12.16.2015

BOE Meeting Update: 15 December 2015

Meeting note: due to inclement weather, the board meeting proceeded with an abbreviated agenda via Webex, an online platform with a telephonic component. Livestreaming was available to the public, and the board room was open to anyone who wished to come observe or make public comment.


The agenda was as follows.

1.  Suspension of rules to permit electronic participation
2.  Renewal of Lobbyist contracts
3.  Approval of the accreditation report
4.  Mil levy override setting
5.  STEM K-4 resolution

1. Suspension of rules to permit electronic participation

The board has certain rules that govern its regular meetings. In order for all board members to participate electronically/telephonically, we had to vote to suspend the rules. I voted yes due to inclement weather restricting the attendance of nearly all board members. Several staff members were present in the board room, as were a few members of the public and media. The motion passed via a 6-0 vote.

2. Renewal of board legislative services contract

The Board contracts with JLH Consulting and Public Affairs for legislative services. This contract must be renewed annually before the legislative session begins, which will occur before the next regular meeting. I voted yes, since I am familiar with the past work that JLH has accomplished and the benefit it has had for the district, and I am satisfied that this contract should continue. This motion carried 6-0-1 (aye-nay-abstention).

3. Approval of the Accreditation Report to CDE

Colorado State Statute, C.R.S. § 22-11-206(4)(a)(I)&(II), requires that this Accreditation Report be submitted with the FY 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Audit. CDE provides a form for districts to complete. It is meant to provide assurances that the district complied with state law and generally accepted accounting principles. Audited financial statements provide part of the assurances that the district has complied, as well as other information provided by the district.

The report was made available as part of the board agenda. Financial documents, including the Comprehensive Financial Report and Audit, were included. This report must be provided, statutorily, by 31 December to CDE, necessitating a vote during this meeting. I voted yes because in reviewing the documents, I am satisfied that the bar has been met for compliance with the law. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.  

4. Mill levy override setting

Statutorily, the board needed to vote to certify the mill levy by 5pm on 12/15. This deadline was the reason that the board met an hour earlier than usual.

The mill levy override is authorized by voters, and stems from four separate authorizations, totaling $33,713,000. The MLO is calculated as follows:

(Amount required / Assessed valuation) x 1000

Voter Approved Overrides: $33,713,000
Assessed Valuation: $5,620,055,765
Mill Rate: 5.999

($33,713,000 / $5,620,055,765) x 1000 = 5.999

Since the total net assessed value in the District grew from $4.8B to $5.6B, a nearly 17% increase over one year ago, the recommended total mill levy rate dropped.

I voted yes to set the mill levy at the recommended level. The district provided a thorough explanation of the mill setting process and how it is related to valuations, past voter authorizations, and how it includes other factors such as abatements and bond redemption funding to satisfy our bonding obligations. The mill levy is set for the current fiscal year; the motion passed 7-0.

5. STEM Expansion to grades K-4 (beginning 56:00 on the livestream recording)

The purpose of this agenda item was to respond to a request by the Douglas County Planning Commission (PC) to hold a hearing on issues related to the STEM expansion. This request was made November 24. State statute dictates that not only is this hearing at the sole discretion of the BOE, but also if such a hearing is to take place, it must be within 30 days of the county’s request. This would make December 23 the last day for the hearing, otherwise STEM’s request would be deemed approved.

Due to the format of the board meeting, the original planned presentations by STEM, the planning commission staff, and the district were not able to continue as planned. I requested that Rob Ross, the district legal counsel, draft a resolution stating that STEM would be conditionally approved based on eight conditions that addressed the concerns laid out in the PC’s documentation. One of those conditions would be that a hearing would take place so that all concerns could be heard. Mr. Ross worked with Mr. Barry Arrington, the STEM legal counsel, on this resolution.

Some facts:
  • The STEM expansion had been under discussion for well over a year. STEM expanded their offerings to fifth grade for 2015-16. This program has been extremely popular, and STEM had made known that their plan was always to expand downward to K-4. The district had numerous positive and productive conversations with STEM board members and administrators about this plan. This effort was by no means rushed or hurried.
  • December 23 is the deadline for the hearing to take place. Unless a vote was taken by the BOE specifically to disapprove the STEM expansion, if there is no hearing, then STEM’s request to the PC would be deemed approved. Postponing the resolution until January 5, or any other date past December 23, would not have had any effect on the PC’s request to the district.
  • Contained in the resolution is a requirement for a hearing. This hearing will take place and the PC staff, STEM, and the BOE will all participate and will be able to voice their concerns and questions to the public. This hearing is unscheduled but must occur no later than March 1.
  • Postponing the resolution would have created an issue with the students that are seeking to enroll in STEM because the district’s open enrollment deadline is 5 January.
  • If the district were to force STEM to wait until the open enrollment deadline, then STEM would be accepting enrollments without knowing if their expansion were even approved. If it were not approved, then all of those students would have to be sent back to their neighborhood schools. There would be no opportunity for parents to make any other choice because January 5 is the deadline.
  • This resolution was not about open enrollment. It was about giving the PC, STEM, and the BOE the chance to have a hearing at a later time. The timing of any hearing held after December 23 is irrelevant in regards to automatic approval. The only thing we can do is what we were doing: set conditions that must be met for approval.
  • Public comment was solicited before a vote was taken. No one was in the room to make any public comment. This opportunity will be made available again when the hearing does take place.
  • The planning commission’s December 15 letter to the BOE acknowledged that the board might decide to go forward with approving the STEM charter amendment. They requested that, if we did, then we at least 1) require STEM to abide by the PC’s conditions of approval set forth in the PC staff report and 2) extract commitments from STEM to meet with its neighbors that attended the PC meeting and expressed concerns. As I note below, this was done via an amendment and the approval of the resolution itself, which contained all of the conditions of approval.
There were a few motions made on this resolution.

A letter sent from PC staff on December 15 made the additional request to ask STEM to meet with the two nearby businesses that attended the PC meeting to express concerns about the expansion. A motion was made to add a condition to require STEM to meet with these neighbors. I voted yes to alleviate any PC concerns around this. It carried 7-0.

A motion was made to postpone the resolution’s vote until a future time; January 5 was suggested but not made part of the motion. I voted no; as stated previously, January 5 was an arbitrary date that occurred after the PC’s statutory deadline of 23 December and would have occurred on the open enrollment deadline. The motion failed 3-4.

A motion was made to call the question (i.e. force an immediate vote on the motion on the table, which was the entire amended resolution). I voted yes, as I ensured that in the resolution, all PC concerns were included as conditions for approval, and I knew that we would not meet again as a BOE before the PC deadline of December 23. The motion carried and the resolution was passed, 4-3.


What happens if STEM doesn’t meet the conditions in the resolution? If they don’t, then the approval is not finalized and the expansion will not take place. Again, postponing or failing to approve the resolution does not affect the PC’s request to have a hearing if no action is taken by December 23. Failing to approve the expansion, however, will affect hundreds of children who are entering the lottery and open enrollment for STEM’s proposed K-4 grades. I do not believe that it is appropriate to inject this kind of uncertainty needlessly into the process for STEM children, whereby they are forced to wait until literally the eleventh hour to know whether the grades into which they want to enroll their children even exist.

12.03.2015

Thoughts upon being elected to serve as Board President

It is my great privilege to have been elected on Tuesday evening to serve as the president of the Douglas County school board.

I want to thank my predecessor, Kevin Larsen, who served on the Douglas County school board for four years and as its president for two. He truly cares about the DCSD community and poured his time, effort, and heart into being a school board director. I know he will continue to do a lot of good work for students as a private citizen.

The Douglas County School District has a new board of education, and with it comes new opportunities. The district has opportunities, both to build on past successes and to seek continuous improvement. The board has opportunities, to come together with the sole purpose of providing a quality education for our kids. I am not interested in looking backward. We will move forward to serve our community.

We represent the people of Douglas County—all of them. We are agents; they have provided us with this district and entrusted us to manage it. We will do the work that it takes to empower parents to ensure that they can drive their children’s education. Our community wants a district that works for them.

By incorporating feedback from parents, students, citizens, and staff, our model of education is one of constant improvement. We will show the people of our district that we have one goal: cultivating a system that will help kids succeed. This will be our clear standard. I want us to educate students, not advocate for adult interests. We will put kids first—where they belong.

We won’t always agree. But as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan has said, “We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated.” We will use our differences to contribute to a robust discussion and to share ideas. We can do this and come to a better understanding of one another, with the public as witness.


The citizens of Douglas County have chosen every one of us on the board to act on their behalf. They have placed great trust in all of us. I thank my colleagues for doing me the honor of allowing me to preside over this board. I look forward to working with them and the citizens of Douglas County to advance excellence in education for all of our students.

11.25.2015

Special Meeting Rescheduled Due to Conflict

The Board of Education, although elected, is a volunteer group that donates its time to the people of Douglas County. No member is paid any salary, and each of us brings a unique background to the position of school board director. We benefit from this diversity.
The District worked with the Douglas County Clerk and Recorder’s office to set a date for the new board members’ swearing-in ceremony within the statutory deadline. This date was set on November 30th, within the correct timeline according to statute [C.R.S. §1-1-106(5)]. Although it is customary for this ceremony to occur in the context of a business meeting, a swearing-in may legally occur at any time after the certification date. So, the new DCSD board directors arranged their private swearing-in ceremony on November 23rd.
The November 30th ceremony was scheduled to meet statutory deadlines for swearing in new board directors, which was officially done on November 23 after the election was certified. Another item of business is the election of new officers. Within 15 days of the election being certified, C.R.S. §22-32-104 states that a special meeting must be called for the purpose of electing new officers. The last day to accomplish this without violating state law would be December 3.
Because the November 30 meeting date is outside our normal meting schedule, one of our members, Dr. Jim Geddes, has a conflict involving a scheduled surgery. Dr. Geddes is a surgeon and builds his surgery schedule around BOE regular meetings, planning months ahead to accommodate both his medical practice and his board duties.
For something as important as board leadership elections, every member should have the opportunity to have a vote. The timing of professional obligations such as those detaining Director Geddes might be unfortunate. However, this is a special meeting by definition, and statutorily, the board secretary calls the meeting on any date in the range.
The meeting date has changed to December 1 for this accommodation. Although a meeting date change would ordinarily not occur if a member had to miss a regular meeting, special meetings often come with unusual circumstances.
We look forward to seating new officers and moving forward with the business of the school district. It’s a privilege to serve the citizens of Douglas County as we work to provide the best education for our kids.
TIMELINE
3 November: Election Day 19 November: Election results certified by the Douglas County Clerk and Recorder’s office 30 November: Statutory deadline for new board members to be sworn in 30 November: Special board meeting scheduled for swearing-in and board officer elections 1 December: New date for special board meeting after schedule conflict 3 December: Statutory deadline for special board meeting, 15 days after certification of election results

11.17.2015

DCSD releases employee survey: FAQ

I am delighted to report that today, DCSD has launched a survey of all of its employees to solicit feedback on the four pillars of our strategic plan: safety, choice, world-class education, and system performance. This survey will help us provide a baseline of current opinion so that we can understand how to improve in ways ranging from effective communication to assisting teachers and building leaders in providing the best education for kids. 


This will be the first part of our effort to gather opinions from parents, students, teachers, and citizens across the district. Having worked on this effort for nearly eighteen months, I am pleased to see it come to fruition, and look forward to using the results to drive continuous improvement in our district.

Here are some questions that I have seen today upon the survey's release. I hope that this will help begin to answer them, and that the district community has productive conversations going forward.

What is the background on surveying employees?

In the past, DCSD has surveyed teachers and community members without substantial fidelity. Best practices for surveys weren't followed, such as using a rigorous protocol to ensure that the right respondents were taking them, nor were representative samples of the community guaranteed. DCSD had the disastrous experience of failing to ask demographic questions in its most recent survey. Although valuable information came out of that survey that was used in a number of ways, the district could not guarantee that its results represented the community accurately.

In the summer of 2014, DCSD released an RFP for a community survey. Several firms responded, with a variety of approaches to the District's request. I was fortunate to be part of the staff review process that looked over the packages and made recommendations about which to employ. However, ultimately, disagreement about the recommendations, as well as substantial cost, caused the majority of the board to choose not to take action with a survey for this past fall, a year ago. (Note: no formal board action was taken.)

Although I was disappointed (you might guess that I was in the minority on this issue), I continued to work with staff and the superintendent to determine a path forward on gathering feedback. 

What is this survey about?

This particular survey is for staff, by staff. It is meant to gauge the current understanding of the district's strategic plan. The questions fall into the four strategic plan buckets: safety, choice, world-class education, and system performance. There are additional questions about how employees feel about DCSD as a place to work, and around communications.

Who created and is administering the survey?

The district solicited staff across several departments for survey questions. 

Data integrity is an extremely important part of survey best practice. The questions are hosted on a third-party survey platform that ensures that there are unique respondents. The survey is anonymous--no demographic or employee data is solicited. Standard practices have been employed to allow employees to remain anonymous while allowing data to be aggregated into building-level indicators. No one outside the district should be able to take the survey, and no one will be able to take the survey more than once. 

When will the survey be completed?

Employees have until November 20 to access and finish the survey. 

How will the results be used?

Understanding knowledge gaps is the first step to making positive changes in the areas measured by the survey. The results will be used to form an initial picture of the state of employee implementation of the strategic plan. I am most interested in driving improvements as we continue to gather feedback and learn how we can support staff members.

So is this the whole result of the survey process? Is this the only survey that will be given?

No, it is just the beginning. After discussing survey approaches with staff, several paths forward emerged. Begin by measuring staff understanding of the current strategic plan. Understand the baseline viewpoints. Try again to work together as a board on a broader survey, perhaps for parents, students, and/or community members. Come back to staff with additional questions near the end of the year as we figure out what questions staff members have, and where additional improvements are needed.


We should never be satisfied with where we are at any given point. We must develop a more robust communications process and a better feedback loop to improve our assessment of how we are doing. Today's survey is a small part of that.

9.05.2015

DCSD Average ACT Scores: Looking Up

I am always pleased to note the accomplishments of our students. Whether it is through art and music talent, through achievements on the sports field, or through academic achievement, our students continue to improve every year in various areas.

Although our students are not defined by one test on one day, the state of Colorado requires the ACT test of all high school students. Unlike several other standardized tests such as PARCC, students take the ACT seriously. It has been viewed as a marker in high school achievement, not to mention used as a criterion in college admissions.

Here is a look at the 2010 ACT scores compared with the 2015 ACT scores. The comparison is not exact, as there is a school that tested in 2010 with no results in 2015 (eDCSD) and a few schools that tested in 2015 that did not test in 2010 (Legend High School, SkyView Academy, and the STEM charter school). 



Students at schools which were tested in both 2010 and 2015 represent 83.6% of 2015 scores that held steady or rose. Another 13.9% were not tested in 2010 and made a strong showing for 2015, including two charters that had scores above the district average. The remaining 2.4% of students whose scores declined represent our two alternative schools, who have strong leadership in place to help guide students through improvements. 

There are other bright spots. For example, HOPE Online, one of DCSD's charters, caters to special populations of students that are low-income, English language learners, or may otherwise face challenges. HOPE kids want to succeed despite these. They have pulled their ACT scores up by 1.6, a greater jump than any other school. This is an excellent indicator for HOPE Online.

DCSD parents, teachers, and staff have all supported our students, who have worked very hard to effect these improvements. I am very proud of them!  

5.13.2015

School-Based Budgeting

It is budget time again! DCSD is a rarity in terms of school districts in that it allows schools to have a great deal of autonomy in how they spend their budget dollars. Site-based budgeting gives local school communities a greater voice in what personnel they want to hire, what proportion of classroom teachers they want to have, and what programs they would like to emphasize.

Now that the Colorado General Assembly, or state legislature, has adjourned and school districts are receiving budget numbers, questions are beginning again about school-based budgets and how those allocations work. Using an actual elementary school budget from this current school year, I will walk you through the way the district allocates money to schools, and how a school might spend its budget on its own priorities.

It may be useful for you to consult the following infographics as you read. The information that follows is a narrative meant to accompany them.


Where do the dollar figures come from? 


Click for larger image.
The school begins with a worksheet and a base student-based budget pupil allocation (SBBPA). This amount is $3,722. This is based on a proportion of projected state funding. Although the legislature passes a budget every spring, this can change at any time due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, several years ago, the state rescinded $9M from DCSD toward the end of the year because its projections exceeded the actual revenues and it could not pay DCSD the full amount promised.

Every fall, enrollment is counted on October 1, or Count Day. Budgets are completed before this date, but the actual count is where schools reconcile their projections with their actual numbers and the final budgets are set. Our notional school has 74 kindergarten students and 472 students in grades 1-6. Although the SBBPA will be the same, local mill levy override dollars will be $30 additional per student in kindergarten, and $60 additional per student in grades 1-6.

The kindergarten total allocation is $277,648, and the total for grades 1-6 is $1,785,104. Together these numbers add up to $2,062,752.

This is not the only funding available to the school, however.  The district provides additional funding support in several forms. First, there are non-discretionary allocations depending on the school and its needs. Needs such as Gifted and Talented, Special Education, English Language, and Literacy are funded. These are non-discretionary because they are either required by law, like special education, or are otherwise a constrained expense.  Non-discretionary funds add up to $701,156 at our school.

Discretionary expenses are not necessarily positions or expenses that the school would want to do without, but rather are those that have a certain amount of flexibility. These include the principal, heath assistant, and the volunteer coordinator. These positions can have varying amounts of contract hours so that the dollar allocation for these is discretionary. Total discretionary funds at this school are $135,244.

Other discretionary allocations are based on specific needs such as the Student Success Act, which funds certain requirements laid out in state law, and highly impacted school funds, meant to alleviate issues caused by circumstances beyond a school’s control (e.g. small size). These funds add up to $52,300.

The sum of these different line items:

$2,062,752 [SBBPA Total]    
$701,156 [Non-Discretionary]
$135,244 [Discretionary]
$52,300 [Other Additional Discretionary]
------------------
$2,951,452 [Total]


How is the school choosing to spend its allocation?

Click for larger image.
In its budget worksheet, the school lays out its chosen expenditures. A single FTE accounts for 2,080 hours per year. Using this calculation, schools lay out personnel in terms of FTEs while giving each individual a line item. They will have 37 classroom teachers (31.95 FTE), 3 administrators and 1 administrative intern (3.047 FTE), and 16 classified staff such as office support and classroom aides (6.73 FTE). Some teachers and almost all support staff are part-time, enabling the school to hire more individuals than FTE and thus being able to meet its needs. Total FTE are 41.73.

Additional expenses include instructional supplies ($92,247; printing, textbooks, etc.) and support services ($5,000; phone costs, mileage, etc.). With these expenditures, the $2,951,452 is spent.

The school, however, has a few small additional funding sources at its disposal. Full-day kindergarten tuition proceeds and before/after school care fees add up to $221,301 that the school may keep and decide how to spend. This adds up to $405 per student in non-SBB dollars. The school chose to pay an additional 2 FTEs entirely from this money, as well as contributions to four more teacher salaries and one educational assistant with special training. The total is 3.12 FTE spread out among seven positions. Additionally, $7,890 dollars for supplies will be allocated from this pool.

The total amounts are as follows, district-funded and school-funded.

41.72 FTE + 3.12 FTE = 44.85 FTE Total
$2,951,452 + $221,301 = $3,172,753 Total

The dollar figure per FTE is $70,748. Per student, the dollar figure is $5,811.

From all tax revenue sources, both local and state-based, the 2014-15 funding is $6,764 per pupil, or the per pupil revenue figure (PPR). This means that the dollars per student, as a percentage of state PPR, is $5,811/$6,764, or 86%. Taking away the school-raised dollars, the dollars per student as a percentage of PPR—from district PPR sources—add up to $5,406/$6,764, or 80%.

This means at least eight of every ten dollars that comes to the district gets passed through to the schools. We believe that schools can make informed decisions about their individual needs based on input from their teachers, parents, and community. As the budget process continues over the course of the next month until final approval, I look forward to conversations with taxpayers about these important priorities.