3/10/2014 School Board Meeting Highlights from OEA

3/10/2014 School Board Meeting Highlights

Notes from OEA

Video of the meeting

Public Comment: a large contingent of parents/community members spoke against the math changes occurring at OIS under Common Core. Their concern is that advanced students will not be able to achieve to their fullest under the new Common Core math program.

Employees of the Month: Marshall Sachs (certificated) and Carolyn Lyons (classified)

Financial Update presented by Lorene Farrell:

$1,757,157 undesignated balance 2014-15

Governor considering eliminating deferrals in upcoming year; should receive  monthly “paychecks.” This did not occur under deferrals during crisis years. OUSD owed 30%. 30% to be paid to OUSD and deferral practice to end this summer.

The LCFF target extends over an 8 year period and there is an annual COLA. At the end of 8 years, all schools in CA should be receiving the same ADA.

State Statuatory COLA:

2014-15 .86%

2015-16 1.12%

81% of expenses are salaries and benefits, just as before LCFF

 Trustee Moran asked about the post retiree pensions lifetime benefits through CALPERS

all employees receive lifetime supplemental medical benfits

certificated = $ 119.00 per month

classified =  “uncapped”

Charles Shannon spoke to the increased workload experienced by OUSD teachers and the challenge of “extra time” needed to maintain a quality program.

Trustee Severson was thanked for attending the Distinguished School audit at Glorietta School 3/7/14.

Trustee Krumholz: under LCFF/LCAP districts need to establish 8 goals for the accountability plan. Attended a CSBA workshop providing guidance for the new structure.

Trustte Butler suggested that the School Board needs to hold public meetings to gather community comment and supports community input

Positive certification authorized for 2014-16, 5:0

Lorene Farrell suggested increase in developers’ fees

$3.36 residential

$0.378 commercial/industrial

$0.245 hotel/motel

OUSD has an agreement with AUHSD to split developers’ fees 70% (OUSD) – 30% (AUHSD). Previously the HS district did not collect fees from the Lamorinda/WC communities ergo new agreement

Increased fees approved: 5-0

Brian Inglesby addressed: non-reemployment of temporary certificated employees.

OUSD has 7 temporary teachers. Brian recommended that this practice continue.

Discussion about leaves of absence (can be granted up to 2 years) and teachers on special assignment (literacy and tech specialist)

Charles Shannon pointed out that temporary teachers are evaluated every year; creates extra work for the teacher and administrator(s)

Trustee Rossitor moved to approve: 5-0

2014-2015 calendar adopted: 5-0

Request for OUSD support for AUHSD Parcel Tax (will be permanent): 5-0

** Board Bylaw 9100- Organization (discussion item)

Trustee Krumholz pointed out that policies are typically reviewed before making a change. 

Trustee Rossiter wishes to select a bylaw that will remove equal opportunity for trustees to serve as officers.

Bob Kadie and Colleen Sullivan spoke to the irregularities of the previous board election and the failure to provide equity and opportunity for each board member.

Trustee Kromholz spoke against Trustee Rossiter’s recommendation with the interest of maintaining trust and teamwork within the board.

** Budget Guidelines:

Dr. Jaconette: operational guidelines; not meant to be part of LCFF piece; first step for next year’s budget. Budget needs to be built and presented to the Board for approval.

Trustee Rossitor pointed out that Budget Guidelines used to be reviewed by the now cancelled Fiscal Advisory Committee and questioned if the Board is giving enough time to these guidelines. Trustee Butler suggested that the budget guidelines need alignment with LCAP.

3% reserve recommended by the CDE

OUSD policy = 9%

OUSD reserve currently at 22%

Discussion item

Mrs. Marshall: Tech Plan:

“Living document; look at each year as technology changes”

E-rate funding discounts to schools for affordable telecommunications and internet access. E-rate plans = 3 years; focus on ethical use and internet safety

Needs to have a strong staff development component

Smarter Balance Assessment Guidelines

Digital media skills outlined in Common Core standards

Internet and cyber safety

Preparation for online testing

School Loop

Student portfolios

International Standards Tech Ed standards for students and teachers

Upgrade paging systems

Establish a baseline for assessments

Annual bandwidth upgrades

Replace outdates devices

Ensure infrastructure and network will be maintained

“Missing component is a tech director.” KM

Plan will be reviewed by County and State to qualify for E-Rate funds

Trustees Moran and Butler thanked those who served on OTAC

Trustee Butler: expressed concern that pg 14 states upgrades will be funded from general fund and facilities. Trustee Butler surprised that general funds would be used since the reference is to equipment. KM: no other source of funding identified (what about Common Core tech money?). 

Tech Director: indicated a need to clarify value of this position and asked if the OTAC teacher representatives confer with teachers at their sites. She also asked for Board updates re: monitoring the tech plan

Trustee Rossitor raised question about how extensive list of harware on pg 13 of report would be funded. 

Trustee Krumholz estimated the value of purchase at half a million dollars. Dr. Jaconette indicated that a bill is being introduced for additional Common Core money. 

Mrs. Marshall indicated a need to prioritize purchases over a three-year period. 

Trustee Butler raised question about current tech techs in terms of full 12-month employment rather than 10 month contracts. She also asked if we have a tech director, do we have to continue our reliance on Marin IT.

Charles Shannon asked if the school Parents’ Clubs’ tech purchases are equitable throughout the district.

Board member activity reports:

Trustee Severson: Bus Committee: more $ available as funding is tied to sales tax; attended meeting at Glorietta during Distinguished School visit

Trustee Butler: attended music program at OIS; complimented program 

Dr. Jaconette: district choral program at OIS; complimented program

Trustee Butler requested Common Core math for OIS as agenda item due to parent expression at opening at meeting; and school discipline policies (different policies at each school site)

Trustee Butler requested that the Board look at how Board Meeting agendas are posted online.

OEA Site Rep Mtg Report Feb. 24th 2014

4-5:30  Glorietta, Room 7

Welcome & Approval of Agenda

Guest speaker J

Charles will look up clarification on job shares and who gets them.

Site Rep Reports

·      Del Rey (Margaret Sawyer)- not present

·      Glorietta (Ashley Ho)

         -Professionalism of those coming on campus (IT)

·      OIS (Katherine Palmer-Collins & Sue Boudreau)

         -Class size issues continue with special ed. Brian I. goes by Ed code for

               the weighing of students. BRIAN I. TO BE INVITED TO THE NEXT REP

              COUNCIL MEETING – CHARLES WILL FOLLOW UP.

            -Chris Severson wrote back to Sue about her email concerning inter-

              district transfer saying that it doesn’t address the question the board

              had.  Sue will write him back with a question.

·      Sleepy Hollow (Cathy Shipp)

         -K teachers wrote a letter wanting to explore a longer day.  Kathy M. came

              to the principal and the teachers and said she was taken aback that they

              wrote it.  The teachers asked for clarification on how she had wanted it to

              be handled. 

            -RTI programs aren’t consistent throughout the district.

·      Wagner Ranch (Katy O’Neill)

         -Upper grade teachers has release time for report cards.  The lower

              grade teachers have lost prep over the years.  Teachers would like

              release days for all teachers.  Could it be a negotiaton?  Teaching hours?

            -A concern from a teacher about being pulled out for inservices.  Parents

              are making comments about being out a lot.  When in reality it isn’t a

              personal day, it’s a district meeting.  Make sure to add this to newsletters

              so parents know this so if it comes up then they will know.

            -a concern about field trip money and what happens if a classroom

              collects too much vs doesn’t collect enough.  The Principal should deal

              with the overage…teacher should check with Principal.

            -grandparent’s day.  How much time is this going to take? Teachers are a

              bit stressed about this. TB clearance?  We need to check on this.

Discuss Rep Council Meeting Structure

·      Instead of just reporting on what is happening at the sites.  More about continuing the discussions we want to talk about.  Have a list of topics that we want to disuss.  Asking staff if there are any issues that we should cover, etc.

NEA RA Election Announcement & Voting Procedure (Charles S)

·      Every state is represented.  Starts March 4^th and returned to Terry S. no later than March 18^th.

·      Charles passed out all the ballots to the site reps. They can be returned via inter district mail.

Treasurer’s Update (Colleen Sullivan)

·      Checking $29,202.26

·      Savings $2,025.08

·      Total….$31,227.34

Adjournment

LCFF and LCAP, what does it mean for OUSD?

The increase in state funding for OUSD this year due to the increase in LCFF dollars (Local Control Funding Formula) is over $1 million.

How will those funds be allocated?

The funds will be allocated according to the Goals and Priorities in the LCAP,  the Local Control Accountability Plan. School Districts are required per Ed Code #52060 to get LOCAL input from all stakeholders in developing their LCAP Goals and Priorities, and how to allocate the LCFF funds.

Ed Code 52060(g): "A governing board of a school district shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan."

This is separate from the CCSS Implementation Funds. OUSD is receiving $499,000 in CCSS Implementation Funds (approximately $200 per student state-wide). The CCSS Implementation Funds must be used only for 3 purposes: 1) Professional Development for Common Core, 2) Instructional Materials, 3) Technology for CCSS testing (SBAC).

Overview: The LCFF and LCAP are part of the most significant change in California public school finance in the last 40 years.  The new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) radically changed the State K-12 funding allocation method (thus, "Funding Formula"), and greatly reduced restrictions on State funds allowing local decision making and priorities  to drive district budget development ("Local Control"). 

Under the LCFF, most State funding coming to school districts and schools will have fewer restrictions.  No longer does the State direct money for some of the specific programs that had been historically funded (i.e., textbooks, counseling, deferred maintenance, safety, etc.). The use of LCFF funds now is required to be determined by local decision making. 

  

Three excellent sources of information regarding the key aspects of the LCFF are:

1. theCalifornia Department of Education (CDE), http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp

2. theLegislative Analyst Office (LAO)

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx

3. WestEd who is working with the State Board of Education (SBE). 

http://lcff.wested.org/lcff-channel/episode-8-overview-of-the-local-control-and-accountability-plan/

One of the major requirements in LCFF requires all school districts to develop a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) that aligns the district's financial resources with its educational goals in the LCAP. 

Eight State Priority Areas were adopted  by the SBE, that all districts must address in their LCAP: 

·       Student Achievement

·       Student Engagement

·       Common Core Standards

·       School Climate

·       Parental Involvement

·       Course Access

·       Basic Services

·       Other Student Outcomes

The LCAP requires districts to solicit input from all stakeholders in the development of its goals in the priority areas. 

The LCAP is a 3 year plan which must be approved by 7/1/14, and updated every year thereafter, and is detailed in Education Code #52060-52077:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=4.&title=2.&part=28.&chapter=6.1.&article=4.5.

§ 15497. Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update Template: (SBE)

http://instruction.sbceo.org/pdf/Curriculum%20Council/Jan_2014/SBE-LCAP%20Draft%20Template-Jan%2016%20Item%2020%20Attachment%203.pdf

______________________________________________________________________

Leg Analyst Office (LAO): An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula, (pg 10-13 pasted in below):  http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.aspx

Transparency and Accountability Under New System

In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013–14 package of legislation establishes a set of new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Districts that do not meet the goals specified in their LCAPs and fail to improve educational outcomes are to receive assistance through a new system of support and intervention. We describe this new system in more detail below.

District Development and Adoption of LCAPs

Districts Must Set Annual Goals in Eight Specified Areas. Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals in each of the eight areas shown in Figure 7. These eight areas of specified state priorities are intended to encompass the key ingredients of high–quality educational programs. Figure 8 identifies how districts are to measure success in each of the eight areas, with districts required to include associated data in their LCAPs. The plans must include both district–wide goals and goals for each numerically significant student subgroup in the district. (To be numerically significant, a district must have at least 30 students in a subgroup, with the exception of foster youth, for which districts must have at least 15 students.) The student subgroups that must be addressed in the LCAPs are listed in Figure 9. (In addition to specified state priorities, districts’ LCAPs can include annual goals in self–selected areas of local priority.)

Districts Must Specify Actions They Will Take to Achieve Goals. A district’s LCAP must specify the actions the district plans to take to achieve its annual goals. The specified actions must be aligned with the school district’s adopted budget. For example, a school district could specify that it intends to provide tutors to all EL students reading below grade level to improve its EL reclassification rate. To ensure the LCAP and adopted budget were aligned, the school district would be required to include sufficient funding for EL tutors in its adopted budget plan.

Districts Must Use SBE–Adopted LCAP Template. In preparing their LCAP, districts are required to use a template developed by SBE. The template is intended to create consistency in LCAPs across the state and assist school districts in developing their plans. The SBE is required to adopt the LCAP template by March 31, 2014.

Districts Must Solicit Input From Various Stakeholders in Developing Plan. Figure 10 outlines the process a district must follow in adopting its LCAP. One of the main procedural requirements is that a district consults with its school employees, local bargaining units, parents, and students. As part of this consultation process, districts must present their proposed plans to a parent advisory committee and, in some cases, a separate EL parent advisory committee. (EL parent advisory committees are required only if ELs comprise at least 15 percent of the district’s enrollment and the district has at least 50 EL students.) The advisory committees can review and comment on the proposed plan. Districts must respond in writing to the comments of the advisory committees. Districts also are required to notify members of the public that they may submit written comments regarding the specific actions and expenditures proposed in the LCAP.