of loss of expenditures.

[3402] Ray Rodriguez: So I had a question.

[3404] SPEAKER_10: Let me just try to clarify before a question. So let me say it in a different way. So currently, what the flexibility means is that because we have, using the flexibility in 18-19, which you've already have allowed, the board's allowed that, we are not having to pay for those overages that occur over the ratio. We're allowed to have the flexibility to go up to 29, And those are the examples currently of how many have gone towards that. On the right side, what we're showing is if we don't act and, you know, communicate that we want to exercise the flexibility, there is a potential impact on finance. And that kind of gives you a breakdown of what that might look like if things hold true to what we've done this year. So I just wanted to make that clear for the public.

[3457] Ray Rodriguez: So I had a question. If the board decides that we don't want any classrooms being over 26 to 1, so if we're talking about birch growth, let's say, and let's say that we have 29 kindergartners, and the board has decided that we don't want that classroom to be more than 26 to 1, then what happens then to the extra three kids?

[3487] SPEAKER_10: So next slide. Glad you asked that. These are the factors of where it plays out. Now we're talking about, OK, if we're going to make sure that that's the case and no classes at over 26 to 1, that would trigger the collective bargaining agreement, which means we would have to pay the overage for each student over. There's potential for more combo classes, which we know is controversial. And in my example, in my mind, the worst case scenario is overflow, which can basically ask, could potentially, we haven't tried, we try not to overflow students, because we don't want to split up siblings and families. But overflow means we don't have room for you here. We're going to suggest you go to another school where there's room for a child in your grade level. And I know we've all heard about that. And we also worry about overflowed students leaving the district. So these are some of the factors that would impact if we do say, if the board says, OK, we're going to really, we don't want that to ever occur. Or if it does occur, how do we do it within the collective bargaining agreement?

[3553] Ray Rodriguez: So the easiest way then would be the combo class, where the kids can stay at the school.

[3559] SPEAKER_10: Only if those teachers are available and there's room to do that. Some years it works out to where there's not many. It just depends on how the grouping of kids play out. You have to wait until you actually have the kids in the school. I don't know if you want to add to that.

[3580] SPEAKER_20: And it also depends on timing. So we have about 17 days to balance classes. So if classes aren't where they need to be, we would undo a class to create a combination. And that does mean more movement internally. So although a student has been with one teacher for up to, let's say, 10 days, because we do want to try to balance classes as soon as possible, then those students would be moved to another classroom to create a combination. That's the worst case scenario. Or we would overflow a student and hopefully there's no sibling. And then we would create a wait list for the student to come back the following year. And then, and kind of keeping those lists. I think where we see the most problems with that is that when it's a grade level like, it's a grade level that's up at the higher grade level. And I know that's not the issue today, but where we can't really overflow students who have been at the same school for four years or five years. Because that's how long, you know, the enrollment date is kept. So it's like the last one in, the first one out. So it does create combinations, and that's the worst case scenario.

[3645] Ray Rodriguez: So before we go to member Gutierrez and member Martinez and member Thomas, can you, on the overages, superintendent, so again, if we're 26 to 1 and that's what we want, and there's three extra students, and the teacher's OK with having those students in there, even though the board wants it to stay at 26 to 1, that would be the option of the... 150 per student per month. No, no, as far as the money part, regardless of the money, it would be the option of the teacher would have to agree and the parents. Is that... How does that work?

[3681] SPEAKER_27: No, the CBA doesn't specify that the teacher has to agree.

[3686] Ray Rodriguez: Okay. Okay. Member Gutierrez?

[3688] SPEAKER_10: They would have to be compensated.

[3691] SPEAKER_26: I'm just looking at this, and to me, it seems like a double-edged sword. So we're looking at a school that is very well-liked by the community. It has high enrollment. But due to this school having high enrollment and a lot of parents wanting to go there, now we need to limit the class sizes. So we either pass this resolution and allow these families to stay together and keep their students at the schools of their choice, of their liking, or We don't pass it, and now we have other difficult options, which is possibly split the families, stop registration, or hold students from attending, in some instances, or combo classes, which I understand are not very popular. So I do understand the financial implications, but it's also, I mean, if I'm seeing this, it's also trying to keep, the double-edged sword is trying to keep the families together in a school that they like. Is that correct?

[3750] SPEAKER_10: If a family's happy with the school, you want to try to keep them there. All budgetary things aside, that's always... Actually, budgetarily, it makes more sense because they're more likely to stay with us. As the board may recall, and new board members may recall, last year we had a situation where a school wanted to raise money to pay for overages. We weren't able to fund those as a district because it wasn't in the budget, but we felt that ethically, unless we were able to pay for it for all schools, that it wouldn't have been fair to pay for one school for the district to pay for overages. So the board does consider and allow parents to fundraise, but some schools can raise more funds more quickly to pay for those kind of very restricted things that they raised money for. And it was a lightning rod issue last year. So I think this is something that it bears consideration of these factors as we move forward. But to your point, I think that Any time you're asking a kid and a family to take one of their children or their child to another site, I key in on the bullet that says they may leave our district. Because I think we have that risk.

[3823] Elisa Martinez: Sorry. The reason it sounds scary is because we don't have a plan. And if we really come back to what is it that we're trying to protect, and it's that ratio. And we know that we do have variation, of course, right? We're talking about a population. And I think that, yes, of course it's a risk. And yes, of course. But what is our plan? I mean, that's really kind of, frankly, what I was expecting to hear is we know that there would be over just combo classes. I'm not sure where the negativity is coming from. I haven't heard necessarily that same feedback. I'm a parent. Both my kids have been in combo classes. and have had fantastic experiences. So I'm just curious, again, where are our data points coming from? And most importantly, what is the plan? Because otherwise, a lot of the comments that I'm hearing here, yeah, that could be scary to parents for any one of us, right, for kids. But so what is the plan? If we know that our potential variation, where's our growth coming from, right? We know that Area 3 is growing, so what's the projected growth for BirchGrow? On the other side of town, what's the projected growth there? Can we pick a designated school that absorbs, that has that additional capacity? And that we would funnel kids where it's generally in the population. So let's come up with a plan so that we don't kind of leave it at all these things can be happening, but what can. And we manage expectations. It's not perfect, I know that. But at least we can have a conversation with parents.

[3923] SPEAKER_20: Sure. So, yes. So, we do have a plan and we did have a plan this year. If you can go back to the slide where it shows the different class sizes. So, for example, this year, you know, we were managing and we closed off some schools to receive inter-district or within the district. So, we did that. So, this year, there was no transfers into the BGs. There was no transfers into Kennedy because we knew that was an impacted school. So, we would continue with some of that practice for next year. We have to. Because we also want to make sure that there's neighborhood slots for the kids moving in. Where I think we really kind of came up to, because we had the flexibility, was at the school sites, particularly the BGs, where we had the flexibility to not separate a family. So we had that. I don't see that it's going to be very many schools. And we looked at perhaps looking at staffing once we balance out and see where it is. we also through the contract can move a teacher at the beginning of the year to really see you know we don't have enough students at school X so we will administratively transfer that teacher to another school so so there is those plans I think what we needed today was just see which one of the two ways are we going to go are we going to go to option a where we know that we staffed at 26 but we still have that flexibility of not splitting kids or overflowing them or do we go to the other way where we know We're going to have an overflow school as we've done two years ago.

[4015] Elisa Martinez: And I hear you. But I think that it's important that we understand, again, the comments that are being made to me would be kind of off-putting. And see, the comment you talked about in terms of where we cut off to, we'll call our internal destination schools, I would see the opposite. Let's open up. If we're going to have overflow capacity, let it be to the schools that folks are going to want to overflow to. for whatever the objective reasons be. So anyhow, that was just kind of my only comment. I just have in my mind, if we wanted to say, let's open it up to 28, 29, those of us who've gone to the classrooms, to imagine those little bodies running around, there is no space for them to run around in. We go to the high school, and they're older, and we already see them like this. So I know it's additional cost. And however, just the investment that we're making, and just practical, practical safety things that we need to consider. So that's my, I guess, my personal challenge from a board member perspective is help us think through what are some of the options, practically speaking, from an overflow strategy.

[4096] Ray Rodriguez: OK, everybody has spoken. Sorry, thank you. No, that's OK. You make very good points. Sorry. That's all right. So staff recommends the board approve the flexibility. Let me just read this for a second, and then if you want to speak, that's fine. Staff recommends the board approve the flexibility of CSL, CSM of 29 to 1 for grades TK through third, and that's what we're discussing. Member Thomas.

[4125] Nancy Thomas: OK. Thank you. I was reacting to you saying everyone has heard. And I have my request here. Go ahead. It's OK. OK. Speaking to the idea of having a plan, can you predict, based on students, the 80 families that are leaving? that some of those classrooms that have 29 this year will not have 29 next year. In other words, can you work a plan, TK was 29, that's unreasonable, and can we work a plan that says, we're gonna revisit, the board never actually has a policy or voted that we would open up from December 2nd to the end of January. That was kind of a staff, well, it'd be good to do because that'll keep kids here, but we never really talked about the cost of it and the impact on the enrollment of having TK at 29 when we have kids there that are not eligible in Fremont to go to that school because they can't go to it unless they turn five by December 5th. So, I mean, can we put numbers and a plan to add the flexibility, but at the same time, say we will work very hard and we're very confident we can not repeat the three classrooms in the same school having 29. That's kind of what I would hope to see.

[4226] Ray Rodriguez: I'm sorry. Are you asking?

[4231] Nancy Thomas: Well, I'm asking staff to respond to that.

[4234] SPEAKER_10: I'd like to respond to that. I think that part of what we need to do is, I think what staff is recommending is flexibility. However, I would add, we do need to take a deeper look at what our philosophy of enrollment in this district is. Even though sometimes people say we're a choice district, I don't know that we are. I don't know that our policies reinforce that. I think the concept of people get to go to the school they want to go to is not the current practice and it's not the current policy. Just the fact that central office is involved in you can't enroll in this site, you can't enroll in that site. I think this comes back to a larger issue of do we really want to do general enrollment at one site and you can go to wherever school you want to go to and the teachers follow the enrollment? That's one philosophy. That's not the current structure we have in this district. So that's a larger conversation we need to have. I think that the other question I want to raise is if we're using flexibility And let's say the board says, OK, do the flexibility thing for now. We're going to study that. Even within flexibility, there's problems. Because if we, OK, you're going to get paid for three kids over 26 to 1. OK, where's the line? Do we draw the line at four kids, and then we overflow you? Is it five kids, then we overflow you? At some point, if we're going to set a hard cap, you're going to tell someone no. And I think that that's part of the philosophical shift that I think is starting to bubble up is we have to get to terms with, do we really want to open registration to all schools, people go where they want? Because that hasn't been our past practice. And I can tell you that pretty accurately. So I think that relative to the flexibility, I am very interested in keeping that at least until we sort things out. I'm willing to say we do not plan currently to go over what we've done so far. and keep it status quo. And if it's starting to look like something different, we would come back to the board. But the budgeting of the numbers on the other side of the equation, it's not huge dollars. If you're willing to say, we're committing to paying overages, my next questions would be, what's the line? Are you willing to pay overages to 3 over, 4 over, 5 over? Because if you say you're willing to pay overages, but you end up with a class of 28 to 1, and they're getting paid for it, it's still a class of 28 to 1. So we defeat our own philosophy with them. So we have to be careful now we roll it out. But I think that it really is a decision. I think we're happy to bring other plans and look at the, I really would like to take a hard look at a registration process and policy and have a new philosophy. And I think that it also comes back to adding definition and metrics to the strategic imperatives. Do we want to be in a district that wants to try to recruit more students? And if so, how many? Do we want to increase by 100, 200, 300? Do we want to stay flat? And those are some larger decisions that we need to board a way in on.

[4414] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. President. Member Gutierrez?

[4417] SPEAKER_26: Thank you. I just want to say one final comment that I know that we're going to have to move forward with this soon. But being that that's the case, whatever the decision is, I would like for our executive team being that we are putting our full trust in you guys, that you guys make a good faith effort to try and keep the class's status quo. So, thank you.

[4441] Bowen Zhang: So, does the board want to make a motion in a second and vote on, let's say... Well, I thought five days ago that most of the board members already made our... No, we haven't made a motion in a second. No, we didn't make a motion, but we did talk about our opinion, and then we said that we're willing to make the upfront investment for the TK and then we know in the other part we need to hold the hard line. And today the superintendent brought up another issue about looking into deeper strategic thinking about the enrollment process, our registration process, whether we want to go to a choice-based school or we continue our status quo where you cannot go beyond your attendance area.

[4481] Ray Rodriguez: So let's say the board decided to make a motion and it passed that we would, that all the schools, there wouldn't be a class over 26 to 1. Then, what you're saying, Superintendent, even if that happens, if there's an overage, even when you say there's an overage of three students, and the parents at that particular site are adamant that they don't want these three students moved, then you still might have a class of 29 to 1, and we're repaying overages. But the board's intent, is to keep that class under 26 to 1. That's the frustrating part. And that happened with Kennedy Elementary, where the parents were adamant that they didn't really want Campbell classes, and they wanted the kids to stay there. So I don't know. I'm open to if the board wants to wait.

[4537] SPEAKER_10: I would offer a suggestion to the board. And maybe it's a bit of an amendment where it would be, going, moving forward with the flexibility of approval, but with the understanding that we do need to come back and really study our registration process because I think that's something that could really help our enrollment. But I think we need to have a deeper discussion about it. But if we move, and I'm happy to, maybe the amendment is also that we would make every effort to maintain status quo and not have classes go over 26 to 1. Currently, that's not a huge number. But we do have 10 that are at 27 to 1 currently, and three classrooms that are at 28 to 1. So maybe the compromise is we use the flexibility to give us some time to study it. And then we'd have to come back with the more accurate actual numbers of what it would cost once we get into enrolling in the fall. Right now, it's not clear. We might be 100 kids low and paying for this is going to be the least of our worries.

[4612] Ray Rodriguez: No, it's frustrating because I have kindergartners that are in classrooms that are at Snow Elementary that are 24, 25 to 1. So if I was given the choice of let's say there were additional five kids And they were within the attendance area that we had to go and be in a class. And then having to move five kids as opposed to having a classroom of 29 to 1, personally, I don't like moving kids from their community school.

[4646] SPEAKER_10: People of their community. There's other ways to resolve it. No, there isn't.

[4651] Elisa Martinez: Right, but that's, I think that's, we need to allow choices so that people can make, we can't make that determination whether we want or not. I think, again, it comes back to, so sorry, Superintendent, I'm reacting to, you know, do we pass this and then come back with a plan? I think that we need to have a plan. Otherwise, I need to vote in the as-is condition. which is there's really no guarantees that we're not going to end up in the same condition that we're in right now with the 29 to 1.

[4686] Bowen Zhang: So what is the compromise you're offering?

[4689] SPEAKER_10: Because I heard you... I think improved flexibility with the understanding we'll make every effort to not exceed the current ratio that we have and we would staff at 26 to 1.

[4697] SPEAKER_29: So please bear in mind that we are at right now for TK to third grade at 23.89 to 1 right now. We only have three classes that are at 28 to 1, and then 10 classes that are at 27 to 1. Everything else is at where we're at, 26 and below. We have one class that is at 19 to 1. We have two classrooms that are 18 to 1.

[4731] Elisa Martinez: But we're not done. All right. So I mean, that's just current condition. I think that's exactly why we're having this conversation is that we don't know what's coming. So therefore, where are we going to cap? So I mean, I don't know that things are going to change very much. So I don't know if we should just figure it out at this point.

[4749] Bowen Zhang: So there is no way to approve different flexibility for different school size? So like TK3 is across the board.

[4757] SPEAKER_10: It's one number. That's it. Well, there is, but it wouldn't be equitable. And if you start getting into disparate treatment of schools, you have to be careful with that.

[4765] Elisa Martinez: But I think that's why, Superintendent Sanchez, I think that's my concern is that we throw these big potentials. We could get into disparate, we could get into... Those are statements because we don't have a plan. And if we actually bring forth a plan, I'm looking at staff that says, we know There will be overflow. The math will not be exact, right? This is not the first time we're running the school. What does history tell us? Is it plus or minus? I'm sorry. And I hear you, and I'll hear you, but I don't see it. I need to understand your assumptions and what your plan is based on. Because it is not the first time we are running this school. So there is history there.

[4818] Ray Rodriguez: Did you want to make a motion or did you want staff to come back with a plan and then we will talk some more?

[4824] Bowen Zhang: Because the superintendent mentioned a couple of minutes ago that we don't really know the exact number. The number can shift around. It shifts all the time. What time frame do you think you will have a more concrete understanding?

[4838] SPEAKER_10: When we start seeing enrollment actually come in in the fall. That's when we'll know more accurately what this is looking like.

[4844] SPEAKER_26: I think it's just important to understand that this is giving the school the flexibility because though I feel that you guys have a plan, it's not something that's concrete because we won't know until the numbers are finalized. So from my understanding is your guys' plan is to keep enrollment low. according, but you guys can't actually give us an exact amount until you get.

[4869] Bowen Zhang: Keep the class size low, not enrollment low.

[4871] SPEAKER_26: Sorry, my apologies, class size low. Thank you, thank you. But we won't know until enrollment's complete.

[4877] SPEAKER_10: So a couple things I want to clarify. First of all, I'm making these assumptions based on past practice in the district and history of disparate treatment in our district. I'd be happy to expand on that. We'd have to move into exec session for me to do that. So there is, no, I want to respond because that's the fact. And I could prove that. We'll do it in closed. If you want to know that, I'll explain to you where this parent treatment was occurring. Point of order.

[4899] Elisa Martinez: I listen to you. Point of order.

[4901] SPEAKER_10: I'm talking. Point of order. I listen to you. And you said you'd listen to me. Go ahead. I'm asking for that professionalism now. So that did happen. So I do think we need to have a deeper discussion about capping. If you want to cap class size, I'm all for it. No one on staff wants to bring class size to 26 to 1 or higher. No one wants to do that. Honestly, if the board chooses to say, you know what, let's make sure no classroom goes over 26 or 24 to 1, we'll come back with a plan and we'll execute it. So I think that keep saying that we don't have a plan, we do have a plan. What you have is a decision in front of you. Do you want to make the decision to really cap and adhere to keeping class size low K-3, and then we'll come back with the numbers for you to vote on? Or do you want us to use flexibility like we've done in the past, which has been past practice? Doesn't mean it's been great. But we're used to that. It's really up to you. And we'll follow what the board majority tells us to do. It's not even an issue of a plan. I think we could approximate as much as we can. But I don't think it's going to be a huge number if you agree that you want to pay for overages. But I am going to have you vote and decide when you hit how many is too big for a classroom. Because on one hand, you can't say, I want to keep class size low. Oh, but we're going to allow five or six, seven extra kids in that one class at that one school. But over here, we're not going to allow that. So that's the conversation we have to have. Member Thomas.

[4988] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. I have a question. We are going to reduce 6 FTE at the elementary level. What is that going to do to this average class size that we're experiencing this year because we're overstaffed? And how does that impact these numbers? Won't they make them go up?

[5011] SPEAKER_29: So for next year, we're staffing at 26 to 1. Right now, the class size are at 23.89 to 1 for transition to kindergarten. So if we make those reductions for certificate staff, again, we're staffing at 26 to 1.

[5027] Nancy Thomas: OK, but I don't think I'm making myself clear.

[5030] SPEAKER_27: We've already taken that into consideration. The positions that we've already eliminated have been eliminated and we kept that into consideration when we were staffing at 26.

[5041] Ray Rodriguez: What's the time frame on this item? Do we need to vote on this right now?

[5046] SPEAKER_29: Yes, we'd like to move forward with this vote because we need the governing board to increase the class size limit, class size maximum. because it also jeopardizes our LCFF funding as well.

[5060] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, so we need a motion and a second and then we can go.

[5063] Bowen Zhang: Speaking of board majority, would everyone be comfortable if I make a motion to wait for more concrete numbers so we have a more clear and more specific plan?

[5078] SPEAKER_26: I don't, I wouldn't in that situation only because I understand the time constraints when it comes to this. And I would suggest we move forward and take a vote.

[5093] Nancy Thomas: Actually, we have to do it by the end of June. And the time frame to know what's going to happen is the fall. We have to notify according to the contract with NTA.

[5107] Ray Rodriguez: I don't think it's that as much as the fact that you need time figure the numbers and everything as far as the money and everything, if we decide to go.

[5117] SPEAKER_10: The numbers are there. If you want to keep it at status quo, we could pay everything per child over.

[5126] Ray Rodriguez: So what happens if we just decide that we're not going to vote and we want to move until we have more information? What happens then?

[5132] SPEAKER_10: Then we end up not using the flexibility.

[5137] Ray Rodriguez: So where does that take us?

[5138] SPEAKER_10: That could potentially impact negotiations. I can't say more than that, but I think that we will figure it out.

[5146] SPEAKER_26: That being said, that being said, I'd like to make a motion that we vote on 6.1.

[5151] Bowen Zhang: Well, well, can I make a different motion? Because five days ago I made my opinion pretty clear. I said I'm willing to make that.

[5159] Ray Rodriguez: Oh, I see. Yeah, if Member Gutierrez makes a motion, then she would need a second. OK? So what's your motion, Member Gutierrez?

[5168] SPEAKER_26: I make a motion that we vote on 6.1 as is.

[5171] Ray Rodriguez: as is based on staff recommendation. OK, I'll second that for so we can discuss it, just so we have more of a discussion. So we have a motion and a second. Does anybody? So you want to leave it with the staff as far as leaving the flexibility?

[5191] Nancy Thomas: Correct. OK. Member Zhang, could you explain what your recommendation would have been if you were

[5199] Bowen Zhang: Five days ago, I think five days ago, I said I'm going to make the upfront investment and paying for the overages or paying or holding a harder line in other areas. So if I want to, if I'm going to make a motion, I'll make to keep the, to have the 126 as a hard cap and pay, make up the cost at some other areas.

[5222] SPEAKER_26: Just for clarification then, would member John's motion just basically did not, deny this and keep it as is or?

[5231] SPEAKER_10: With the point of order I would say you would have to repeal your motion and allow him to make the motion again and then the board might take a revote if that's the direction the board wants to go.

[5240] SPEAKER_26: Thank you and just I guess it was more of a clarification to understand what you want to consider which is my understanding is just what you're suggesting is keep a cap.

[5251] Bowen Zhang: Yeah keep a cap and then we'll probably pay for the overages.

[5254] Ray Rodriguez: And what cap would you 26 to 1 and just pay for the overages. So we would be at 26 to 1. Correct. OK. OK. So you would be amending her motion if she accepts it.

[5265] SPEAKER_26: But my understanding, just again, more of a clarification is my understanding based on that then, it's not an addendum to this. It's actually just denying this so we can continue with a current cap.

[5280] SPEAKER_10: Or is that an actual amendment? Well, for the point of order, we have to deal with the motion that's on the table. So if you were to remove that hypothetically, withdraw your motion, that would allow Mr. Young the space, Mr. Young the space to present his motion, see if there's two approvals of it. And then you could set the conditions for that motion, which would sound something. What I'm hearing is a motion to cap class size at 26 to 1. and pay for any overage over that clap size. And we'd have to budget and bring you back a number of what that is.

[5312] Ray Rodriguez: Are you OK with withdrawing your motion so we can entertain his? OK. OK. I'm OK with withdrawing my second. So go ahead. You want to make the motion?

[5320] Bowen Zhang: So I move to cap the clap size for TK3 to 26 to 1. And we'll hold our line harder on other areas and pay for the other costs. Right.

[5336] Elisa Martinez: Just to clarify, I think that these words keep getting added, and we'll pay for every brokerages. Yeah. So meaning that it's not changing the fact that we could still end up at 29 to 1. That's correct. Right. So that is still problematic. Because I think I know, member John, I think that we were talking, or your reference to how do we make sure we make the investment up front and hold the line at 26, right? And so that's a different, I just want to clarify that because otherwise we're just voting for what we have now.

[5373] SPEAKER_10: Basically that would create voting for what we're not paying for now to pay for it. Do we have a second to his motion?

[5379] Elisa Martinez: I'll second his motion for discussion. Discussion.

[5392] Ray Rodriguez: So the thing about, in my opinion, about paying for overtures is the fact that you allow the parents at that particular site to keep the kids at the site. Because if not, you would have to move them to a school that has openings. And that's the same situation we had before. And the only difference is that before, the parents themselves paid for the overtures. The teacher got paid. And now the district would pay for it. That's my understanding. That's the big change. Right. OK.

[5428] SPEAKER_26: So do we vote on member Johns? Right.

[5434] Ray Rodriguez: Do we vote on that now? Yeah, unless anybody else wants to chime in on it.

[5441] Nancy Thomas: Well, I mean, I think it's kind of like a compromise. The district doesn't want to pay overages, doesn't want to have larger class sizes. So let's do everything we can within what you said you would do to try to make sure that class sizes are at 26 to 1. And I would like us to look at TK. I don't think it's fair to have a TK class at 29 when you're letting students in because they're not eligible to get money from the district. So we're giving them free kids. an extra burden on the teachers. So I would hope you'd bring back a policy so the board can vote yes or no on that.

[5485] Ray Rodriguez: So wouldn't this motion include TK?

[5489] SPEAKER_10: The original one was TK3.

[5492] Nancy Thomas: So I'll make my request at the end of the meeting.

[5494] SPEAKER_26: So do we move to vote?

[5498] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah. Let's vote. OK. Motion passes. So can you, Superintendent, can you again restate what we just voted on?

[5525] SPEAKER_10: So my understanding of the vote was that the board wants us to adhere to a 26 to 1, not to exceed that in our staffing for next year. and any overages that would occur, with the direction of the staff that we would try to adhere to that and not have, try to minimize overages, but if there were overages, the district would pay for that district-wide. That's what I understand it to be. Is that accurate? Yes. But try to keep it to a minimum, is what I'm hearing, is kind of the intent of what you're doing. But I do think that there's, it bears more discussion to Member Martinez's point that It's a little better, but it's not a lot better. I think that's something we need to come back and study deeper. And I think we need to do that.

[5572] Ray Rodriguez: We still have the issue of having some classes that are going to be a 29 if we pay for overtures. That still could result. But it would be at the option of the parents. Well, the teacher has to. Wouldn't it? No, the teacher. Right, the teacher has to accept having the three extra kids. But it would be a school where it was more important for the parents to have the kids there than to have the kids in some other school. That's what I meant. Yes.

[5599] Nancy Thomas: The teacher could deny it, right?

[5601] SPEAKER_10: No. No. But it would result in some classes being still above the ratio, but they would be getting compensated for the overages. That's as far as it went tonight.

[5611] Ray Rodriguez: So maybe we can talk more about this. We could bring back more information. Yeah. Thank you.

[5618] SPEAKER_10: Let us run the numbers again.

[5619] SPEAKER_26: I'd like to make a comment just regarding my note. I think it's very important that we take into consideration how much we constrain other things that we, as a board, want to be financially restrictive. But at this point, then, we're also saying, oh, it's OK. Let's spend. So I think it's important that we understand the consequences, but we also I also understand how we're going to be fiscally conservative.

[5654] Ray Rodriguez: Okay. Thank you. Member Martinez.

[5660] Elisa Martinez: Sorry, my no vote was, I just feel like we didn't, we weren't really tackling the issue at hand. Okay. So, yeah.

[5668] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Okay. OK. And the third interim, we've already discussed that and what we wanted to do is accept the report. Is that basically it?

[5679] SPEAKER_29: To accept the report so we can submit it to the CDE.

[5682] Ray Rodriguez: OK. Any discussion? We just need to accept the third interim report.

[5688] SPEAKER_26: Do we need to make a motion? Yes, please. I move that we accept 6.2.

[5693] Ray Rodriguez: OK. There's a motion to accept 6.2. I need a second. I second it. Member John seconds. Discussion? OK, please vote. OK, motion passes. OK, we go to consent agenda, personal items, 7.1, appointment of principal at Snow Elementary, superintendent.

[5722] SPEAKER_10: Jessica, would you like to read the name and tell us about our candidate?

[5735] SPEAKER_27: It is with great pleasure that I would like to, the staff would like to recommend Jessica Tomasini to be our next snow principal. Jessica Tomasini has been our teacher in our district for 13 years. She has ample experience in grades K through 6. She has been an administrative designee for years under the leadership of previous administrator at Snow Elementary. It is a staff recommendation that we vote for Jessica Tomasini to be chosen as our next snow principal.

[5767] SPEAKER_10: And just a clarification, the tradition typically is that we would have them be here, but it was short notice to get her to come tonight. But we can certainly introduce her at a future meeting.

[5776] Bowen Zhang: And by tradition, should we write her name on the agenda items or just say approve the principal?

[5789] SPEAKER_20: That would really be board's direction. I know typically it's closed session, and then it's announced publicly, but that can be the board's direction.

[5797] Ray Rodriguez: We don't need to. I mean, we're voting, right? The staff recommends the Board of Education approve the appointment of Principal Snow Elementary. I move to approve. I'll second it. Member John Moody. Member Ricchiaris. Seconds. Please vote. OK. Motion passes, five ayes.

[5822] SPEAKER_10: We can let her know she's hired.

[5825] Ray Rodriguez: OK, we move for adjournment. Before we do that, there was a couple of items on setting up the agenda. I know I normally put public comment on agenda items on everything that I've done. And it's been a practice that I've wanted to do. And I've pretty well stuck to it. The thing on this one is because we had a long meeting on Thursday where we had a large, a lot of people on public comment, and I considered this an extension basically of that meeting, even though it was a complete new meeting. And, but moving forward, I will have public comment on non-agenda items like we've always had. And then the same thing as far as comments from the board at the end, that this was a special meeting a couple of days after a regular meeting, and that's why we didn't put that in there.

[5872] Nancy Thomas: Okay?

[5876] Ray Rodriguez: Meeting adjourned.

No minutes available.