Mountain View Whisman School District Board of Education - Regular Meeting

25. So you are are a district that is getting less vulnerable in the as as compared to your other districts in the state. Your vulnerability has gone from 83 percentile to 84 percentile to 90%. Okay. So as it stands right now there are only two schools out of 100 uh excuse me districts out of 100 that are less vulnerable achievement. what year it's 24th percentile to the seventh percentile to then a fifth percentile. So this most recent this most recent year it would be 95 um 95 schools out of 100 floating mountain looking at these four metrics. Now what's interesting is that because this is a true relative advantage, it takes into consideration the movement of schools and districts outside of Mountain View Wisconsin Whiskey, you're compared to the growth or the regression of other entities in the state. So your data stay exactly the same with no growth up, no reduction down, and your placement in terms of relative advantage can change because of the movement of other places. So for instance, you have very slight movement in almost identical data in achieve in the achievement category. Okay, almost identical from year on to year maybe one or two% here and there, but your percentile ranking for achievement has continued to go down and down and down. What that says is that it's not really necessarily an effect of your data because your data is staying the same. It's meaning that other other entities within the state, other districts within the state are showing more growth than mountain is for some of those groups. Thus, they're taking steps forward while you're staying the same. So, relatively it looks like steps back. So, if that makes sense, right? That's kind of the

relative nature of the um of the way that we collectively look at it. We come up with a relative advantage number uh just to kind of help quantify that relationship. Um, and so basically what you do is you take that vulnerability percentile and subtract it from your state boost ranking percentile and it gives you a kind of a singular operating to say how close to zero and or positive can we get because zero would mean that students are in the system are performing at what vulnerability would predict. A positive number in relative advantage would be an indicator that uh a school is outperforming where vulnerability would predict students to achieve and a negative number would mean a district and or schools are underperforming where vulnerability would predict students to achieve. I appreciate your patience. That's a lot a lot of information. So we look at it by sight. Okay. So we have the same data just in a different graphic. We have but by sight. So we have um vulnerability level across the bottom. So we have most vulnerable category moderately vulnerable and less vulnerable. And on the left hand side you have achievement level. Low achievement, moderate achievement and high achievement. If a school um in this case a school has the vulnerability level matching their achievement level, they're going to fall in that black rectangle, which means that they are then students are performing exactly where vulnerability would predict them. Not where their potential is, not where their ceiling is, but where vulnerability would predict them to score. Now if a school winds up above their block rectangle that means that they are outperforming where vulnerability would predict and if they wind up below the block rectangle means they're underperforming or

vulnerability would predict. So in this case Castro as this first example is a most vulnerable school that is achieving currently in the low category. So that is where achieve that is where community based vulnerability would predict them to score. Uh, and so they wind up in the black box over the course of time with um um with um extra you know treatment you know you want them eventually to score above that line into the moderate into the high because you're not really going to change vulnerability overnight. You can change achievement relatively short order. Uh so we didn't have any schools that were in a moderate level of vulnerability. But as you go over to the less vulnerable schools uh you have uh in the black in the black rectangle upper right hand corner where you have less vulnerable schools that are achieving at the high achievement category. You have a my Stevenson and Buff. Okay, which means that they are performing where the vulnerability would predict students to perform. Then you have Montaloma and Meadows that are less vulnerable schools but performing in the moderate category. So kind of one stage below where vulnerability would predict. uh and then in the less less vulnerable category performing in the low achievement category we couldn't then grab uh who are two levels below um where community based vulnerability would predict achievement to be okay and again um two asterisks mean it was a deep type school and one a means it was a light touch school just means three-hour visit means two to three days. Uh the next time we'll start to look at student success profiles. We'll try to do that in three levels. Um we do realize that in a prek you don't have graduation and necessarily

college and career readiness metrics, but we do have predictors. So we'll look at some predictors of those things and how they interact on an elementary question. So, and each section will kind of come with a preview. So, the first level of preview in terms of testing and grades is that in general student outcomes don't reach the levels that community based vulnerability would predict. That was just what we went over in the in the vulnerability index. Right? The vulnerability would would predict students are achieving um higher than where a majority of schools have landed. uh overall data trends since pre- pandemic have been flat in the land math with recent declines in more vulnerable student groups uh and then students learning English uh students at an IEP uh those identifying as Hispanic, Latino and socioeconomically disadvantaged are lagging behind their classmates in both language arts and so we have this um just really quickly when we talk about you know equity we talk about um wanting to have acceleration of student achievement. Uh we kind of use this as an organization to as a graphic, right? There have been gaps in uh academic data since they started collecting it in the late 40s and early 50s in the traditional model. And these days those gaps still exist. Uh and it is relatively common to be able to look at a stack of achievement data and be able to identify which groups uh are represented by each line. even if the lines by demographic group aren't labeled. Uh and that's a travesty and that is still possible. So when we talk about equity, we talk about how do you get the bottom line, those kids that are on the bottom side of that achievement gap, how do you raise their trajectory so that their line eventually closes the gap and meets the line that is above them without sacrificing the achievement

or engagement of those that are on the line above? How do you do both at the same time? And it is possible. However, what we say is X marks the spot. So where those two lines come together and they begin to grow together after the gap has been closed, that's where equity is. So we go to our partner district say, "Show me your lines, right? Show me how how's it going? Show me your lines. How's that gap?" Thank you for going on that little trip. Um so we took a look at u testing data in this case ESBback EOA over the course uh of time in this case since 2014 so almost yeah 10 years with asback data you'll see the general trend across that time has been flat okay um you uh on the right hand side I know it's difficult for you to see on the potentially on the video but if you have in your in your hands the right hand side I've just mirrored the labels uh more easily visible as you go across all 10 years. And what you'll find is that there were slight increases uh one point here, two points there. Preandemic in ELA, uh post pandemic, uh there was a a regrouping uh of scores in 22 and then state and your less vulnerable populations within the district have either stabilized and or started to creep back up. However, your more vulnerable groups in this case, students identifying as Hispanic, Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged uh kiddos on an IEP and those that are learning English um have not had the same rebound even if slight. So, um they are and the gap is in most instances. That's the language arts stories are very much the same. Same groups are impacted. Um

and it's it's similar except across from the so then we took a look at socioeconomic disadvantage. We kind of broke that number down a little bit uh deeper. So in the district you have 9 when last school year you had 934 students that were currently experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Of that 934, 47 of them identified as Asian, 39% of them identified as two or more races, 82% ident, excuse me, 82 individuals, not identified as white, and 765 students identified as Hispanic or Latino. The numbers to the right of them are how what percent of that student group to the left that socioeconomically disadvantaged student group mastered or exceeded standards on ESA. So um students that were socioeconomically disadvantaged in Asian mastered or exceeded met or exceeded standards on ES back in the clip of 70%. Two or more races at 59%. uh uh students identifying as white as 51% district average 26% and students identifying Hispanic or Latino at 19%. So when you find um differences within um in this case a group of students that is that are all already checking the bugs of experiencing socioeconomic disadvantagement and there are still stray issues. It gives us another opportunity You know what? There's probably another layer of the back, right? Because it's the socioeconomic disadvantage wasn't enough to unveil the disproportionateness of achievement. So, it's it's another opportunity to peel back and continue to

build back layers, which we'll do together.

Level two is graduation. So, we looked at graduation and the precursors to that, especially for in a prek uh eight environment. Is that a chronic absenteeism? suspension rates and those are the highest predictors of students not graduating at the from an elementary perspective. So then what we do is we take a look at chronic absentism 24 well the past seven years highlighting most recently uh the state average of 19% at 11%. Uh then what we do is we take a look at the individual student groups below to see are is there disproportionality? Are some students more chronically absent than others? Uh and what we find is yeah some slight elevation in socioeconomic disadvantage um students with disabilities and students identifying as Hispanic Latino but it is slight and the number the numbers are on their way down from their post-pandemic high. Right. So all student groups have made uh progress. In this case, they're reducing chronic absenteeism at a rate that nears the rate that the state is also reducing chronic absentism. So it's on its way down. Uh and it's from a district perspective, it's eight points lower than the state average. That is a great thing. Uh and this is the chronic absent infusion uh rate by site. Okay. 2324 and 2425. district average which is 19%. We look at suspensions, right? Uh when suspension data uh comes um from CDE and data quest, uh they look at the five most serious offenses. The five most serious offenses are violence uh violent incident with injury, violent incident without injury, weapons possession, drug related defiance only. Okay. Um and

there's another um the post pandemic um suspensions reached their peak at 2223 school year at 277 suspensions uh from a previous high of 143 in 201617. uh they have been on it now since 2223 uh down to 269 and the following year down to 189 uh in the year following that 2425. The area in which students have been suspended the most or the most frequently suspended is violent incident no injury. It's the fight where got hurt. It's the pushing and swimming. Um traditionally speak when you get to when we look at um suspension rates by sight and overall the suspension rates are low. Um so even though the bar you're working on a uh when you look at percentages you'll see uh that is a small number of students in the district uh and it's smaller which is also a good thing. So you take a look at again the 23 24 to 2425 suspension rates we're talking single digits uh and and in all cases either staying uh flat or reducing when you're cutting 1% of suspensions and your total suspension 2% to begin with. Uh it's still great. So there were 114 total suspensions out of enrollment of 4,000 run through the given the 2425 school year uh which is an overall rate of about 2.4%. The other lens that we look for look at suspensions through is that are some students being disproportionately suspended multiple times? So there's one time suspensions and then there's multiple suspensions. Traditionally speaking, like across the, you know, having done this for a while, looking at the metrics across the state, usually about 75% to 25% ratio is the uh it's

kind of average. So it's and you follow right along there, students getting suspended one time, it's 76% for most student groups. Um and then 24% of those students receiving individual students receiving multiple suspensions. Um so there were 189 total suspensions 144 of them were individual to unique students and 45 of those suspensions for students. So we look for disproportionality there really is a little bit elevated a tiny bit on students with an IEP. However, um again that um it's not signal a finding and or a recommendation. Just something to keep an eye on, especially when there are other triggers in terms of IEP meetings and manifestation type meeting conversations when students with disabilities start to be not openly suspended but receive multiple days of suspension. So, we took a little bit of uh a look at uh stability pattern. This takes a look at how students are um moving through uh the district. So the first bar is first. So kiddos, this is all from 2018. How did kiddos started as first graders in 2018 make it through their eight years in the district? How did kiddos in 2018 and second graders make it through seven years? You know, what percentage and so on and so on through fourth graders starting in 2018. And what you find is the percentage of students that stayed and most stable was by 55% the first cohort, 53% 66% and then 66% for that last week. Uh which is on the kind of moderate to low side, right? So stability uh student groups aren't quite as stable uh as you might want them to be. Uh not warmingly though. Uh the other wrinkle is that we're still working not you collectively

but everyone is still working through there's COVID bubble in here um that affects uh definitely has affected student stability. It also affects student stability differently depending on the context in which you work uh whether it's county or state or other local mandates were different depending on where you were. So it's really it's difficult to quantify that across multiple districts or counties because everyone's experience during that time is very unique. So just know that's a little bubble a little wrinkle that's moving its way out of there. Uh so then we did look at persistence uh just from an elementary school perspective. K5 rate uh the district's gay fire stability rate was 58% uh and we just did it for the rest of elementary schools. So Mont the low end at 30% stability straw at high end at 60%. Uh principal turnover um I'm going to talk about can impact student achievement um we have for the last for the last five years these are the numbers of principal faces that each site has experience uh and their um efforts turnover usually has um high impacts on on student achievement from both indirect and indirect police. I um really difficult to have long-term um uh instructional or behavioral initiatives take hold when there's a for lack of a better term like a revolving door of faces from a leadership position. Weakening of school culture uh can increase teacher turnover uh through lack of support. Um those are all things that uh that are that can happen uh when principal turnover is high and it also affects the students that are most vulnerable uh the most it impacts them

the more severely and in this case uh with uh six different cases in the last few years most vulnerable being cast that is something that is kind of highlighted there is something kind of keep an eye on with a real desire for some stability uh for them and the community Um uh last college and career readiness really a data free. We'll kind of look at some academic foundations as some long-term opportunities. We'll talk about reclassification and timing and then we'll kind of look at some early course success to grades and the relationship of grades through uh ESPback results and the relationship. So anywhere you see yellow It is it means the grades begin at the beginning and beginning. These are grades at middle school. Number one for seventh and eighth grade uh A B C D and then a DF combination and then the total number of marks on the right hand side. Anywhere you see something highlighted in yellow, it's a percentage that is above 30 in the in the area 30% in the area of A or B. If it was a highlight in an area of D, F, D, and F, you'd be highlighted in. Okay. So for middle school, number one, what you see is for seventh and eighth grade, uh, predominant grades that are issued within seventh grade core courses, seventh and eighth grade are the other A's and B. We take a look at DF by student group. We have a couple groups in seventh grade that have elevated D efforts. Those would be e English language learners of six years and plus which are your long-term eels and students identifying as Hispanic or Latino in seventh grade. However, um not the same elevation for eighth graders. It's an interesting dynamic.

Then we take a look at span. So this one is is interesting and the greater the span the more the more likely there is need for greater calibration amongst teacher teams uh on on the site. And so what you'll find, and I'll use the most extreme example because it's the easiest to see, math seven, which is just a regular math seven class, had a a DF rate of 35%. But of all the periods of that being taught with all the teachers at the same school, the same course, just for different periods or different teachers, the lowest effort was 10%. At the highest effort was 63%. at the same school with the same theoretically the same same events of community kiddos uh the only things that's different is the period of so what it does say is that there there may be way different ways that teacher teams are looking at calibrating that sometimes it can be more of a compliance based did you turn in all of your assignments and are you following the directions some can be more of a did you master the standard and let's say they were all talking about mastering the standard then or do they assess in ways that are common that have the same rigor and expectation perhaps? So all of those things have to line up to be for those things to be uh efficient and solidified so that the grade uh and the span of of um is not so drastic. So what you'll see is in this case at middle school one trimester three grades the lowest EF rate across all of the subjects was three and the high was 63. So it's probably on teachers. Mind you, it doesn't mean they're any working any less hard, right? Teachers are busting their busting their minds for lack of a better term. Everyone's working hard. Everyone's heart is in it. These are things that are just structures from the systems perspective

and really provide the alignment that teachers need to lean on say, you know, how hard is enough guards and then let us paint between the lights. So same thing for middle school too, right? Um dominant grades that are received are those of A's and B's. Uh we look at some elevated DF rates and again so students identifying excuse me long-term English language learners uh and students uh that are currently experiencing socioeconomic disadvantagement elevated DF rates of their core areas for seventh grade eighth grade um which long-term English language learners in both language arts and social studies. The story of grade level span is is similar uh not quite as wide but still impact uh in this case for science and the examples in one course and excuse me in one class one section uh and 38% in another section here. So then what we do is they're talking about their experience depending on how well everything is aligned and how much on the same page teacher teams are grades can be super arbitrary like they may how do we know that those grades even meet the master. So what we do is we say okay so let's compare them how kids grades compared to how they're on not that is the end all be all but it is the one hoop that every kid in the state has to jump through is in grades 3 through 11. So minus grade n but um so we take a look and so for middle school number one 73% of kids who had an A or B in their language arts class also never exceeded standards on and 70% of students who earned an A or B in math earned standards met or higher again for math. So yes in context I don't know is that is that good? Is it high? It's on

it's moderate but it's on the high side of moderate. So it's not a bad means it's going in the right direction. Means it's pretty tight, pretty close at middle school one. And he said, "Okay, so what about middle school two?" 87% of students earned an A or a BA on the English language arts also met standards or higher on which is high. 87 is is beyond moderate is high but on counter to that 65% of students who earned an AI and math also earn standards that are higher at middle school number two. So um more higher than moderate number two for language arts um mid moderate uh or low moderate format alignment. So let me talk a little bit about EL excuse me um EL um reclassification of English language learners. This is a stairstep report. The way it's kind of laid out is on the lefth hand side you have years in US schools. Remember these do not equate to kindergarten, first grade, second grade. It's how many years in US schools. And then across the top we have LPAC score levels. Uh one being two moderately developed, three somewhat welldeveloped and then RFIB which means those students actually reclassify. So what you want is you want students to be on track to have a one year's growth per year that they're in US schools ultimately so they can reclassify by their fifth year in US schools. In this case 76% of your students are on that one year the one year's growth trajectory stairst step to reclassify by their fifth year in US schools. 24% are on that. That is not that should not be that is alarming but that is something to keep an eye on. Those students are at least behind that stair step. What was very interesting also is this last one

here. These are students that all have already passed the alpac these students have already scored for and in some instances there that may but they haven't been yet. And so in some instances that means they may not be passing an internal um assessment some sort of internal threshold for reclassification even though they pass states or they may or may not have not gone through the process yet. Um and so what's neat is that of the 181 students I think in the last handful of well this part of the school year I think almostund almost 180 classes also. Kudos kudos to the district and just shows you reclassifications um are are looking pretty good. The the other side of that is the acknowledgement that middle schools are receiving uh students that are at risk or already long-term English language learners uh at a decently high still. You know, I think between the two schools, I think Kitten had uh 49 students um inter uh as either at risk or already long-term English language learners. And if I'm not mistaken, Graham had 96 students come in as learning English language learners. But yeah, Mr. has always students reclassify their fifth year schools. one, not because it's it's cute on a report, but it's really impactful to their success later closer and also the reclassification process in terms of the assessment. It's really difficult once they move past once they get into middle school, junior high. Uh what's great, I'd say what's interesting is we have about 135 or so students that were either at risk or already longterm at the middle school. And but if you look at the

school, the number of students that the middle school are sending out as long-term English language learners, there's about over a hundred of them that have been reclassified from the time they get into middle school to the time that they leave, which is doesn't happen. It is a great thing. So, for instance, I think I referenced roughly 130 some odd students that were long-term English language learners. Uh, of the 63 students that went to high school, I would view this as still English language learners, 24 of them were long-term English language learners when you had 130 to begin with. Uh, and eight of those 24 students also are on an IEP, right? So, it's a more complicated uh more complicated situation than just English learner. So, again, it bodess well for the for the progress there. Uh, and again, that doesn't happen anymore. This is a summary of everything I for the last 49 minutes. It literally is it's completely all into a singular slide. So, um this is a part where um we'll start to see just a couple instances of pie charts. If you see a pie chart in there, it means we ask question. We either ask a question via the survey or we ask question via interviews. Um you'll start to see quotes uh in here. Quotes copies quotes are in blue just to indicate um they are that quote and please and be relevant. This was a completely anonymous and confidential process and remains so. So the only way that a quote will make it to the to the um to the report is if it were sent by multiple people. So we didn't pick out quotes. We just picked quotes that were indicative of a theme or a trend to help add nuance to the data on this. Okay. Or to to help distribute.

So first one is about adult expectations. We ask in your estimation how many students do you believe can successfully graduate UC or Cal State University eligible? In this case that's A through G. 53% of respondents said all or most. All was 14%, 39% said most, 30% said many, 15% said some, said very few. We then asked a question, how many parents or guardians want their child to attend the university upon graduation? Of all, or most, 68%. That's 21%. said all 47% said most, 23% said many, eight% said some, and said very few. And then just for residents, uh we had 351 staff members participate uh in the survey process. That was 12 administrators, 12 counselors, 97 support staff, and 230 teachers. And I know we'll get to the number later, but we have a parent survey also. 651 parents participated in the parent survey. That's a record. So kudos to to the community and to your relationship they're in because that was great participation. I was excited.

We asked parents similar questions um uh about expectations and opinions about education. How important is your student's education to you? Uh and these are the 650 and the 651 respondents. 99 plus% said it was either uh import extremely important. And when they asked how far they wanted their student to go in school, 95% they wanted their students to either go through uh finishing board university or grad grad school. That was with all district respondees, parents. And then we isolated parents from the most vulnerable school just to see how that compared. 99 plus% of the parents at the most vulnerable school also said education either extremely important or important to them. And 91% of parents expected their students to be college. The remaining um that's okay. The remaining findings and recommendations are going to fall into four buckets. Okay. Those four buckets are symbolic native systems, weak program design, Christmas tree effect, and weak system alignment. And what we'll do is we'll get into each of those as we go. Um, and so the first one is symbolic data systems, a preview of that. And in most cases, um, curricular pieces are driving instruction, not the standards. It's not the standards aren't being covered, but they're being covered in the way that they appear in the ad about uh um and not necessarily driving the instruction. Uh there's a weak calibration on the floor of grade level

core instructional expectations as defined as uh teachers are coming up with their own with their own as either teachers or teacher teams um their own floor their own set of expectations and they're working very closely together. But from a system perspective, that's not something that goes from site to site from a district lens that helps uh establish what the floor is. It is very up to teacher games at the individual sites uh and in most cases assessments monitor progress and developmental skills rather than asking grade level agreements on chunks of instruction targets and assessment results do trigger individual teacher reflection and out of classroom remediation. uh UDC as an emerging practice uh in the district. It's using data to generate team instruction responses uh with a few standards skills and or folky uh which is definitely a step in the right direction. Uh it is however it is when I say it's emerging it is more robust in some sites than others. I think it's new and u but it is definitely a process that I think uh we've heard that one that teachers value uh and two I think has long-term positive impact potential provided it is nourished and the data that is being looked at uh is impactful. So it says current assessments. So answering the wrong questions. Well, let's talk a bit about the right questions. Right? So the most helpful questions when doing like data inquiry and those types of methods are uh what is the instruction for from this period of time like what are my expectations? What do we expect students to be able to do? And then under what conditions will all students be able to reach whatever my core expectations are, right? So what does the planning look like? What am I what am I planning to do? Three is how well did students learn what I intended to teach? So that indicates that for the assessment that's being given is

actually assessing what the teaching was intending to teach um and that the data is available and then reflecting and four is under what conditions will students learn that they could not master during that initial period of time. So after having the data what do you do for students that didn't get it? What do you do for students that did get it and do um a lot of the d use right now in common. Uh in this case I already uh doesn't help answer many of those questions. What it does help do is it helps identify you know some diagnose learning gaps uh and it also helps show some growth in some way but not necessarily in a way that facilitates those more formative instructional deeper conversations. Not that teachers can't have around that data it just makes it harder. Uh and what I found is that through what we have I say we team have gone through this process is that teachers aren't just resting on that data as the stopping. They're using all kinds of assessments. It's teacher created assessments. It's they're common formative assessments amongst their team. See that's something that what we talked through the systems lens those aren't things that move across multiple grade levels andor don't necessarily move across multiple sites is based on on the team getting together to make those for themselves. So um that is the some of the limitations with some of the current data from a formative and again this kind I spoke ahead of my so diagnostic and standard master reports don't necessarily get at beyond do one and two levels largely these questions are rooted in DK one and two not three and four and it's really difficult to show mastery um so it may cause false positives false negatives and because these assessments

don't necessarily align with instruction um it it makes it really difficult to make formative decisions this is simply Uh this was pulled out one of the UDC kind of data conversation charts at one of the sites. This is some of the typical data that was at least at one site was being used during UDC. Again the process is fantastic but again limiting if it's standard master one I standard must improve or maintain or did they decrease? If that's as as detailed and or robust as it gets, it's really difficult to know the next steps look like uh when that is coming data set that you have in your hands. Section two is we program design um highly fragmented schedules uh and those schedules undermine sustained learning um by repeatedly interrupting instructional momentum. Uh it reduces the depth of quality of academic engagement. Now we a whole section on that. We're talking about the Christmas tree because a lot of ornaments going up. So, we'll get that in a in a subsequent section. Um, most instruction again is Bible curriculum pieces and the common assessments that are available districtwide don't necessarily assess what students are being taught. They're more diagnostic in nature. Designated ELD was not only visible on all sites mass schedules, but it was visible in person. you know, when you're on site. The focus there though was on more of individual skills rather than um a tie to a preview and review of of core practice uh and core um core content um vocabulary development and really robust oral language practice. uh differentiation based on data mostly diagnostic data was uh largely

remediation and it was largely reserved for out of the classroom. So the most of the differentiation that we saw didn't have to be one instructional with a roster teacher. It had to do with an interventionist or a coach or someone other than the teacher on record um more often than not. Uh and then there were numerous opportunities for other classroom interventions that were not aligned with grade level content andor content grade level content expectations. Thus they show little impact in student. We ask teachers um imagine that you're a teacher new to the school would you specifically know what content you're responsible for teaching? 71% said most definitely. which then asks if you are a new gener that's expected from your course like how hard is hard enough and that goes out to 52% agreement that the same number and then there exists agreement among teacher teams that teach the same subject or grade as to what students should demonstrate in order to earn a grade A or B or C as their calibration 57% and so it is there's just um some teacher things are kind others. Um, and some they often times refer to uh their own colleagues as their best support uh support teams. Um but it does um start to raise the the the need for some sort of alignment and guiding documents that kind of help teachers to know what the guidance other outside or inclusive of the but from a standards perspective also. So let me take a look at enrollment patterns for middle school math. So what you see here

is you have middle school enrollment uh in math programs for math six uh seven and eight on the left you have total enrollment of student um racial and ethnic groups across the bottom and then any box that's green that means that student was more than 10% over represented in that course or if it's red they were more than 10% under represented in that course. So in this case, let's just go over math six. So in this case for students identifying as Asian, they made up 9% of math 6.1. However, their population is 23% of the total population of the district. So that is a more than a 10% under representation in math.1 highlighted in red highlighted in green. Math 6.2 they make up 40 Asian students identifying as Asian make up 44% um the students math 6.2 yet they only make up 23% of the total population it's green because it's more than a 10% over enrollment in that course. So um that's all the reds and greens mean the opposite dynamic is true for those students identifying as Hispanic or Latino. So in math 6.1 they make up 54.5% of the enrollment in that course yet they are only 39% of the total student enrollment. They make up 6.5% of student enrollment in math 6.2 but they make up 39% of the total student enrollment. So again more than 10% over represented and more than 10% underresented. Um so the data starts to you know show us that maybe the maybe place in the in the counties maybe there's a way to look and see um ways u to have uh maybe more equitable

distribution of enrollment across excuse me across we looked at it a couple different ways right now for um the current admission to math like 6.2 which is the advanced placement map uh includes both an ID score uh with a trimester 3 score of 547 or higher uh and then a cast um score of four or higher uh on which is standard is exceeded for math. This just talks about this talks about um using ready Um let's talk I of course tool um and again the district does use it in collaboration with um with um but the more diverse uh the data used for those considerations of placement the better. Um sometimes over reliance and ready can be uh some tracking defects. Uh and then there's also an appeal process for students that don't get selected or assigned to an advanced math class. Uh it's and having an appeals process and also disproportionately it can be used disproportionately by some families as opposed to others. Um those with higher social capital, those with higher levels of comfort engagement with the system or those with more time and confidence to advocate uh for their their kiddos. uh not necessarily a willingness or desire to advocate but have distribution. So we look uh so let me look at all that also kids that eventually get into advanced math. So this is kind of a busy slide. So you

have the whole thing every student on this slide every dot is a kid every what you have is the dotted line is you have that 527 which is that scale score that is the minimum threshold to get in to math 6.2 as a six every student on here as represented already has level. So they exceeded expectation from a state and uh perspective. So really the only variable uh is their score uh and their and their ethnicity. So in this case um every student on the top end that has a green was ultimately admitted uh into advanced math uh even though they were in borderline status and the students with the red X were not admitted uh into advanced math with almost identical borderline status. Um, and it happens that all the entries were students that were not identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and all of the entries that were not admitted were students that were identified as Hispanic Latino. So, there were 15 students that were at Hispanic Latino that had the exact same um metrics as those that were admitted, but they were not the same. Again, um, does not say that people are out intentionally excluding groups from advanced grants. What it does say is that there's something in the system that does not uh that is not necessarily engaging some to be more active in their approach to getting hurt. This does not also appeals process. We'll get into that next to shed a little bit of deeper

light on some of the nuance of this. Let's look at the appeals process. The appeals process and this is for all of math for all grades because the numbers were relatively too small to look at it grade level by grade level. And so what you have here is top of mind identified as Asian, white, more racist and Hispanic Latino. 100% of students identified as Asian who appealed 85% of students who identify as white who appealed have been granted. 75% more races and 71% of students Hispanic Latino One thing that's not written here, but is super interesting is that the number for Hispanic, Latinos, and for two or more students identifying as two or more races, those numbers only come from one of the two middle schools because there were no appeals for one of the middle schools from either of those two groups. So, all of the appeals came from a singular middle school and one didn't have any. Um, so it just goes to, you know, familiarity with systems, how How comfortable is it process? Does everyone know about it? So, it's not people necessarily making intentionally uh racial or ethnic based decisions, but it's about how does this how does this system supporting everyone and does everyone know and feel comfortable in navigating the system? Again, that just helps a little extra nuance to the to the um appeals. So also talking about uh impact uh of academic intervention staffing and it impact on achievement. So you have your regular ELA um

data there um it's it mirrors the slides the beginning of the data that's in the beginning of the report. Right? So you have data from 2016 to 2024. The black line overlaid here is the quantity of FTE of full-time equivalent of out of classroom certificated instructional support um uh to intervention um all the labels it's even though it's hard to read in 2016 there were 17 uh and in 2024 there were 44 but did you see in that black line steadily marches up. Um, what you also see is those bottom three lines on the right hand side are your most vulnerable student groups and there's a yellow below right most vulnerable student groups and their data as ethic is increasing their overall proficiency dwindled at the same time. So the um the increase in staffing at least over the course of those 21 22 23 24 hasn't had the desired at least based on this way of looking at student achievement. That's not to say that there are other ways to look at it, but in this middle class, it does not appear to be having desire and I'll say it again. This does not come from black. Uh we were on every campus. Uh we saw reading intervention, we saw RTI, we saw STE, we saw every we saw teachers working well. We saw interventions working hard, lovingly caring kids. And at the time it's not a people issue. It's a structure. The design is not those interventions are not connected back to work. You

can't can't necessarily expect it to move here and it's not necessarily supporting what students are doing when they go back to the regular classroom several years from obviously the same 17 to 44 groups. It's not having the desired impact. So those groups, students that are not socioeconomically disadvantaged, students identifying as Asian, those students identifying as white, they're staying right where they were really Christmas. Uh this start talking about the impact of of schedules and instructional. So current scandals reflect a commitment uh to robust learning opportunities and enrichment but that is at the expense of sustained high quality instruction. Uh the schedule divides today into short fragmented periods uh whether those are periods periods or just chunks of time school uh that interrupt instructional momentum and limit deeper learning. or academic time is diluted by excessive transitions and an overemphasis non reducing exposure to grade level content. This structures disproportionately disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable students who require sustained uninterrupted learning to make meaningful academic progress. Uh and as behavioral supports uh as those have increased so has the number of referrals. But at the same time, academic outcomes as we just saw for the most vulnerable students steadily declined school. So this is a sample third grade schedule from within the district. Uh it is an actual schedule. I'm using it as a

sample very similar uh from sight to sight. Uh and it shows 850 minutes a week uh for instructional time. Instructional time from elementary perspective is for ELA. 775 minutes a week for non-instructional time this case RTI reading intervention that's going to do the art music living classroom etal actually dedicated to grade level content um I will make that that PE is listed in a instructional plan even though those are required units um because they at least at the elementary level they are by someone else. So they require pull out or a restructure of the block of instruction. That's why it's but again um students the fragments of learning reduce potential of information as teachers are getting started and having to stop losing they're losing kiddos to something else. Uh it's been told some of the things that students are getting are great. It's math. I mean it's it's music. It's it's art. do all kinds of great things. Um, but they're treating them in a way that is interrupting what the initial purpose is, which is really robust instruction. How does it look at middle school? So, we have a stable eighth grade um, excuse me, 8th period middle school schedule. And again, it's a little wordy, so I do apologize for that. There are 16 variations of the middle school schedule, by the way. So when you go look at the uh you look at the middle school schedule there 16 I think

different options and varants. So I chose one uh in the in the period schedule students are getting 812 minutes a week of core instructional time which is ELA math science social studies 820 minutes a week of non instructional time which in this case is PE coding robotics etc. Um that means about 50% of the week of instructional times level four content. In addition to that period a day or almost two hours transitional right passing period 48 minutes a week passing period on top of that uh in this model period throughout week. So essentially you're not getting that five days a week you're going to get it four days a week. On top of that, Mondays is where all eight classes are only 41 minutes long. So by the time you know a kid gets settled in, even if the most eighth grader in the world, it's going to take a couple minutes for them to get in and rested and ready to go. And then same thing up at the end. Uh so by the time on Monday, it really look like so. So again, all of these impacts come together uh and our most vulnerable kiddos. It really has an impact on position especially for English. We wind up with slower reclassification rates potentials for widening gaps um and reading the problem readiness. And the other side of the coin though is that for those more resourced parents students that come to school without that have more educational exposure outside of the four walls from the old school. Uh it may

feel like a schedule that is perceived as well. It may it may feel as a value for um enriching electives and a and a very diverse offering. Um so those are all part of the the future planning conversation. How do you how do you structure it so everyone gets everything? The hardest thing to do this the other day is the hardest thing to do is say no to another great idea. So being able to take a look uh take be able to take a look and say what should be are most valuable to us meeting us as a community and then making really robust and future oriented and maybe hard decisions about what the next impacts behavior supported. Okay. So what you have is you have a number of uh referrals that students um students that have been referred uh behavioral referrals to the office. Green is for middle schools. Blue is for elementary schools. Uh in the data there are two different um types of referrals. There's a local and a state referral. So that's why there's two shades of green. That's why there's two shades of blue. We have the yellow line is the number of FTE fulltime equivalent behavioral support out of class support behavior on campus. So starting with about 16.5 FTE in 2017 18 and ending with 36 fulltime approval folks whose job is in and around behavioral support that's the number of behavior support folks has increased the number of um and the data often times research will tell you that that is not abnormal.

Um some of it is because the efficiency of of reporting we have someone actually enter them into the system. Um there's also part of this though is about reactive nature of the design how they interact with behavior issues. If they are positioned in a way that they are receiving students that are being sent out, well, if there's a landing place for me to send students out that is um that is available that I might learn to use that uh to to for the sake of doing or having a break or some sort of behavioral correction and or having just a timeout. Um but what has happened is that as students are being sent out as more and staff are there to engage with them they're being sent out on a higher clip. Then we take a look at the students that are being sent out and there's a disproportionality there is everyone being sent out at the same clip. So in this case we'll just focus in on students identifying as Hispanic or Latino. They make up 39% of the total population of the district. uh and that has been remained consistent over the course of five or six years. It's it's 1917. Now in 2017 18 they made up again 39% of total population but 52% of referrals uh in 2425 made up 54% of referrals and then year to date uh pulling data on December 2nd they made up 61% of office returns and then the total span is 25 years. So um again the students um that need to be in class the most, ones that are being referred out of class the most. Uh this, and I will say

it again, this is not to say that people are waiting around and um and referring uh students that are identifying as Hispanic or Latino out in a clip that is higher than others. What it does is that there's probably some systems involved that are causing students to be disengaged and or not necessarily feeling uh as part of the fabric may be causing some of the personality that I was looking at but it's system last week systems alignment. So uh there's definitely a need for a kind of a clear measurable strategic plan. Um in this case starting with the strategic vision right a community based student family um based vision of what is what do you want to see the next five eight years look like and once that's established back from that to say okay so in that five year what does year one look how do we measure it what does year two look like and how do we measure it so that by the time you get to year five you're not lighting candles and hoping it would have known over the first time that you're district level services level services are organized across multiple roles uh and departments that can have overlapping responsibilities and again that can result in duplicated efforts inefficient coordination and that fragmentation can cause confusion and burden at school level really from a principal perspective sometimes get you're not sure who to go to if there's more than one covers student services or nutrition or and I'm just pulling uh names off of out of the hat. Um but

there's a need to kind of take a look at that and see where the local uh and there's a need for keep frontloading excited administrators as principles um so that they can be that head teacher in charge and lead all things instructional and behavioral on their campus. And what that means is that it's deeper support for teachers on campus. That's a deeper support for students on campus. and that they are working side by side uh with their u teacher uh so they can ar with their teachers what can be done to accelerate student success. So we're almost there right teacher teams engage in a way where they are identifying essential standards from a multitude of lenses. It is not just what does say it is also what does the local data say? What does the local teacher team experience say? And mixing all of those things together, what would be uh what would be the most salient approach with the essential standard and then once you have it determine what the essential standards are, you need a cloud informative way to assess. So engaging teacher teams in creating assessments that actually stay rigor once I correct it and that aren't a mystery or secret but they're meant to be um uh something that I get back with um into a nested data system where teachers are talking about student data at the same time administrators are talking about classroom data and at the same time district office

the same thing at the same time when everyone's going in the same direction with similar data sets you're able to more efficiently and memorably mobilize all of the rich and robust that you have at your fingertips to who needs it Those needs are going to change over the course of the year. Always do. Um, but being able to create and have those um those response, those data reflection sessions all in a similar window allows the system itself to behave as one to be program design. Uh the first one was just a calibrated design. What I just talked about three level three is making differentiated instruction regular part of the lesson plan not something separate paying attention to when planning instruction for the most vulnerable groups as I do catch up those lines right show me your lines in designated for non newcomers uh it's an opportunity to preview or review grade level four content with an emphasis on cont content relevant vocabulary and oral language practice. Uh the impact of this is most effective when it's directed for content and delivered to students by um English acquisition level. Um but only group that way not track only specifically for that. Um reconsider the instruction and supports uh support and staff service model. Prioritize direct instructional support for teachers and students in the in the core classroom and strategies that are rooted in current grade level expectations to accelerate student achievement remediation. Uh create multiple opportunities for

instruction throughout an expanded day. Think about all the times that you can have access to kiddos before school, after school breaks, summer breaks, all of those times. Um, think outside of the box, how to leverage those those special times for not only increasing the trajectory from our vulnerable kids, but also providing the much love enrichment that are already seeking in the district that parents are also uh equally love. opening the focus. So, it's reconsidering those behavior supports navigationary to have those supports be instructionally aligned uh and reduce the reliance on on exclusionary or pull out practices for discipline. is setting up the this position of prevent prevention rather than reaction enrichment and supplemental extras to strategic windows with protective blocks time uh for academics. This experience should be applied when you do have these special times get really neat things like art and music and living classroom. There should be a way to directly t instruction extra much like a class taking your core competencies and you're applying something that actually is either career or technical based. to say from here taking your your core content which is your language arts and your math. Now, how can you then also integrate those into things that aren't necessarily your art your robotics um districts uh that require a minimum amount of blocks for instruction I 120 minutes for ELA and 75 minutes for

math. That is not a recommendation. It's just an example. Um but again being able to come together and say you know how much how much is enough uh and what do we need to safeguard and then have to do other things in around those protected types. Uh and then from a middle school perspective considering uh a district standard of no 70 instructional day just like the bedroom at elementary. I have an example here of a sixth period with flex that is not part of the recommendation. This is an example of something else next to the core courses including English, math, science, history and arts. You should all be treated as three, right? If the if the push is for students and it is based on all of those results, all of the survey results from every single parent that has participated. That is their drive that their students will be successful in college and postgrad. that then the classes that they have now should be geared toward making sure that students have the stamina and habits for content knowledge for that high school success. And by considering those courses pre you're ramping up not just the rigor for some you're ramping up the expectations um and anything outside of your time those four instructional periods um it needs to be intentionally limited or at least clearly justified the impact positive impact whether it's academic impact behavioral impact or development benefit but But not something that is not something that is has been substandard process to be initiated. Last one engage students and staff and families and community partners in creating

declared district three to five years vision and then back to define a very limiting targeted set of priorities. how they'll be measured and what the milestones are and then commit to checking back in over the course of those milestones quiet just to look for places where Javaike teams are doing maybe redundant tasks or the messaging from from back sites uh could be uh could be confused because of multiple messages but taking the time just to reduce to see where the overlap is to help reduce the fragmentation there and the last to implement default loading and PD at professional development for site administrators on all core instructional and behavioral initiatives prior to their roll out. Um allowing teacher levels to be a great resource for their instructional staff and just that support for their teachers. um things that align and have coming together um to create a principal community in practice, right? So they have other principles to lean on and that they can talk and implementation challenges together and lean on each other for best practice. And with that um that so I I do want to close with um with that of an honest sincere thank you. Um you have been willing and open to really every request to request anything that we we have asked. Um you've been super gracious and we have felt that uh and I am excited

for seeing what comes next. Um so with that I hand back to the board and whoever is Thank you. Um thank you for that report. Um Scott will bring it back. Are there any clarifying questions from the board? Trusty Connley.

Thank you. I have a question for Superintendent Bears. So in an ideal world, this is about strategic planning and we take three to five years to do kind of a communitydriven strategic plan. Um, we're also in a situation where there are budgetary concerns and there will be some decision-m around budget very quickly that doesn't allow kind of the same in-depth process that a strategic plan process usually does. How do you see these two things um working together or what what is the path or trajectory after tonight's meeting?

Right. So, with um with well, again, thank you to Scott. Um we appreciated having you here and uh as I said in my opening comments, we don't always want the the information that we want to hear, right? Um or the information we want to hear isn't always um roses and rainbows, but it's important that we hear it so we can do what's right by children in the school district. Um yeah, we have a couple of we have a number of uh converging um decision points that we that we have to pursue here, right? Um we we do need to make make budgetary decisions by the end of January. I'll remind you again um and we uh are pretty close to finalizing recommendations there. we have looked at um the recommendations that we're bringing forward and mapped them against the recommendations that you that you heard from Arenda just to make sure that nothing stepped that we weren't stepping out of line. Um I don't think it means that in the future we can't refine further but um uh taking action to put us on the right path financially is critical. So I think that needs I believe that needs to happen in the month of January. We also need to um look at kicking off that process of identifying a um planning for what our what our three to five year vision is so we can we can do those two things concurrently. Um I I don't see a conflict with those two.

Thank you. Any further questions? Trusty Lambert. Uh yes, as I said before, thank you very much for your presentation, all the hard work that your group did and I thank you I you know especially thank you for trying to make it very clear uh not using as much jargon as uh often occurs in educational uh uh presentations. Uh one of the questions I have is you indicate there's and you seem to feel comfortable with a five-year target for reclassification. Is that um is it unrealistic to expect that to be shorter?

Uh that's an interesting question. Um it is not unrealistic. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not unrealistic. Um that in some instances a shorter it may be a shorter path for some as well as your your data indicates that that some have not taken their full years. you have reclassified kids after second grade and third grade and um in that case those kiddos that had to one or two to three years uh within US schools um the the five-year from a state perspective their fifth year is the what you would want the the final threshold to be right the the no later than right um and any and so it is realistic uh to get there faster um but there also systems like within the state, not here, uh but there are also systems in the state that rush reclassification and we'll have students reclassified um uh and then through the monitoring process we'll have to go back and and kind of remassage that instruction uh because they did it too early. Um so

yeah, and maybe just to add a little flavor to that, I think what um we all know kids learn a whole lot when they're young in elementary school, right? and to get them proficient as soon as possible so that they are, you know, gaining knowledge and and learning and not talking about getting ready to for high school but getting ready for middle school, right? And um when you set a target um satisfied with that. So um and your point is well taken about reclassification has to mean something and be meaningful. You just don't want to kick the you know push things forward prematurely. Um so thanks for your comment about that. So you know gave me

trusty

um too too quick and I apologize I jumped straight to Superintendent Bear earlier. Thank you for the presentation and the the detail and the data that is invested here. I know it's a lot of time by the team on the ground um and all of our community members and staff who participated as well. Um, building off of um, Trusty Lambert's question, my understanding is and something that seems strange here is that the criteria for reclassification don't necessarily align with the criteria for ESPback proficiency in ELA. Is that correct? So from um

in terms of like the level the LPAC I guess well the the way that it works um is that students have to have one um have to have a four on LPAC to want to reclassify. Everything else after that um is uh an LCAP measure, right? That it's it's part of the LCAP. So districts get to determine uh what it is that um the internal measures for them to reclassify. Um I think I'm if the is the question what is the relationship between passing the the rigors of ELPAC versus the rigors of ESPback?

Yes.

Um they are um similar and different. How coincidental is that? um students that through ELPAC um one of the main differences is that as even though like for instance speaking and listening occur in both instances, LPAC is going to actually assess students speaking and listening whereas listening uh is only assessed on um on ESPback. You'll also find that um uh in those instances that on ESPback students have multiple um opportunities to listen to the things that they are listening to for those portions of the assessment where ELPAC is one and done. Um, another major difference and it's not a a rigor difference is in the manner in which those score those tests are delivered. Right. Um, ESBAC is delivered on a secure browser through a state platforms and and very much rigorously and securely ratcheted down. Um, ELPAC is more oneon-one and um there is more opportunity and um not a district level comment but generally speaking there's more um uh opportunity for human error in that process. Uh depending on the training uh and the expectation of who is delivering the assessment to kids because it's a it can in some instances be a one-on-one um variable. So the the other thing about ESPback is that ESPback is revolved around state standards. Um and ELPAC is really assessing students what they will call um reading uh and English acquisition uh through speaking and listening uh reading and and writing. So ELPAC is not tied to California standards whereas ESPEC is.

Thank you. And then my second question is related to um the slide that showed academic intervention staff increasing and student outcomes not. Um, I think one of the challenges is the data we're looking at, um, because it's ESPback data, it's third graders and up and our most recent interventions, the, um, the the reading instruction that has been very targeted in the last few years has been primarily geared towards the lower grades. We did expand it this year to some of the upper grades, but the uh kind of the literacy strike team that was going in is focused on lower grades. Is it I don't know that those students are showing up in our data yet. They haven't hit third grade. They're not taking the state testing. And similarly, Amplify uh is our science of reading curriculum that we implemented for the first time last year. Those kids aren't going to show up in our state testing until 2728. So, do you have any feedback on how to make decisions around some of those or just how to think about some of those intervention programs if we don't have an ESPback data point for them yet?

It's a great question. Um, and you're absolutely right. um depending on how on the deployment of the the reading interventionists that um the three to four years post um reaching back may not yet capture those students in a in an aspect lens. Um um the second part of your the second part of your question was ask me again. the amplify similarly the amplify science of reading curriculum we're only in our second year of implementation and I would expect the largest impacts to change there to be when students who started with it in kinder hit third grade

I think the biggest takeaway from this is the importance that when students are getting what we would call intervention or what they're getting as extra or different just check some very similar boxes right it it doesn't supplant what they're getting from core instruction. So, it is indeed extra. It is indeed an an intervention and a and a supplemental an extra support. Um, and I think the other thing that we that we found too that I think is a great lens to maintain when evaluating uh program and design is in addition to filling is as students get older the the reading reading u intervention for a kinder and a first grader is going to look very similar across multiple kinders and first graders because they're all learning to read. as the students get older, the the gaps start to expand. And then what you'll find is what we did find is that those targeted times are more skill-based and not necessarily connected back to core. And so I think that's where you find um you kind of set yourself up to to have a or it would be beneficial to set yourself up to have this uh uh the a process to just evaluate that is what we're doing. Yes. um making uh students closer to grade level and is it tied to what current grade level is at the same time? Because once the grade level train kind of leaves the station, uh that gap will continue to grow if what they're getting is not on grade level. Uh and it's not that it's not important. Um but any kind of remediation turns into acceleration once you tie it to core expectations of the current grade level. And I think that's the sweet spot. So no matter what the next kind of steps look like and or uh looking at um other processes, I think that's a really important lens to

keep. Uh and I think that's how you'll um I think that'll be very helpful. Thank you. Any further questions from trustees? Trusty Lambert. Oh,

another question. Um we've um you know we've known for a long time that um I'd say the underresourced uh families are less able to take advantage of the opportunities within our school district. And I I like the I like that term resourced. I pointed that out. Um and you know my question is is is it we haven't been successful at doing that even though we've thought a lot about it and it and as you pointed out and it really backed up with the data very very well is that we have structural and processes that that sort of um enable that and accentuate it. And my my question is really do you have any suggestions on on how to um you know address these kind of issues? I thought when uh Trusty Reed and I spoke with you, you had a really you know just a a good good comment about about default uh you know default placement into math programs. And so Matt, you might want to share that with

other trustees. We had um we had been talking about um the student disposition in math placement specifically and um in a previous uh principal context of my own my own personal uh experience. We had something similar in our district around AP coursework. Um, and we had a a community that was 95% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 80% English learner. Uh, schools were gigantic. You know, my my elementary school where I was principal was 1,200 kids. Um, and we also had the dynamic of where uh the system was gatekeeping kids from AP courses, kids that probably could and and should have had at least had a chance uh to show that that they could. We knew they could. Uh, and what we did is we we shifted the disposition of you have to beg, borrow, and steal to get into those courses to you have to beg, borrow, and steal to get out of those courses. So what we did is we had this open enrollment plus um this kind of robust marketing and push to get kids and families to say you know what start there and if we need to adjust we'll adjust the supports under what conditions are necessary for you to be and then we can dial it back. But the shift in that dynamic of rather let's place you there and then work our way back if we have to um meant 30 to 40 50% of the kids that started there that wouldn't normally have thrived. Uh and in that instance uh two or three years uh in a row the district was not just acknowledged for u enrollment uh diverse enrollment but test passing of AP success. So that was something that was super dynamic and it may be something that might be helpful when

thinking about how to approach um math placement um here in the district. What I particularly liked about that approach was that it it gives us as a school district the responsibility to bring those children in rather than always trying to ask the parents right to advocate and and you know express their interest. You showed very clearly on your slides there's the interest there. They want to excel. Okay. in all different ways. So, you know, you know, we can we can help them do that, right? So, thank you, sir. Thank you, Christine.

Yes. I just wanted some um clarification on the program design slide when um you're talking about the different levels. Level eight was create multiple opportunities for instruction throughout an expanded day, including before school, during the day, after school, Saturdays and breaks to help students reach grade level expectations. Um, I wanted more clarification on uh what that kind of would look like, but also um in the context of remediation.

Yeah. So, good question. So, um think about first think about the the the things that you already have, right? not inventing new things, but you have you may have before school, you have definitely have after school program. Um there are probably midday tutorials that are going on. Uh and um there may be, you know, some flex scheduling uh at the middle school. So or wind time or or things like that. What is immediately important though is to agree on what the academic floor is first, right? So you have to have agreement on what the foundation is. So once you have the agreement on what that foundation is, everything in the system can be influenced by that. So picture this uh you have a fourth grade team of teachers across the district that come up with these 25 20 25 30 essential standards with a way to assess them u uh that they came up with um and they're ready to roll with them. that winds up being the base for everything that a fourth grader is going to en encounter potentially throughout the year. Which means that I would want my afterchool programs, whether they're internal or external, to be influenced by what they're doing right now in the core classroom there. I would want my um electives to be influenced with what they're doing there and then right now. uh if they're in the middle school and it's seventh grade, it's not just the eighth, it's not just the English teachers responsibility to make sure students are being uh successful in ELA demands. What is how is the social studies, science, uh history, PE, how are teachers that teach non English courses being influenced by what students are supposed to be doing within their English class as an example. So understanding what grade level is first and then making sure that that is the

road map that everything takes RFP uh you know the whole nine that's how you get everything dialed in. So uh to me that's where it starts and and if it's high to core there will be some things that an afterchool provider just can't do right because of the nature of staffing. you know, they'll have, you know, sometimes my own my own son's after school program was staffed with 22-y old, you know, fresh college kids. They're not trained, you know, uh, uh, reading interventionists, but there were things that they could do that were tied to core that that they could do, whether that's vocabulary, younger kids, it's high frequency words, uh, there's all kinds of things that can be done, but you don't want them to be random things. You want them to be things that are specifically tied to what the expectation is back in the core class. Once all those things start tumbling together, man, it's so efficient and it just it feels it feels different.

Trusty Henry, um just following up on on what you've just talked about, um you know, you've talked about that you've seen at the different sites, you know, individual like the fourth grade example of, you know, fourth grade team at an individual site working together on things, but not seeing it kind of across the district when you have seen in other districts where they have built these district-wide standards together. What has that process looked like?

Oh, interesting. Um, what does the process of building the process look like or what does it look like uh from because one is one is kind of building the system and then the other one is that what does it look like from a how do you see these combined kind of collaborative experiences after the fact? I guess even the just the initial building of that across for example the entire fourth grade staff across the district.

Um initially uh obviously there there's a there's a ton of ways uh to get after it. uh they are uh each step is increasingly uh dependent on uh uh time right time where all teachers at a given grade level are available whether that are designated you know professional development days whether there are days um I don't and as much as I do know about your district I do not know about your sub situations right substitute teaching situations so those types of things um Um but when creating um those aligned you know uh essential standards and and assessments uh more hands are always the right answer. Uh so the want would be to have as many participants as are willing. Uh and the um and not to stray into having multiple uh sets of um essential standards, right? Not not done by sight because then you lose the commonality in that. um once you have the the standards carved out and you start to develop um assessments, you know, those things, this is that's not necessarily a process that happens overnight or in two sessions. That's sometimes a process that can take an entire year, right? because of the how much meat on the bone there is to get teacher teams together. How much you actually want them to digest the why behind what they're doing. Uh how much actual professional development and learning is involved in the conversations around digesting the standards. Teachers are all familiar with the standards but they all interpret them their own way. So when you layer that on top of how hard is hard enough and and even teachers of 15

and 20 years experience will sometimes look uh at ESPback item specifications and say I never knew that they were going to ask them like that. Um because there are so many um and those that's all public stuff. So to me the best professional development teacher teams I've ever gotten at least my own I'll speak in my own example is is by having gone through that process. So, but it's not something that takes two sessions and done. It's something that can take that part of building that floor. It could take up to a year to do that. So, super.

Yeah. How I mean, I would concur having done that previously. It takes time. It's time well spent. It builds a foundation for an entire school district. It embeds a culture of expectation in district. But it takes time, right? It's not a buy something my box package, you know, offtheshelf kind of thing. It it's investment of time. It's investment in our people. It's supporting our teachers in the classrooms. It's all of that. And look at looking at that that I guess that's a pyramid. Maybe it's more of a ziggurat, but um those are built on top of one another, right? We have to build floors two and three before we get to to level eight.

I was just gonna say that that's where the longevity comes from, right? That's where the staying power comes and that's what makes it um not something that was a great idea a year and a half ago and then gone two years from now because that's a lot of initiatives, a lot of things you try, not you particularly, but in schools we do. That's what it looks like. We did this one thing for two years and it wasn't the flavor of the week anymore and then it went away. This is to me this is to me this is more foundational than that. Um because everything else will be layered right on top of it. So you know go slow to go fast. Any further questions? Okay. I will ask one question. Um I think wraps around to trusty colony's initial question to superintendent bear. Um right we have four categories of recommendations here with sub recommendations within them. um we have we cannot do all of them at once, right? Like we can't kick all of these things off and try to do them. Do you have some sense of the things that and it doesn't have to be a rank order or something, but like the things that you would frontload for us to to work through in in a recommendation sense and the things that we will take longer to roll out and so that we can kind of t make the most of the time we have. Right.

That is a that is a great question. Um, and I use a a funny ane uh an anecdote. Um, it's like how early do I start my brisket because the beans only take two hours, right? So, the the brisket is the alignment. It's the instructional alignment. um because that could take up to a year to even start to take shape which is the having teacher teams have conversations around um with the lens of local data, teacher expertise and state expectations woven into one to build the common to build the uh the matrix of essential standards plus the common assessments. Uh so I would say that would be something that would be one of the first cans that I would knock off the fence or at least get the ball rolling uh in that. The second part of that um is really, you know, there are some things in there about taking a look at that might be easier. There might be there are things that taking a look at overlap maybe at the district office of roles and responsibilities that doesn't affect a ton of people outside of the district office to complete that step. It may be a low hanging fruit. Um I think some of the other some of the other processes um u obviously will fall in between there somewhere. There are a couple that you wouldn't want to necessarily wait to do uh until the m the the you know essential standards are done. um starting to have before that having conversations around um what is what is one is what does intervention look like? Um how do we integrate more um differentiated instruction in our regular tier one or classes? Like those are things that are conversations that can start immediately um and that are already happening in some places. The only The reason why it lands in here is it's not because it's a it's vapid everywhere. No, it's it's it's just not

happening as a system. Um, so being able to kind of leverage those sweet spots and start to have those broader conversations earlier rather than later. But I would say I would say priority number one because of importance and because the time it takes is starting the alignment process. Thank you. And can you kind of tagging on to Charles's question? Is it okay to ask a question? What what about the the idea of um schedules and time is another thing you really Yeah. highlighted as a as a roadblock for especially our most vulnerable students.

Yeah. No, and that's and that's great without having the you know the list in front of me. No, those are those are things that can when the from protecting instructional time uh is absolutely something uh that can be done immediately, right? Especially from a uh relatively immediately from an elementary school perspective. Uh, I don't pretend to understand the the the intricate pieces that go into changing a potentially changing a middle school schedule, but I imagine they might not be as easy as as adjusting elementary things. However, um, those are things that I think um would have immediate impact uh, not only on not only on achievement, but because they were so those things were so on the on the lips of all teachers. um that that would be something that would um would be appreciated and and viewed as a huge step in the right direction uh to alleviate some of the um frustration that comes with those fragmented days. Right. So that's a good thanks for bringing that up. I appreciate it. Thank you. Other questions? All right. With that, I will now open public comment on this item. Uh, if any members of the public in person wish to address the board regarding this item, please turn in a speaker card. If you're online, please use the raise hand function. I'll wait to see how many speakers we have and then allocate the time accordingly. I see three in person speakers and none online. That correct?

Okay, with that I will close the time for public comment. I'll allocate u let's see three minutes for each one more yes people in person will be first and we have no line speakers but so we have four we have four and I will get still get three minutes per and our first speaker is Stephen Nelson. Good evening. Um, on this great external review number one, um, I'd like to say pathways is a name to disguise what tracking is. All the rest of the world calls what we do in middle school tracking. And I'm glad this report used that name. Um, recently a Common Core 8.0 math track resulted it at the end of the year 0% of the students in that track were meeting grade level. No metriculating students. If you go into the slow track, you don't get off. That's what the data shows. If you do public records act or you get access to the uh school data showing how students move between these tracks in actuality that's actuality that's not a theory that's what the data shows. Number two relative advantage they're they find they're sliding back relative to other districts and it's

even worse for the SED for the last five years. I keep on showing you this elementary school digger rankings turning um school diver rankings. These little 24 to 25 um I'll call them fuzzy wuzzies now. Uh they're little caterpillars we like to see moving from 24 to 25 that they're going up or they're going just a little bit down. But what we found year after year for the last five years, these school rankings that are amalgamated versions of of math and English are going down. The there's good statistics showing that this effect we see in the individual SEDDS thing is affecting the whole district and particular Castro is down at the bottom. the school that 152 years ago was started as a school for the Spanish students in that part of town still has this socioeconomic uh discrimination and segregation. So number three sed falling math it's consistent relative to the state the last five years of data 2023 was a crossover year with the state. So, um, math placement, it's not working as a meritocracy. There's a clear independent data showing that. Now, four slides. I hope the trustees who maybe are incredulous about this, look at that data. I had a public records act from preandemic that showed this. This also independently shows us we do not have a meritocracy in how we put kids in those middle school math classes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Uh, next up is is Bria. 30 minutes. Thank you. My name is Pria and I'll ask a few questions. Uh, number one, um, I'm just curious if you guys analyzed how specific PTAs and the extra money that are spent, um, on them impact the schools. Like for example, I from reading um, I'll just get cut to the chase. Like for example, AI has a run for fun program. Um there's certain schools pay for Imagineer assemblies. Landals has playworks. Did you look specifically at that and how might that impact schools differently? Number two, did you look and I and I heard you mention the sub thing. I think this is a really big conversation to be having. Did you look at the sub situation at each of the schools? Because I think there's more, as you said, like to peel the onion and really look at the nuances of the situation there. Did you get a chance to see how long-term and short-term absences affect certain schools more than others, especially ones have a sub issue versus not a sub issue? And how what may be called redundancy is actually allowing for education to still be taught when large numbers of subs are not available. And at least kids are getting educated because what we call you may call a redundancy is at the school. And I think we need to have a really really big big bigger

conversation around that. Also did you look at how the choice school when you looked at choice schools what insights did you get from their impact? Um and then uh also I I I appreciated the fractured schedule conversation. Um I can say a lot of that and there were some great things that were mentioned there. I am intrigued about the data around and what your observations are regarding how what we call structured scheduling might also be benefiting kids who need to walk from place A to place B to get the restart or who might benefit from different teachers throughout the day because if they get a teacher that they don't drive with how that might long term affect them for the entire first grade. Have they looked at that? And I'm sure you have been curious. And then lastly, I love the idea of um what I would call thematic teaching, aligning our um what we call or core subjects. But do we have to get rid of people in the name of thematic teaching? And I leave you with that.

Thank you. Next we have um Nicole Data.

All right. Hi, I'm Nicole Data. Um this is my 12th year at Castro. Um my whole career has been spent there and I just wanted to say in on behalf of Castro is some a school that gets talked about a lot. We're in that lovely red often, all the time. Um, my request would be that you guys would come and talk to us. Come see the kids. Don't just have us on a data point. Don't make decisions for us when you are not on the ground. There's people there that are so passionate. My whole staff is passionate. And yes, we are on our seventh now principal in five years. Um, but we still want to be there and we love our kids and our kids work so hard and before all these big decisions are made, please come and be there and see it and talk to us and talk to the kids. Get a translator, whatever you need to do because Castro is amazing and it doesn't get said enough. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next card is Jessica.

Hi. Um my name is Jessica. I'm a uh parent in the district. Um I'm also a partner of the district. Um but I just have one clarification question. um in the chart um under the core um I was curious why steam which is uh addresses science standards and math standards was not considered core but once you hit middle school science is a core um so I was just looking for clarification on that superintendent there's clarification

I I would I would in response to that I would say it was similar Scott correct me if I'm wrong but um it was uh captured that way because of the effect it had on the continuity of the schedule much like PE was described not not for its not for its content but for the way it is affecting the schedule. That's the why.

Yeah. If there's further questions we can follow up afterwards. Um and then in the interest of full public comment I'll take this last card that made its way over to me. Um uh missing a name I think. Yung

um hi thank you for the presentations. Um I I was curious when I was looking at it um there were seven school that you guys you did the deep dive on. I was just wondering was there a specific reason why those school were chosen to have three more visits as opposed to like the remaining four schools. Um, and then regarding the middle school appeal subgroups, um, you have the percentage, but I'm curious about like the amount of appeals for each subgroup kind of, you know, kind of try to tie the number of what the percentage like. Um, and then about the subs, I just learned recently that like the high school they have a pool of fulltime subs. Um, and what happened was that like so I think in the high school I they only have two. They have like five or six full-time subs. So every time that like there's teachers out, they c those up first. So that it's like I think it it makes make it easier to have his pool of subs um and then then the teacher will be able to find time to collaborate as cohort you know so I I mean we have 11 schools so it's a little more complex but that's what the high school is doing so I thought it was good uh to hear and share um instructional minutes I know like I I understand there is like the long like stress in instructional minutes but I feel like for instructional minutes sometime also like what does it mean exact you know does it mean like the butts in the chairs and like learning or is it like actually also experiencing so then you have that you know that hands-on experience that then retaining your brain so much better so I just hope

that instructional minutes it's few in like just not in a black and sense and in like oh paper, pencil, sit and write but more in a dynamic and robust learning sense as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Um floor is now closed for public comment and I'll return to the board for discussion. Anybody the board like to start? Um I can I can kick it off folks because I think it's useful for us to to take this time to Yeah, I know we're all processing a lot of information. Um there's a lot of here to go on. So I do have I wouldn't say fully organized thoughts, but I have things that I took away from it that that I'm trying to think through and we can as we discuss we can we can start there. So, um I think right the the major thing hearing from the the the court, we have incredible staff, kids, community that all really care and are pushing for, you know, achievement for kids, but we're not seeing the outcomes that we want, right? And I think part of that is because of the systems that we have, which is why we have this report. Like the systems that we have where we have a lot of things where everyone's working really really hard and everyone's trying for this, but not things aren't sticking together, right? Like they're not working in concert. They're not aligned and pushing in the same direction. Um, and I think as we start coming back trying to build these systems so that those gears link up so that like all of that effort or a lot of that effort isn't going to friction, isn't going to things running independently and it's actually working together efficiently to help this. Um, and I think that's going to be a big theme I think for the coming weeks, months, years as we like try to understand where where we can make those improvements to start linking these things up together so that we um all are p pushing in the same direction. I think some of that is going to start, you know, we're not going to be doing the hard work of

actually doing it, right? like everyone else out there will be. But our job right here is to, you know, represent the community, try to represent their priorities and the things that they want to see and set those priorities for staff. Staff's going to be the ones implementing it. Parents are going to be there with their kids. Uh teachers are going to be there trying to do all this stuff, doing the same hard work they're doing, but hopefully pushing as one vision, right? Um and so us setting those priorities I think is going to be the discussion that we're probably going to have to start having over over time. Um so that is the the long-term planning process right now. Trusty colleague

thank you for for taking the first step. Uh President DeFazio um I think you know but always coming back to um what we're actually doing is we're we're representing students right like we are here to serve students. We are elected by the community. We take input from every single level and factor of the community. Um, but our job is about serving students. Um, and so I think this was a fantastic starting point. I am very thankful for the light was shine that was shined on many issues. um the slide around the students who were on the borderline for math placement and having that stark contrast based on race is a link that should not be a practice within our district. Um, so we have work to do. Some of it I think we're going to have to do a little bit more quickly than would be ideal for a strategic planning process because of the budget considerations, but I would rather have this information going into a discussion about our budget than to not have it. So, I'm thankful for that. Um, and then I think I also want to, you know, we are processing this, but so is everyone who's here tonight. the presentation wasn't available for the public ahead of time and so I anticipate and look forward to hearing from community members as they including staff parents um as they process this presentation and um there are going to be things that we haven't thought of when we saw it um there are going to be different perspectives that might not have come across in our own conversation and so I I really hope that people can um write in reach out um share your perspective on this. Um we will be having a board meeting next week around budget and so

the sooner the better um to be really helpful. I I often say to people in a in a board meeting trustees we can't talk to each other as a group outside of a board meeting because of the Brown Act. We can't make a majority decision outside of a board meeting. I can pick one Brown Act buddy. We can talk to each other and we can't talk to anybody else about any given topic. Right. Um, and so when people write into us and present information or arguments, it helps us instead of coming into a meeting and getting from point A to B, it helps us get from like point D to point G because we have seen all of these different conversations and perspectives presented by others in the community. It's incredibly helpful. So, if you have thoughts on this, um, please write in and, um, and reach out. I know we're all willing to talk with people as well, but it would be extremely helpful.

Along those lines, uh, Superintendent Bear, could you outline what will be presented on this topic during the next board meeting, the final one? Need to just discuss this report for the special meeting. I don't think we can talk about the next meeting. We can say what we can ask what next steps are after this, but I don't think we can discuss what will be presented at the next meeting in the special meeting. At some point the public would like to

well what I can say is we're going to you're going to get the first glimpse at recommendations regarding budget and it will certainly be informed and influenced by this report. If I can add one other thing. So, Orenda Education has had formerly principles exchange, right, renamed has had tremendous success throughout the state of California with districts who work through their recommendations, right? Change is very difficult. I realize that organizations have a natural resistance to change. We saw three years of data up there that showed us getting progressively um more advantaged but serving our students not as well. We didn't change much this year compared to previous years. I would expect that there'll be a fourth year on there that follows that pattern. If we don't change something the way we are allocating resources in the support of students that will not change.

Yeah. I think to this there's another thing that I could that I was thinking through as we're talking right like about how everyone is working very hard. Sometimes changing how we're working can feel like another new difficult thing to do. Um, but I think working together, we'll start seeing that as as we get over that hurdle, it will, I hope, feel easier as things work together. Because right now, you're we're in this mode where there's this friction and things aren't tying together. And then we're asking to work differently, not but with the same energy that we have for all the staff, right? So, I think that's going to be a hurdle to get over and it's hard. Like, I've gone through that in my work life. It's it's not easy and I'm sympathetic to everyone that when when we have to do that, but I think that's an important thing to keep in mind is that we do share the same mission and everyone does this because they care about kids and getting them educated. Um, so not to diminish the effort that folks are putting in today.

Sure. I was just going to say I think the the board would probably agree with me, Superintendent Bear, that we brought you here to help us create change that is focused on our students. And so, thank you for working through this process and kicking this off. And um you know, you've had much experience in this. You know how hard it is. It

is. And and so thank you for stepping up in that. I I would just add that this isn't about working any harder or less hard. It's not about that at all. Right? It's it's it's working in a way that gets us the results we want for the children children of our community, right? The 91% of the parents at Castro School whose expectation for their children is to go to college. We have to meet that. We have to meet that expectation, right? So, we just have to work differently, tweak some things and align our work together and we will get there and and deliver on that for those families.

Trusty, you

um I think just reflecting on, you know, where we we are with this. I'm I'm very glad to have this report as we go into our budget discussions knowing that these are this this that what you did is not about the budget discussion but that it informs um the conversations that we'll have in the short term but also the the longer term um you know looking at strategic plan I think um the numbers that I saw in the slide about the slides about relative advantage were some of the ones that particularly um hit home for me because you know now that we are you know five years past kind of shut down um along the past five to six years I think it's been easy or it's been clear that things are different for children post you know that shutdown period um but one of The things that stood out in the way that these numbers are changing for us relative to the rest of the state is showing that it's time to to move to, you know, like deal with where we are right now. and that other districts have been able to kind of move out of that sort of stagnant just immediate post shutdown um flat um growth um and have been growing and I think I seeing it in that way um that you put it together um was hard but also um really important as we go forward. Um, I also think it's really important that all of the adults in the district um share the vision um that our parents share, their children of wanting them to be, you know, able to

go to college and grad school and everything else that they may want to do um and to be able to have all the choices in front of them. Um no one unless I just last thing lots of thoughts but um one of the the the other things about the way you presented it that really um struck me is a way of phrasing kind of unify like how we think about the TK to 8 curriculum of being that pre A to G um that what we do leads them to be able to make. I want our our kids who leave this district to be able to take whatever course they want to take at Mount View High School or South High School and to be ready to do it and to be ready to be successful. Um, so that is a a lens that I really appreciated is the way you phrased it.

Reed,

um, I wanted to piggyback on some of those comments. I also was um taken aback by the the slide on how adult expectations can influence student outcomes and seeing adults that are our children are interacting with on a on a daily basis who sometimes our children are spending more time with their teachers than they are with their parents. And there are some of them who don't believe that all these students have the ability to achieve. Um that's problematic. Um, and to see the the opposite side of the parent reactions of most of our parents see that in their children, but yet the people that are spending more time with their children aren't seeing it the same way. Um, that's a major uh misalignment that we need to address. Um, and also going to the the the disadvantagement. We are a very resourced district. We have a lot of funds and resources and various programs in place to help support and seeing those um graphs where the amount of people we're putting in place to uh fix issues but yet we're still we're actually seeing declining in our most vulnerable populations. It's it's something that we need to take a deeper dive of and peel those onion layers back and really think about um what are we doing? We're doing a lot and people are working really hard, but um clearly we're not working in the direction that we need to be working in to really effectively um change the trajectory of where these kids are headed. And ultimately that's what it's about. We are here for the children and seeing a lot of the data from this presentation was really eye openening in that um we we have

decisions to make and we have um a better idea of how to prioritize and a better direction to head that is really going to be servicing these students better than what we've been doing. um to to further I think discuss the prioritization item right I think as we're talking about schedule and minutes right there's another thing that is a finite quantity that we're dealing with kids time in the classroom and as a board discussing how we want to prioritize that time like what we think is the right thing given recommendations from staff like I I'm not an expert on this stuff but but we ultimately like will be setting the vision for that right like that's you have recommendations and we'll listen to you and push back on you when you you have right like but we ultimately are the ones who are deciding how that should go um and as we start making these choices as we start imple as as you all start implementing this I think one of our our major we have the vision to set the other major role we have is to make sure we are getting the results that we expect from this right checking in on these things and making sure they're going right I want to avoid as best we can. The the Christmas tree effect that we've had, right, that was identified here where it's very easy to add things, making sure that they're worth it, making sure that they're working at the right time scale. Some things don't happen quickly, right? like the the investments we're going to make are some are longer term and we expect them to be long term. But being clear cleareyed as we do that for what our expectations are, having milestones we check in on and just getting that here so that we can continue, you know, building systems for this district long after all of us are gone for, you know, the the the the a great society, right, is one where people plant trees that they'll never sit under, right? like

these are things that we're setting up to be in motion for for outside of for when we're here. So that's the beauty of the strategic planning process and setting measurable goals. So I'm I'm very much I'm glad we're in this process and I'm looking forward to u moving forward with um with our team and with our community on it and focusing on students. Any further discussion? All right, with that end this item, let me pull up my agenda.

Thank you. Uh now we're moving on to item three, future board meeting dates. Um the future board meeting dates for the next regular meeting are January 15, 2026 and there's one on January 29th, 2026, February 12th, 2026. Um we have any public comment on this item. Seeing none any online. All right. With no further business, meeting is adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Our next regular meeting is January 15, 2026.