 |
| Please enjoy these daffodils from my walk from work in Boston. |
While school in Worcester was cancelled, the meeting was not; my meeting was, so I got to this one in person to find that the balcony now has some who are interested in good governance of the district attending in person to keep an eye on things. Excellent. Let me know if you're coming; I'm bringing snacks.
The agenda is here. The video of the meeting is here.
The meeting opened with two changes to the consent agenda:
- On Kathy Roy's item wishing to bring in for recognition "all the individuals who were instrumental in offering support to the staff and students of Columbus Park School after the death of their classmate and student, Zella Nunez and her mother, Chasity Nunez," she spoke briefly, and it was filed.
- On the honorary diploma (rather than being approved without discussion) was sent to administration.
With those changes, the consent agenda was approved.
The South High Robotics team was recognized; they even brought the robots ('though, sadly, they did not run the robots).
There were no public petitions. There were no public comments.
The report of the superintendent was on special education. The report starts at about 11 minutes into the video. The report was given by Assistant Superintendent Marie Morse, Director of Special Education and Intervention Services Tammy Murray, Assistant Director of Special Education Gina Creamer, Amanda Martinez, a special education focused instructional coach.
As always, should this be of interest to you, I highly recommend viewing the report in its entirety.
As Dr. Monárrez noted in her opening, special education touches 20% of students in the district (which, given Worcester's size, adds up to the size of many districts in Massachusetts).
As Dr. Monárrez noted in her opening, special education touches 20% of students in the district (which, given Worcester's size, adds up to the size of many districts in Massachusetts).
Those presenting reviewed the spectrum of least restrictive to most restrictive environments in the Worcester Public Schools.
Part of the reason for the report is the audit that was done of the special education department by American Institutes for Research.
Among the findings of that program review:
As has become the practice of Reports of the Superintendent under Dr. Monárrez, the report included not only the information being shared by administration, but also included the perspective of others: they had a substantial section on co-teaching from the perspective of a teacher, the perspective of a parent who is the SEPAC chair, and the perspective of a student.
Vice Chair Johnson spoke of his own history as a social worker working with WPS special education and some of the frustrations that he had in that capacity. He said that the work being done was good to hear about. He asked about the LD lab at Norrback; Murray noted that the program that goes up with Forest Grove, some of whom are in subseparate classrooms, and some of whom are in partial inclusive models. Those students have the most substantial learning disabilities, and they're in the most restrictive environment, which is constantly being reassessed as to how much they can be included.
Johnson asked about the dyslexia screening now required of all students in K-3; Murray said they are all screened on an annual basis. If they score such that it is necessary, they're put in groups that intervene. If they're, year over year, still needing such intervention, it would start a process that could lead to an individual education plan. DIBELs testing, three times a year, in the early grades also looks at students at risk for dyslexia (along with other things). Murray said that they're well aware that they need to put a better plan in process, responding to Johnson noting his knowing of some who might remove their students due to this issue.
Johnson said he wants to be sure they're focusing on the most vulnerable students. He spoke of students who start their education on an IEP, graduate with one, and never have a chance to come back into a less restrictive environment. He asked if the district tracks students who move into less restrictive environments over the course of a year; Murray said that is tracked, but the district needs both better monitoring of out of district students and tracking of students moving. Monárrez added that if students are moving into more restrictive environments, then the district needs to be looking at what is happening in the general education classroom. The work in the general classroom needs to be supporting students even if it is not being co-taught by a specialist teacher, both for special education and for English learners; this will be a focus on the work of the Q teams next year, breaking out of the silo approach, spreading the knowledge.
Johnson made a motion to continue to look at policies and procedures to ensure that they align with state guidelines; he requested a report. He further requested an update on the guidelines on placements of students. He asked that this come back next year, whenever there is next a report on special education, adding a request that it include the number of students who had moved out of restrictive environment. He also asked if the district is looking at students in out-of-district placements to see if they can be brought back; Murray said that review happens on a weekly basis.
Johnson asked about the dyslexia screening now required of all students in K-3; Murray said they are all screened on an annual basis. If they score such that it is necessary, they're put in groups that intervene. If they're, year over year, still needing such intervention, it would start a process that could lead to an individual education plan. DIBELs testing, three times a year, in the early grades also looks at students at risk for dyslexia (along with other things). Murray said that they're well aware that they need to put a better plan in process, responding to Johnson noting his knowing of some who might remove their students due to this issue.
Johnson said he wants to be sure they're focusing on the most vulnerable students. He spoke of students who start their education on an IEP, graduate with one, and never have a chance to come back into a less restrictive environment. He asked if the district tracks students who move into less restrictive environments over the course of a year; Murray said that is tracked, but the district needs both better monitoring of out of district students and tracking of students moving. Monárrez added that if students are moving into more restrictive environments, then the district needs to be looking at what is happening in the general education classroom. The work in the general classroom needs to be supporting students even if it is not being co-taught by a specialist teacher, both for special education and for English learners; this will be a focus on the work of the Q teams next year, breaking out of the silo approach, spreading the knowledge.
Johnson made a motion to continue to look at policies and procedures to ensure that they align with state guidelines; he requested a report. He further requested an update on the guidelines on placements of students. He asked that this come back next year, whenever there is next a report on special education, adding a request that it include the number of students who had moved out of restrictive environment. He also asked if the district is looking at students in out-of-district placements to see if they can be brought back; Murray said that review happens on a weekly basis.
McCullough echoed the question regarding moving students into less restrictive environments. She asked about the ACT program, which goes only through grade 5. Murray said some go to the Collaborative, while some come back to the Worcester Public Schools. McCullough asked for feedback--which was given at length--about the strength of the Q team, quadrant based support model. Murray said that the quadrant model, though the superintendencies of Garvey and Caradonio, worked well then, and she is glad to see it back. She said the Q-team model was like having a mini-special education director in each quadrant. Martinez added the cross-specializing work of the Q-teams, bringing a wider lens in supporting schools. Creamer said that they're always talking about building capacity in the district, offering coaching, sharing ideas, building over time, leaving schools a little bit better over time. She said, "This is how we're going to be able to see the change happen." McCullough spoke of the new IEP putting people on the same page, and the work of the SEPAC, and closed with the importance of inclusion. She asked for a condensed version of what is happening at the alternative school in a letter to the School Committee.
Binienda said, "Worcester has long had very successful special education programs." She said "this is a new team here: everyone on this team is new working in administration." (Not actually the case: she corrected herself on Morse, but Murray was also in administration, too). She said she did not find any data in the report and asked for:
- special education attendance
- grades passed and failed
- work on DIBELS
- progress monitoring results
- discipline of special education students
- number of certified special education staff
- the number of paraprofessionals
- the number of co-teaching programs and what site they are on
She did not say why she needed this information, or why it is relevant to anything under School Committee purview.
Binienda claimed that one high school, which she did not name, was "not allowed" to continue co-teaching, because it required two teachers in a classroom. She said that when the prior director left, they're been talk about professional development for co-teaching, commenting that students look to the special education teacher as an aide in the classroom. She said she thought it would be easier to do in the elementary school. She said she thought she didn't think everyone knew how difficult the job of a secondary special education teacher is, and spoke at some length about what she thinks the job is. And said she hoped that they could "give special education teachers some relief," and could hire more special education teachers.
Binienda claimed that one high school, which she did not name, was "not allowed" to continue co-teaching, because it required two teachers in a classroom. She said that when the prior director left, they're been talk about professional development for co-teaching, commenting that students look to the special education teacher as an aide in the classroom. She said she thought it would be easier to do in the elementary school. She said she thought she didn't think everyone knew how difficult the job of a secondary special education teacher is, and spoke at some length about what she thinks the job is. And said she hoped that they could "give special education teachers some relief," and could hire more special education teachers.
As a reminder: the district is facing a $22M budget gap. It will be up to the Committee to vote a budget which is balanced by June 30.
She then turned to the alternative school program, which, as we have noted in the past, she cannot, under state ethics laws, speak about as her daughter teaches there. She claimed "the location is very difficult for students...the building is not conducive" and she thinks it should be in a different building.
She noted the increase in out of district placement. She asked about the deaf/hard of hearing program.
She also said that the motion to name the alternative program after retired principal Michael O'Neil had delayed repeatedly (we're 4 months into this term, and it has been on the agenda once) and demanded some sort of timeline. We should note that this has never been approved; it has been sent to administration to consider.
She then turned to the alternative school program, which, as we have noted in the past, she cannot, under state ethics laws, speak about as her daughter teaches there. She claimed "the location is very difficult for students...the building is not conducive" and she thinks it should be in a different building.
She noted the increase in out of district placement. She asked about the deaf/hard of hearing program.
She also said that the motion to name the alternative program after retired principal Michael O'Neil had delayed repeatedly (we're 4 months into this term, and it has been on the agenda once) and demanded some sort of timeline. We should note that this has never been approved; it has been sent to administration to consider.
Murray said the district had a lot of move in students who had out of district placement. She said they're looking further at the deaf/hard of hearing.
Monárrez further said that the school is working through the motion regarding the naming of the alternative school; "it would be disrespectful to them" as they are going through a process right now. They want to do the recognition in a way that is authentic and reflective of where they're at.
She then said,
Monárrez further said that the school is working through the motion regarding the naming of the alternative school; "it would be disrespectful to them" as they are going through a process right now. They want to do the recognition in a way that is authentic and reflective of where they're at.
She then said,
...it is really important that when we state things in a public setting, that we're really clear about what we're saying and that we have accurate information, because the public is listening. And if we're not sure, then it's our responsibility just to ask questions first before we make statements.
She stated that no school was told by the district that they could not do co-teaching this year. A school may have made that choice, but the district would not tell a school that has the capacity, knowledge, and staff that they could not offer co-teaching: "That's not the way we work in the Worcester Public Schools."Binienda said she didn't want to leave it that what she said wasn't truthful, "and whatever I say, I say based on fact and on things I know."
Biancheria said there are a lot of exciting things happening. She said, "I didn't hear 'internships' this evening" and asked if students were still being allowed to have those. Murray said that there are internships at the transitions program. Biancheria asked that data include the number of students who are 18 or older "because that does make a difference for when we look at our budget."
Mailman said, having visited the alternative school a few weeks ago, that there is a spirit among the staff there that she thinks has always been there, and praised the art program. She said she sees here "a significant amount of work here" in special ed. She said "we were told a couple of minutes ago that everything is top notch; I think this audit showed we are not top notch, and we have a ton of work to do, and that the intention in what you're putting forward is to correct what hadn't been done properly." She then asked, "how did we get here?"
Monárrez asked for clarification; Mailman said a lot of was found in the audit that we've not been doing well. Monárrez said that it has been her experience in education, including as a director of special education, is that what can happen over time is that the special education department becomes its own siloed entity. It's one place where families can get lawyers and hold the district accountable, and so it's scary and complex, and so the rest of the district will let that silo happen. What needs instead to happen is leadership is "all means all." A child at a school with an IEP is part of everything that happens at a school is part of what happens at that school, and then gets more on top of that. Building the capacity in the schools is necessary for them to take on that responsibility. Other staff need to be picking things up and learning it as well beyond the special education staff. She said 20% is too many students in special education: "Federally, it should be 10%...[20% is] a phenomenal number" which needs to be lower. Murray added that this was due to siloing, and that the Q team model was working on that. She added that WPS also needed to thoroughly assess all programs, procedures in place, processes that are really clear. She said it also goes back to the classroom and tier 1 instruction.
Creamer added that there has been PD on co-teaching, but that there needs to be conversations about students around tables with many teachers. "It's a toolbox we can all work out of."
Mailman asked also for a comparison of district to state numbers on students least and more restrictive, making a motion for that information. She asked if this was related to past discussion of possible overidentification of English learners. Monárrez said that we needed to be sure that everyone understands language acquisition first. Mailman asked about acquisition and access to materials as mentioned in the audit.
Mailman closed by saying, "I don't think it's appropriate to throw...if we're going to make a statement on the floor about something that happened at a school, but we're not willing to name the school, I don't think we should be talking about it on the floor." She initially suggested looking at this through rules in Governance; McCullough suggested that this was point of procedure, and Mailman said then that it should be called out of order if it happens.
The report was filed and the motions were approved on a roll call.
Monárrez asked for clarification; Mailman said a lot of was found in the audit that we've not been doing well. Monárrez said that it has been her experience in education, including as a director of special education, is that what can happen over time is that the special education department becomes its own siloed entity. It's one place where families can get lawyers and hold the district accountable, and so it's scary and complex, and so the rest of the district will let that silo happen. What needs instead to happen is leadership is "all means all." A child at a school with an IEP is part of everything that happens at a school is part of what happens at that school, and then gets more on top of that. Building the capacity in the schools is necessary for them to take on that responsibility. Other staff need to be picking things up and learning it as well beyond the special education staff. She said 20% is too many students in special education: "Federally, it should be 10%...[20% is] a phenomenal number" which needs to be lower. Murray added that this was due to siloing, and that the Q team model was working on that. She added that WPS also needed to thoroughly assess all programs, procedures in place, processes that are really clear. She said it also goes back to the classroom and tier 1 instruction.
Creamer added that there has been PD on co-teaching, but that there needs to be conversations about students around tables with many teachers. "It's a toolbox we can all work out of."
Mailman asked also for a comparison of district to state numbers on students least and more restrictive, making a motion for that information. She asked if this was related to past discussion of possible overidentification of English learners. Monárrez said that we needed to be sure that everyone understands language acquisition first. Mailman asked about acquisition and access to materials as mentioned in the audit.
Mailman closed by saying, "I don't think it's appropriate to throw...if we're going to make a statement on the floor about something that happened at a school, but we're not willing to name the school, I don't think we should be talking about it on the floor." She initially suggested looking at this through rules in Governance; McCullough suggested that this was point of procedure, and Mailman said then that it should be called out of order if it happens.
The report was filed and the motions were approved on a roll call.
Guardiola gave the report of Teaching, Learning, and Student Success, which involved discussion of community early childhood programs and gifted programs. The report was approved and filed.
Biancheria rose to speak to the return of information at her request on the provision of physical education for evening students at the Gerald Creamer Center. She said she was concerned about signing off on grades "when they aren't doing actual organized activities." We should note that the district makes provision for out of school PE credits for other students; this is by no means only true of GCC. Monárrez noted again that very rarely is physical education the need for students who are attending GCC, and that the program makes arrangement as needed for students. She further noted that the being focused on their work and getting it done, often individually, is very much in keeping with the spirit of the school.
Binienda rose read aloud, she said, from the PE policy, and said she'd really like to advocate for a PE teacher to be added to the GCC evening program, which is a second time in this meeting of her speaking on a program for which she has an ethical conflict.
Johnson said "motion to approve and file." It is not clear to me if this includes the advocacy from Binienda for a gym teacher.
Binienda rose read aloud, she said, from the PE policy, and said she'd really like to advocate for a PE teacher to be added to the GCC evening program, which is a second time in this meeting of her speaking on a program for which she has an ethical conflict.
Johnson said "motion to approve and file." It is not clear to me if this includes the advocacy from Binienda for a gym teacher.
Binienda then rose to speak on the report that was returned on secondary teachers carrying an additional class, first again doing her own version of explaining what a 1/5 class is (covered in the backup).
For this section, it helps if you know a little bit about the grievance process, which is covered by Article II (yes, right there at the front!) of the contract between the Educational Association of Worcester (the teachers' union) and the Worcester School Committee; please note that the link there goes to the contract that ran through 2020, but no changes to grievance language were made in the most recent agreement. A grievance is a formal process, very strictly outlined through the contractual agreement between the union and the district, of resolving a dispute between an employee and the employer. The contract is a LEGAL AGREEMENT, and this one is designed to protect LEGAL RIGHTS on both sides.
For this section, it helps if you know a little bit about the grievance process, which is covered by Article II (yes, right there at the front!) of the contract between the Educational Association of Worcester (the teachers' union) and the Worcester School Committee; please note that the link there goes to the contract that ran through 2020, but no changes to grievance language were made in the most recent agreement. A grievance is a formal process, very strictly outlined through the contractual agreement between the union and the district, of resolving a dispute between an employee and the employer. The contract is a LEGAL AGREEMENT, and this one is designed to protect LEGAL RIGHTS on both sides.
Binienda said that she knew of five South High teachers who were teaching an additional class who hadn't received the additional funds she said were obligated, and made a motion to pay them. It quickly emerged that this is something for which a grievance has been filed, 'though it has not--and this matters quite a bit--made its way to the School Committee.
Vice Chair Johnson asked Dr. Monárrez for clarification; she noted that this was a grievance which was with administration; it was not at a step that would involve the school committee. She said they were "working with the EAW to finalize it."
When Binienda persisted, Johnson said that it hadn't yet come to the Committee.
It seemed pretty clear that the Committee members were pretty flabbergasted that she'd do this (the union members in the Facebook comments moved from flabbergasted to outraged very quickly), so it took a bit to hammer out what the right response was; my compliments to the T&G for covering this part well:
"This is currently a union grievance matter," committee member Jermaine Johnson said. "I don't think this should be discussed on the floor in regards to personnel and payments. Because of that, this would actually be considered out of order."Binienda requested to move the order to executive session, but Johnson responded that this move would have to originate from the teachers union."We would take that up with our legal team. We don't make a motion to take up a grievance or money on the floor," Johnson said.Another reason they cannot take it to an executive session is that it is a "current grievance," member Molly McCullough said that discussing a current grievance in executive session could "jeopardize (the district's) legal standing.""It'd have be something that comes to us through the attorney in the union because it becomes a legal matter," McCullough said. "We would be putting ourselves in some type of legal quagmire that we should not be getting into and that's why it would be out of order at this time."Binienda requested a legal opinion, which was approved.
Monárrez said that the grievance would come to the Committee if it had been denied; it has not been denied.
Johnson, meanwhile, said it was "out of line" to bring up a grievance on the floor. Member Dianna Biancheria suggested the committee "halt" the conversation about the grievance."At this point, asking for legal opinion is as far as we want to go," Biancheria said.
The points McCullough and Johnson are making are the same: there is a contractually agreed upon process, and Binienda was attempting to violate that.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am going assert here that really the only thing the legal opinion can say is "you're legally bound to the contract you signed."
Mailman noted that points of the 1/5th positions were to cover vacancies, save at South, which appeared to be class size. Deputy Superintendent Allen said that generally, 1/5th positions were either to cover medical leaves or when a teacher gives up their prep period to teach a 6th class. In this case, because of class sizes, this was done, and it is entirely voluntary. To Mailman's question, Allen responded that the enrollment at South is higher than anticipated and for which there were budgeted positions.
There then was a whispered conversation that Biancheria had at the dais with Vice Chair Johnson (which is also out of order; a member cannot converse with the chair like this during the meeting, but must ask their question from the floor). It appears that Biancheria thought the item needed to be held to receive the legal opinion. The vote to file the item, with a request for a legal opinion passed on a 5-3 vote (Biancheria, Binienda, Roy opposed; the Mayor had left the meeting).
The report requested by Mailman for more information on some of the classes being added for last year was approved on a voice vote without discussion.
Johnson requested information "any grants that are being requested to supplement any programs that may be impacted by the budget." It was sent to administration on a voice vote.
The easement requested by National Grid at Midland Street School was passed on a voice vote.
The annual report from the Central Mass Collaborative was approved and filed on a voice vote.
Biancheria, speaking to her item requesting "budgeting and financing for Worcester East Middle School," immediately referenced Councilor Russell's request for a report from Council Tuesday, She said that it was "one of the older buildings" (this is not at all true; anything build after 1900 in Worcester is not "one of the older buildings"), and said completion of a new building would be 2040. She then read the school profile. She referenced the report given to subcommittee regarding replacement windows earlier in the week. As the report notes on page 4:
WPS has applied for a DESE air quality improvements grant which would cover the replacement of exterior windows at Worcester East Middle School. Feasibility studies have been completed by Habeeb Associates, with an estimated project cost of around $6.5 million, when factoring in escalation. The project would take place over two years, with Phase 1 occurring Summer of 2025, and Phase 2 occurring Summer of 2026. The grant application was submitted on January 12, 2024, and the District is awaiting notification of potential award. If awarded, the grant must be approved by the School Committee.What the district has applied for is an Improving Ventilation and Air Quality (IVAQ) grant; per the information shared by the state, this is $100M of federal pandemic funding set aside by the Legislature. The state has prioritized:
- economically disadvantaged students
- English language learners
- communities disproportionately impacted by COVID-19
Applications for this latest round were due in January; all funds must be obligated by December of this year.
I will note, thus, this has nothing to do with district...anything. It's a state process.
Binienda asked if this was an accelerated repair project. Allen said that this was not an accelerated repair project. He said he expected the grant to be on the next school committee agenda for acceptance (which would appear to mean that it's already been awarded?). Binienda asked if the grant would impact any accelerated repair projects the district would receive for WEMS. Allen said that the feasibility phase of a major renovation or replacement for WEMS is what would determine what happened (in other words WEMS isn't going to be an accelerated repair project).
Mailman rose to state that the Committee has an item for quarterly facilities reports in subcommittee. Allen noted that WEMS has already received new boilers and a new roof through MSBA accelerated repair; that IVAQ will do the windows. The timeframe for submitting WEMS for major renovation or replacement is subject to city funding, and is done, Allen said, in concert with the city administration. Mailman redirected that there is already an item to talk about ongoing projects. Allen said that administration has said several times that WEMS is the next priority project; otherwise, the annual update on the five year capital plan. McCullough then asked that the item be sent to administration for the Committee for the capital plan. Johnson similarly noted the ongoing quarterly report in subcommittee, and that this, like any other such request, should be taken as part of that.
Biancheria said that, while she understood that, "when a city councilor brings this to the attention of their committee and that is then brought to the superintendent's attention, then as school committee members, it certainly puts up a red flag, not in the manner that there's something wrong, just in the manner that we should be paying attention."
This is to surrender the priority setting authority of the School Committee.
She said that there would be a report sent to City Council, and she didn't see why there would be an issue to receive it.
Johnson said that he missed such a request. Dr. Monárrez said no such request had as yet been received.
I will reiterate that Council should only be making such requests via the School Committee, as the Superintendent works for the School Committee, not for the Council.
Mailman rose to state that the Committee has an item for quarterly facilities reports in subcommittee. Allen noted that WEMS has already received new boilers and a new roof through MSBA accelerated repair; that IVAQ will do the windows. The timeframe for submitting WEMS for major renovation or replacement is subject to city funding, and is done, Allen said, in concert with the city administration. Mailman redirected that there is already an item to talk about ongoing projects. Allen said that administration has said several times that WEMS is the next priority project; otherwise, the annual update on the five year capital plan. McCullough then asked that the item be sent to administration for the Committee for the capital plan. Johnson similarly noted the ongoing quarterly report in subcommittee, and that this, like any other such request, should be taken as part of that.
Biancheria said that, while she understood that, "when a city councilor brings this to the attention of their committee and that is then brought to the superintendent's attention, then as school committee members, it certainly puts up a red flag, not in the manner that there's something wrong, just in the manner that we should be paying attention."
This is to surrender the priority setting authority of the School Committee.
She said that there would be a report sent to City Council, and she didn't see why there would be an issue to receive it.
Johnson said that he missed such a request. Dr. Monárrez said no such request had as yet been received.
I will reiterate that Council should only be making such requests via the School Committee, as the Superintendent works for the School Committee, not for the Council.
Dr. Monárrez said that the administration would pull out the part that deals with WEMS. It was sent to administration on a voice vote.
Biancheria requested a report on school choice to go to Finance, Operations, and Governance, nothing that "in some years, [the district was able to gain] close to half a million dollars." She said that it was under the budget. She said that it allowed students to attend any district in the state, which is not the case; school committees can and some do refuse to accept school choice students. "To me, it's dollars."
This was sent to FOG on a voice vote.
A really important point that this misses: while school choice brings funds in, it also sends them out. Worcester has never, as far back as I know, netted school choice gains. For example, in the current fiscal year, Worcester is estimated to receiving $883,833, while Worcester loses $3,889,162. Check the municipal cherry sheets to pick any year you like.
This was sent to FOG on a voice vote.
A really important point that this misses: while school choice brings funds in, it also sends them out. Worcester has never, as far back as I know, netted school choice gains. For example, in the current fiscal year, Worcester is estimated to receiving $883,833, while Worcester loses $3,889,162. Check the municipal cherry sheets to pick any year you like.
Binienda then rose to address her item requesting a change to "the FY25 budget schedule to include a report on the proposed cuts to schools and personnel due to the FY25 budget deficit at the April 25, 2024 school committee meeting or in executive session." She said she was sure all had run into staff who "were very very worried," and suggested that at the meeting after vacation, "even in executive session...if we could just have an idea of what the plan was for budget cuts...if there are any budget cuts, which it seems like there's going to be."
The budget will be public and sent to the Committee on Friday, May 10.
Dr. Monárrez said that the plan is bring forward "broad strokes" as personnel is not under (Committee) purview) a report of the superintendent on May 2. Prior to that would be too quick; the report of the superintendent on the 25th is on climate and culture.
Dr. Monárrez said that the plan is bring forward "broad strokes" as personnel is not under (Committee) purview) a report of the superintendent on May 2. Prior to that would be too quick; the report of the superintendent on the 25th is on climate and culture.
"And with a deficit of $22M, we will have budget cuts; there's no way around it."
Binienda said she was willing to amend to a May 2 date.
Mailman observed that the discussion could not be done in executive session; Dr. Monárrez agreed that it is not one of the ten reasons for executive session. She stated further that the discussion would not be on specific personnel or buildings, but how the administration got there, and timelines going forward.
With the amendment of time and purview. the item was sent to administration on a voice vote.
Binienda said she was willing to amend to a May 2 date.
Mailman observed that the discussion could not be done in executive session; Dr. Monárrez agreed that it is not one of the ten reasons for executive session. She stated further that the discussion would not be on specific personnel or buildings, but how the administration got there, and timelines going forward.
With the amendment of time and purview. the item was sent to administration on a voice vote.
And that was the meeting on the 4th. Next meeting is post-break on April 25th.
No comments:
Post a Comment