Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. Notice and Return]

[00:00:03]

GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 4:00 PM AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING.

PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND A SALUTE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.

OF ALLEGIANCE] THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE HERE PHYSICALLY.

TRUSTEE CAMILLE WHITE.

AND I'M DAN MICCICHE, CHAIR OF THE SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION AD HOC COMMITTEE AND TRUSTEE BEN MACKEY, I BELIEVE, IS JOINING US BY ZOOM.

DO WE HAVE BEN HOOKED UP? WE DO. OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY PERSON WHO WON'T SEE YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS TO THE AGENDA? WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS TO THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT WILL BRING US RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT.

[3. Discussion of the Superintendent of Schools' Evaluation Instruments]

IN ITEM THREE OF THE AGENDA DISCUSSION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS EVALUATION DRAFT INSTRUMENT AND THE DRAFT 2022 2023 TARGETS.

AND DR.

WEIR, DO YOU WANT TO THANK US IN THIS MEETING, THIS DISCUSSION? THANK THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MICCICHE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, TRUSTEE, WHITE TRUSTEE MACKEY AND SUPERINTENDENT ELIZALDE.

MS. GRANT, IF WE COULD START WITH THE GOALS, WELL, WE'LL GET TO THE POWERPOINT WHEN WE GET TO THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO WHILE WE'RE WE'RE PULLING UP THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION EACH YEAR, WE WORK WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP TARGETS FOR OUR SUPERINTENDENT TO WORK TOWARD FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR.

SO I WANT TO JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO REORIENT OURSELVES WITH THE ACTUAL TOOL.

AND I WANT TO ALSO REITERATE THIS IS JUST AN INITIAL CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SUPERINTENDENTS EVALUATION, AND WE ARE SIMPLY BRINGING SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE AND WE WILL TAKE FEEDBACK.

WE'LL MAKE THOSE REVISIONS IF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGREES TO IT, AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL COME BACK A SECOND TIME.

I THINK IT'S LATER IN OCTOBER TO LOOK AT ANY REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE.

SO THE EVALUATION IS MADE UP OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, WHICH IS 60% OF THE EVALUATION FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, WHICH IS 15% CONSTRAINTS, WHICH WE CAN FIND IN AE LOCAL, IS MADE UP OF 12% AND STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION IS 13%.

IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE EVALUATION TOOL, YOU CAN SEE THAT ACROSS EACH ROW WE HAVE HISTORICAL VALUES, WHICH REALLY HELPS US WITH DEVELOPING THE TARGETS, THE GOALS THAT ARE ON THE ON THE SUPERINTENDENT'S APPRAISAL INSTRUMENT ARE ALIGNED WITH THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS.

SO I'LL START WITH GOAL ONE, AND I'LL JUST GIVE A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.

I DO HAVE STAFF HERE TO ASK OR RESPOND TO ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR PROGRAMMATIC QUESTIONS.

SO WE'LL START WITH A GOAL ONE, WHICH REALLY LOOKS AT DOMAIN ONE WHICH TAKES ALL OF THE STUDENTS THEIR SCORES FROM APPROACHES MEETS AND MASTER'S.

AND SO WE CAN SEE IN 21-22 THE INDEX WAS 42 ACROSS THE PERFORMANCE TARGETS WE HAVE UNSATISFACTORY, SOMEWHAT SATISFACTORY, FULLY SATISFACTORY AND CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

WE'RE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON THE FULLY SATISFACTORY COLUMN.

[00:05:01]

IF WE GET CLEARLY SUPERIOR, THAT'S GREAT.

BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TARGETING IS THAT FULLY SATISFACTORY? SO WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING IS WE WOULD MAKE A FOUR POINT GAIN FOR THAT INDEX AT 46 IF WE GO TO THE KPIS THAT WOULD LEAD TO THAT GOAL.

THE FIRST ONE IS LOOKING AGAIN AT STATE ASSESSMENT OF ALL SUBJECT AREAS AT THE MEETS PERFORMANCE OR ABOVE.

CURRENTLY WE'RE AT 41%.

WE'RE LOOKING AT FULLY SATISFACTORY TO BE 45%.

OUR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED VERSUS OUR DISTRICT ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED IS REALLY JUST COMPARING OURSELVES WITH THE STATE.

WE NEVER WANT A GAP BETWEEN OUR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND THE STATE.

SO OUR GOAL IS ZERO.

YOU CAN SEE OUR HISTORICAL VALUES SHOW A NEGATIVE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHICH ACTUALLY MEANS THAT WE'RE OUTPERFORMING THE STATE IN IN PREVIOUS YEARS, 2122 WE WERE WE MET THE STATE PERCENTAGE.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS ZERO.

THAT'S ZERO.

IT MEANS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A GAP.

SO WE HAVE PUT ZERO AS UNSATISFACTORY, SOMEWHAT SATISFACTORY, FULLY SATISFACTORY, CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

WE HAVE MADE A TARGET AS NEGATIVE ONE.

IF WE GO TO GO TO THAT'S FOCUSING ON OUR EARLY LEARNING WORK AND INITIATIVE, THAT'S K THREE THIRD GRADE READING. WE ARE CURRENTLY AT NINE AT 39.6 AND ARE FULLY SATISFACTORY.

WE'RE AT 44, SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY A FOUR POINT GAIN.

IF WE LOOK AT THE KPIS THAT WE WANT TO LEAD, THOSE WOULD BE INDICATORS LEADING TO THE GOAL.

PRE K IS AN AREA WE MAKE A LOT OF INVESTMENT IN, SO WE DID INCLUDE THAT ON THE SUPERINTENDENT APPRAISAL FOR CONSIDERATION.

WE'RE USING CLASS AS THE ASSESSMENT CURRENTLY ARE PRE K STUDENTS ARE PRE K CLASSROOMS ARE AT 65.5% AND WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER FULLY SATISFACTORY AT 68%.

KPI 2.2 IS REALLY FOCUSING ON OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AT THE THIRD GRADE LEVEL AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ELA OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND WE'RE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT GROUPS ARE AT MEET'S PERFORMANCE OR ABOVE.

CURRENTLY WE'RE AT 32.6%.

WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER FULLY SATISFACTORY AT 39%.

IF I GO DOWN TO GOAL THREE, THAT IS ALSO LOOKING AT EARLY LEARNING K THREE.

BUT THE CONTENT AREA IS MATHEMATICS.

WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 37%.

FULLY SATISFACTORY IS 42%.

OUR KPI, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT CLASS, BUT THIS THE FOCUS AREA IS K TWO CLASSROOMS. CURRENTLY WE'RE AT 62.7%.

WE'RE LOOKING AT FULLY SATISFACTORY TO GO UP TWO POINTS TO 65%.

AGAIN, WE'RE FOCUSED ON OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AT THIRD GRADE FOR KPI 3.2.

WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 21.4% AND WE ARE LOOKING TO MAKE A SEVEN POINT GAIN TO 28% . WHEN WE GO DOWN TO GO FOUR, THAT'S OUR COLLEGE READINESS GOAL.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT DOMAIN ONE FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS.

WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION AND WE'RE AT 59%.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WE NOT ONLY MET THE GOAL, YOU CAN SEE IT IN RED THERE.

OUR OUR IN GOAL WAS 54%.

WE'VE EXCEEDED IT.

SO IT'S TIME FOR US TO RECONSIDER THAT GOAL, EITHER THE FULL GOAL ITSELF OR LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL NUMERICAL VALUE TO CHANGE.

SO WHAT WE'VE LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER FOR FULLY SATISFACTORY WOULD BE 65%.

THE NEXT TWO KPIS DEAL WITH OUR ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE AND OR 60 CREDIT HOURS.

[00:10:03]

AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE INDUSTRY BASED CERTIFICATION.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT DATA AT THIS POINT.

WE THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE IT BY THE NEXT TIME WE MEET.

SO WE WILL HAVE DATA FOR 21-22, WHICH WOULD HELP US MAKE OUR TARGETS FOR THIS YEAR.

SO WE SHOULD HAVE SOME VALUES THERE THE NEXT TIME WE MEET.

KPI 4.3 IS REALLY LOOKING AT PARTICIPATION IN RIGOROUS COURSES.

OUR LAST TARGET THAT WE MET WAS 81.2 AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER FOR THIS YEAR FOR FULLY SATISFACTORY WOULD BE 83%.

OUR LAST GOAL IS FOCUSED ON MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES.

AND AGAIN, IT'S LOOKING AT DOMAIN ONE SIMILAR TO GOAL ONE, BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR GRADES SIX THROUGH EIGHT.

LAST YEAR WE WERE AT 39 FOR THAT INDEX AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER FULLY SATISFACTORY FOR THIS INSTRUMENT TO BE AT 42.

THERE ARE TWO KPIS THAT LEAD TO THAT GOAL.

ONE IS ON READING ONE'S MATHEMATICS.

YOU CAN SEE FOR A READING WE'RE AT 42.7 AND WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER FULLY SATISFACTORY AT 47%.

FOR MATHEMATICS OUR STUDENTS SCORED AT 36% AND WE'RE ASKING THE FULLY SATISFACTORY TO BE AT 41%.

I'M GOING TO ASK MR. THOMPSON TO COME UP TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE THREE AREAS, THERE'S THE MATERIAL WEAKNESSES AND SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES.

WE HAVE THE HISTORY THERE, AND WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO KEEP THE ITEMS THE SAME AS IT RELATES TO THE NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES AND THE POINT SCORES.

THEN THERE'S THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS OR FUND BALANCE AS WE REFER TO IT.

AND THERE'S THE HISTORY ACROSS, AS WE, IF YOU RECALL, IN 1718 IS WHEN TRE CAME INTO PLAY.

AND SO WE HAVE INCREASED THE FUND BALANCE, BUT THEN MAINTAINED IT FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS.

WE ARE SHOWING A NEGATIVE AMOUNT IN OUR PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR 22-23 AND PREDOMINANTLY THAT'S BECAUSE WE ARE EXPERIENCING FEWER STUDENTS THAN WE PROJECTED.

AND THE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT SIGNIFICANT, WE ARE EXPERIENCING A LITTLE LESS IN OUR ATTENDANCE RATE.

WE PROJECTED 94% ATTENDANCE RATE RIGHT NOW THROUGH THIS PART OF THE YEAR WHERE 93.17.

SO THAT MAY PICK UP.

BUT IN ORDER TO FAIRLY ASSESS WHAT THAT IMPACT TO OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE INDICATED THERE.

SO IS IF WE WENT FROM 40 TO THE 70 MOVING ACROSS, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT OUR ATTENDANCE RATE WOULD HAVE DROPPED.

AND THEN THE FIRST RATING, WE'VE BEEN SUPERIOR ALL YEARS.

AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT AS THE SAME AS IT WAS PREVIOUS YEARS.

SO REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS RELATED TO THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE.

AND IF WE GO TO CONSTRAINTS, IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD RECALL, I BELIEVE IT WAS MAY, WE BROUGHT AE LOCAL BACK TO THE BOARD AND WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE CONSTRAINTS.

AND SO THIS PARTICULAR SUPERINTENDENT APPRAISAL INSTRUMENT REFLECTS THAT.

THAT FIRST AREA STUDENTS, ALL THREE COMBINED, THE THREE AREAS THAT WE AGREED TO WOULD BE A SENSE OF BELONGING, THE OVERALL CULTURE CLIMATE OF THE CAMPUS.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS SAFETY.

SO THE STUDENTS WILL BE TAKING A SURVEY AND THOSE WILL BE THE THREE TOPICS.

WE WILL COMBINE THAT AS AN AGGREGATE ONCE WE GET OUR I MEAN, WE HAVE NO BASELINE DATA AT THIS POINT, BUT ONCE THE STUDENTS TAKE THAT, THAT SURVEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE BASELINE DATA AND DETERMINE TARGETS.

THE NEXT ONE IS SCHOOL STAFF, AND THAT'S A POSITIVE CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT.

IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN ONE QUESTION AND THAT'S AROUND IS THE DISTRICT HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? AND SO THE BOARD ASKED FOR US TO REVISE THAT, AND WE DID.

[00:15:04]

AND WE TOOK THE WHOLE SECTION OF THE CLIMATE SURVEY THAT'S CALLED POSITIVE CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, AND WE'RE NOW USING THAT AS OUR CONSTRAINT.

AND SO THAT IS NOT JUST ONE QUESTION.

THERE ARE ABOUT TEN QUESTIONS WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.

AND YOU CAN SEE, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NEW, WE'VE NEVER PUT THIS ON THE SUPERINTENDENT APPRAISAL INSTRUMENT.

WE DO HAVE THE DATA AND YOU CAN SEE THE HISTORICAL VALUES.

LAST YEAR WE WERE AT 69.4 AND WE ARE ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 70.5.

AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE AS WE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF FLUCTUATION AS YOU GO ACROSS THE LAST ONE, THERE IS THEORY OF ACTION.

AND WE AND DR.

LUSK HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN MAKING SURE THAT OUR CAMPUSES UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF ACTION.

AND SO THERE IS A SURVEY THAT GOES TO THE PRINCIPALS, AND THAT SURVEY IS AROUND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THEORY OF ACTION.

AND IF THEY THINK THAT IT'S BEING EXECUTED AS DESIGNED.

AND SO WE DO HAVE TWO YEARS WORTH OF DATA.

AND YOU CAN SEE LAST YEAR WE WERE AT 85.9%.

AND WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER LOOKS LIKE 87% AS FULLY SATISFACTORY.

THE LAST PORTION OF THE INSTRUMENT IS REALLY ABOUT STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION.

IF YOU RECALL, WE USE THE PLATFORM, 'LET'S TALK' TO HELP OUR STAKEHOLDERS MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET ALL OF THEIR CONCERNS OR ACCOLADES HIGHLIGHTS ADDRESSED AND WE GET AN OVERALL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE.

AND THE NATIONAL AVERAGE FROM A SCALE OF 1 TO 10 IS 7.9.

SO WE WERE AT 8.0 AND WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER 8.1 AS FULLY SATISFACTORY.

OUR PARENTS ALSO GET A SURVEY IN JUNE AND WE WERE AT 87% THIS LAST YEAR AND WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER MOVING THAT UP POINT FIVE AT 87.5.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE, WELL, THE SECOND TO THE LAST ONE IS TAXPAYER.

AND SO WE'RE PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THE HISTORICAL VALUES HERE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE CONSTANTLY, PROGRESSIVELY GOING UP.

AND WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER 65.5 AS FULLY SATISFACTORY.

THE LAST PORTION, OF COURSE, WOULD BE THE BOARD'S EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT THAT YOU WOULD DO IN CLOSED SESSION.

SO WITH THAT, BOTH MYSELF, THE SUPERINTENDENT AND OUR STAFF ARE HERE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

AND OF COURSE I'LL BE TAKING NOTES ON THE FEEDBACK.

SO WHEN THE TEAM GOES BACK, WE CAN MAKE THOSE REVISIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU DR.

LEER. TRUSTEES, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? TRUSTEE WHITE.

YES. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I WAS LOOKING AT ONE OF THE BOARD UPDATES AND I WAS JUST WANTING TO KNOW, AS FAR AS ADDING MORE CATEGORIES TO THIS LIST FOR STUDENT OUTCOMES.

COULD WE HAVE EMERGING BILINGUAL ADDED IN FOR READING GRADES THREE THROUGH FIVE AND ALSO 6 TO 8? AND ALSO THAT SAME FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS.

AND ALSO IN MATH, EMERGENT BILINGUAL AFRICAN AMERICANS, GRADES 3 TO 5 AND SIX THROUGH EIGHT.

AND WHAT IS THE CRITERIA OR DO WE OR DOES THE BOARD MAKE UP OUR OWN CRITERIA FOR THE LAST ITEM ON THE LIST FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES? WELL, I CAN ADDRESS THE LAST ITEM, AND THAT IS IT'S REALLY A SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION BY BY EACH INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER USING BASICALLY A LIST OF FACTORS.

SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT JUST A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER WHERE YOU PUT IN A NUMBER OF FIVE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO RATE THE SUPERINTENDENT ON, I THINK, IN TEN DIFFERENT AREAS.

AND DR.

LEER, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SENDING A COPY TO THE BOARD OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE FOR THAT LAST

[00:20:03]

ITEM FOR FOUR POINTS FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

AND THEN JUST GENERALLY, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, MOST OF THESE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TARGETS EXACTLY MIRROR WHAT THE DISTRICT GOALS ARE AND TARGETS ARE, I SHOULD SAY SO.

AND AS A GENERAL QUALIFICATION, TO THE EXTENT WE MAKE ANY CHANGES TO DISTRICT TARGETS AND DISTRICT GOALS, THEY WOULD BE CONTROLLING AND WILL BE REFLECT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN WHATEVER WE MIGHT HAVE IN THIS INSTRUMENT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, THAT EVEN IF IT SAYS WHERE IT SAYS GOAL THREE, STUDENT OUTCOME, K THROUGH THREE, THAT INFORMATION IS ALREADY THERE.

IT JUST IT JUST ISN'T BROKE DOWN ON THIS ITEM.

AND IF WE WANTED THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OF COURSE WE CAN GET IT IN THE SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT.

RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE EVERY PARTICULAR METRIC POSSIBLE IN THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION.

ALL OF THOSE METRICS ARE AVAILABLE, BUT THESE ARE THE METRICS THAT THE BOARD THOUGHT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO HAVE A HAVE AN EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT SO WE COULD PUT IN MORE.

WE CAN USE EXACTLY.

WE CAN PUT IN MORE. WE COULD TAKE OUT SOME WE CAN WE CAN CHANGE THIS AS THE BOARD DEEMS APPROPRIATE.

BUT THIS HAS BEEN A RELATIVELY CONSISTENT EVALUATION TOOL THAT'S BEEN BEEN USED OVER TIME .

AND TRUSTEE WHITE, I SHOULD SAY, TO THE THE REASON WE HAVE AFRICAN AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION IS BECAUSE THE THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT GROUP HAS PERFORMED BELOW THEIR PEERS.

AND SO THE BOARD FELT THAT IN ORDER FOR THE ORGANIZATION TO HAVE A FOCUS ON THE AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT GROUP, NOT ONLY WAS THE FOCUS, YOU KNOW, AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL, IT NEEDED TO GO THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION. TRUSTEE CARREÓN HAS JOINED US, AND YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT. I DO. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU CHAIR MICCICHE, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN HELP ME.

ON CONSTRAINTS IN MOST EVERYTHING, AND I DON'T REMEMBER HOW.

I GUESS THE I DON'T HAVE LAST YEAR'S INSTRUMENT IN FRONT OF ME, AND I DON'T REMEMBER BRINGING THIS UP LAST YEAR, BUT IT STOOD OUT TO ME RIGHT NOW.

MOST EVERYTHING ON THE APPRAISAL INSTRUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY EVENLY DIVIDED BY ITS SUBSECTION.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ABOVE TOTAL IS 15%, AND THEN EACH LINE IS 5%.

AND YOU KIND OF SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT AND UNDER CONSTRAINTS, IT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT, DRAMATICALLY SO.

UNDER CONSTRAINTS AM I..

THAT'S A, ACTUALLY YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S A TYPO, THAT SHOULD BE A FOUR.

THAT SHOULD BE 444. WELL, THAT EXPLAINS THINGS.

YES. THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY. MY FAULT.

I'M PAYING ATTENTION, PEOPLE. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, THEN. NO, OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I MEAN, I REMEMBER HAVING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LAST YEAR, BUT.

BUT FOR NOW, AT LEAST, IT LOOKS SOLID TO ME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND TRUSTEE MACKEY.

YES, THANK YOU.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS.

AND WHAT MY HOPE IS THAT I'LL SAY THIS FIRST IS I THINK THE GOAL OF THE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE TO ALIGN WITH WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THE ORGANIZATION.

AND SO I'M SO GLAD WE HAVE GOALS, THE GOALS THAT WE SET, AND EVERY SINGLE TRUSTEE STOOD BEHIND WHEN WE WERE HIRING A SUPERINTENDENT SAID, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT ARE ALIGNED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING TO SAY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND THEN IF WE GIVE THE SUPERINTENDENT A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER DIRECTIVES THROUGH THEIR EVALUATION, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THERE'S NOT ALIGNMENT THERE.

SO MY FIRST REQUEST IS IT'S BECOME NEWLY TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE PROGRESS MEASURES THAT WE HAVE FOR GOALS THAT WE ADOPTED DO NOT MATCH THESE TARGETS.

THESE ARE DIFFERENT TARGETS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ALIGNED SUPPOSEDLY TO THE SAME GOAL.

SO MY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE ADMINISTRATION OR SUPERINTENDENT WAS ALL DAY.

[00:25:02]

IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE IF WE SAID IF THERE ARE THREE GPM, THE GOAL ONE THAT WE SAY HELP US REALLY UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE MEETING GOAL ONE.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT TWO KPIS IN THIS ONE THAT ALIGN THE GOAL ONE AND THESE REALLY HELP US UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE ON TRACK WITH GOAL ONE, WE SHOULD PICK WHATEVER THE THREE, TWO OR THREE BEST ONES ARE FOR THAT THAT MOST ALIGN WITH GOAL ONE, AND THOSE SHOULD BE IN BOTH PLACES.

THEY SHOULD BE THE GPM AND THEY SHOULD BE THE KEY KPIS HERE.

SO YOU ARE ABLE TO BE FOCUSED ON WHAT THE BOARD HAS SAID IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THROUGH OUR GOALS.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST REQUEST.

I WANT TO PAUSE IT HERE.

DR. ELIZALDE, IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR PAM.

SURE. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MACKEY.

I DID RECOGNIZE AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS WITH DR.

LEAR, I'M LIKE, WAIT, YOU SAID KPIS? AND WE HAVE GPMS. AND I'M HEARING DIFFERENT KPIS THAT ARE ON THE GPMS. SO AND I, I KNOW I WAS EVEN HERE WHEN THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DEVELOPED IN A DIFFERENT ROLE, WORKING WITH DR.

LEAR AND DR. HINOJOSA.

AND I'M SURE WE HAD SOME RATIONALE FOR WHY THEY WERE DIFFERENT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE RATIONALE.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS AND I'LL CERTAINLY ACQUIESCE TO THE WILL OF THE BOARD.

I DO THINK THERE COULD BE BETTER ALIGNMENT BETWEEN IF WE'RE SAYING THESE ARE THE DISTRICT GOALS AND THESE ARE THE GPMS, WHATEVER THOSE GPMS ARE TO TRUSTEE MACKEY POINT, MAYBE WE LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS KPIS AND LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE AS GPMS AND BRING FORWARD TO YOU.

THESE ARE REALLY THE ONES WE'RE GOING TO DO AND THAT THOSE SHOULD BE MIRRORED ON THE SUPERINTENDENTS EVALUATION.

NOT ONLY WOULD I SUPPORT THAT, I, I DO.

MY OWN RECENT EXPERIENCE WOULD BE THAT THEY SHOULD MIRROR THE EVALUATION.

THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT WAS YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL.

AND AGAIN, AGAIN, MY GOAL IS THAT HOPEFULLY THIS TOOL IS ALIGNED WITH YOUR WORK DIRECTLY AND WHAT THE BOARD HAS LAID OUT FOR YOU.

SO EXPECTATIONS DON'T CHANGE FOR YOU AS YOU PURSUE THESE GOALS.

THE SECOND AREA IS THAT CONSTRAINTS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE DID SET THIS LAST YEAR AND WE ADDED THE CONSTRAINTS ASPECT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE THREE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY. THE BOARD HAS RELOOKED AT AND RESET CONSTRAINTS AND NOW HAS FIVE CONSTRAINTS.

IT'S GOT THE THREE THAT ARE LISTED HERE.

IT ALSO CODIFIED THE FINANCIAL ONE BECAUSE THAT IS SO IMPORTANT AS A CONSTRAINT AND I THINK THE CONSTRAINT PROGRESS MEASURES ARE EXACTLY THESE THE UNQUALIFIED OPINION, SIGNIFICANT OR SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES, ETC..

ONE AND THE FIRST RATING, ALTHOUGH WE INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT THE FUND BALANCE ONE BECAUSE ESPECIALLY YOU LOOK AT NOW IT'S A RAINY DAY, YOU SHOULD BE SPENDING THE FUND BALANCE TO HELP CATCH OUR KIDS UP AND NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE FUND BALANCE DECREASING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF WE'RE MAKING A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN THAT WAY.

AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED THE RACIAL EQUITY CONSTRAINT.

AND SO MY AND THE STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE BECAUSE THAT IS A DIFFERENT LITTLE NUGGET THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SYSTEM.

I'D AGAIN WELCOME FEEDBACK ON IT, BUT IN THE SAME WAY WE'VE SAID THE GOALS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HERE ARE OUR CONSTRAINTS, OUR VALUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO STAND ON AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE POINT.

SO THE 15 THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR FINANCE AND THE 13 FOR CONSTRAINTS THAT 28 POINTS OR WHATEVER IT ADDS UP TO BE.

IN MY OPINION, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE FIVE CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE.

EACH CONSTRAINT HAS AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF POINTS.

AS TRUSTEE CARREÓN MENTIONED, AND IT'S MEASURED BY DID WE ACHIEVE THE PROGRESS MEASURES, THE CONSTRAINT PROGRESS MEASURES THAT ARE SET AND MEASURABLE OR NOT? SO THAT'S MY SECOND QUESTION AND PUSH.

AND I'M CURIOUS THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE ON THAT.

AND THEN I'VE GOT ONE MORE SMALL ONE.

SO THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MACKEY.

AND I KNOW AND I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I GUESS, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THIS.

YOU KNOW, IT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT.

MY ONLY HESITATION OR CONCERN WITH CPM 4.1, THAT'S THE GAP BETWEEN HIGH PRIORITY CAMPUSES AND NON HIGH PRIORITY CAMPUSES AND STUDENT ACCESS TO PROFICIENT ONE TEACHERS.

AND SO WE WON'T HAVE THOSE TARGETS DETERMINED.

WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THAT BASELINE UNTIL NOVEMBER.

AND SO WE'RE BUILDING THE EVALUATION NOW AND BRINGING THAT IN NOVEMBER.

I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL SPECIFICS.

SO IF YOU SAY THERE'S ONE THAT WE CAN'T DO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA ON IT THIS YEAR, I'M FINE WITH DOING IT FOR THE OTHER ONES.

[00:30:05]

AND I GUESS THE BIGGEST THING TO ME IS THE ALIGNMENT.

WE SAID THESE ARE THE CONSTRAINTS AND HOW WE'RE MEASURING THEM.

SO IN THE EVALUATION SHOULD BE THOSE FIVE CONSTRAINTS.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S ALIGNMENT BETWEEN WHAT WE SAID WAS MOST IMPORTANT AND WHAT THE SUPERINTENDENT IS BEING EVALUATED ON.

SO IF IT HAS TO SAY LIKE CONSTRAINT FOUR, WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY HERE.

THE CONSTRAINT FOR THEN IF WE HAVE TO JUST FOCUS ON CPM 4.2 OR 4.1, YOU CAN'T DO EITHER OF THEM.

THEN I WOULD DO THE OTHER FOUR CONSTRAINTS AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT ADDING THAT CPM, THAT CONSTRAINT THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

MY GOAL IS JUST THE FIVE CONSTRAINTS TO AS BEST WE CAN SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY CHUNK OF THIS TO THE GOALS.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

THE FEEDBACK ON NOT SO MUCH SPECIFIC.

YEAH, AND NO.

AND THANK YOU. I DO GET IT.

AND I GUESS WHAT WE WERE CONSIDERING IS THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PIECE, YOU KNOW, THAT IS CPM 5.1 AND 5.2.

THE ONE WE DID ADD IS THE FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS NOT THE CONSTRAINT.

BUT WE DID INCLUDE THE STUDENT PORTION, THE SCHOOL STAFF PORTION, THE THEORY OF ACTION.

SO THE ONE THAT'S MISSING REALLY IS THE RACIAL EQUITY PIECE.

AND THE ONLY REASON MY ONLY HESITATION THERE IS JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE ANY BASELINE DATA AND WE WON'T HAVE IT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR.

THAT'S MAYBE I AM.

MAYBE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

BUT THEN THIS SHOULD BE INSTEAD OF HAVING A SEPARATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COMPONENT AND THEN THREE OTHER SMALLER CONSTRAINTS.

JUST PUT IT, THERE SHOULD BE A SECOND SECTION.

BUT CONSTRAINTS, I SEE.

AND IT'S GOT CONSTRAINT ONE, TWO, THREE AND FIVE BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO FOUR FOR WHATEVER REASON THIS YEAR AND IT SHOULD BE ROUGHLY DIVIDED UP EQUALLY AND THE WAY WE MEASURE THEM SHOULD MIMIC WHAT WE SET IN THE PROGRESS MEASURE FOR THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE A AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY POINTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS WE DON'T WANT TO PUT A CONSTRAINT HERE THAT REQUIRES A SUPERINTENDENT TO GROW THE FUND BALANCE INDEFINITELY, OR AT LEAST NOT BREAK IT.

RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO MAKE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS.

SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE SHOULDN'T BEING THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR NOW MAKING A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AND DEPLETING THE FUND BALANCE.

SO I WOULD BE ADVOCATING TO REMOVE THAT ONE FULLY AND JUST HAVE IT ALIGN WITH THE CONSTRAINTS THAT THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND THEN MY LAST LITTLE SMALLER ONE IS TO ALIGN THE FULLY SATISFACTORY NUMBERS WITH THE TARGETS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, THE TARGETS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY ON THE SCHOOL STAFF, ONE ARE CONSTRAINT ON THAT IS TO GO FROM 70 TO 74% POSITIVE.

SO AND I BELIEVE THEY GO 71, 72, 73 AND 74 IS WHERE WE SET THAT AD.

SO I THINK FULLY SATISFACTORY SHOULD BE 71, BECAUSE THAT'S THE TARGET THAT WE SET FOR THIS YEAR AND IT SHOULD JUST MIMIC THE TARGETS WHEREVER THEY ARE.

GOT IT. OK.

BUT THOSE ARE MY THREE, AND MY GOAL IN ALL OF THAT IS JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO GET ALIGNMENT BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING THE SUPERINTENDENT ON AND WHAT WE'VE TOLD HER IS MOST IMPORTANT, AND SHE'S GOING OUT AND TRYING TO DO SO.

THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

FIRST, I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BE TRYING TO ALIGN THIS INSTRUMENT WITH OUR GOALS AND CONSTRAINTS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ON THE FUND BALANCE.

ONE, I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR SPENDING DOWN THE FUND BALANCE IN IN THIS POST COVID RECOVERY TIMEFRAME.

BUT MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE SOME NUMBERS THERE.

SO IF IF THE SUPERINTENDENT SPENDS THE FUND BALANCE DOWN TO ZERO, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD THINK IS DESIRABLE.

SO WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT NOT JUST LOOKING AT A DECREASE IN THIS FUND BALANCE AS BEING GOOD OR BAD, BUT AS YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THE FUND BALANCE SHOULD WE HAVE REMAINING DURING THESE OUT PERIODS? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PROJECTED BASED ON ATTENDANCE OR BUT I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR REACTION TO THAT.

[00:35:06]

I SEE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT THOMPSON COMING UP, BUT I THINK THERE'S A GENERALLY A BEST PRACTICE OF WHAT FUND BALANCE SHOULD BE, AND WE COULD EVEN USE THAT AS A BASELINE.

RIGHT. AS I LOOK AT THE PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THERE ARE DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THERE OF OF OF POTENTIAL REDUCTION.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT FOR THE EVALUATION THAT COULD GO DOWN AND AND THE POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO IN THIS SCENARIO THERE WOULDN'T THERE WOULDN'T BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN.

BUT ANYTHING MORE THAN 70 MILLION WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY POINTS.

OKAY. WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THERE.

AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE PRESENTATION, THIS IS A THAT PARTICULAR LINE IS VERY CONFUSING IN ITS CURRENT FORM. THE CONCEPT IS NOT.

BUT THE, BUT LOOKING AT THAT, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE WE'D START OUT WITH A $660 MILLION FUND BALANCE AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A $60 MILLION DEFICIT FUND BALANCE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE CONFUSION THAT THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY PRESENTED IS.

AND I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN.

AND YOU CAN PUT A FOOTNOTE AS TO HOW YOU GOT THERE.

GOT IT. BUT THE CHART HAS GOT AN APPLES ON THE LEFT AND BANANAS ON THE RIGHT.

SO WE WOULD BE AT 610 MILLION ON FULLY SATISFACTORY.

YEAH. YES WE COULD DO.

AND I WILL SAY DR.

WEIR AND I WENT OVER A DRAFT OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THIS THAT HAD A FEW MORE OUT YEARS ON IT.

BUT THE GOAL, THE OBJECTIVE THAT WE HAD WAS IN TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF GOLDILOCKS FORMULATION OF THE TARGETS, THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE TOO EASY AND WHERE THEY WOULD INEVITABLY BE ACHIEVED AND THEY WOULDN'T BE TOO IMPOSSIBLE, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ACHIEVED SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE A REALISTIC TARGET FOR THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION TO WORK TOWARDS.

AND THAT THE GROWTH THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WAS REALISTIC.

SO MOST OF THESE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS THAT PAM AND I SORT OF NEGOTIATED WITH.

THOSE ARE ALL NOT ONLY SUBJECT TO OVERRIDE BY THIS COMMITTEE, BUT BY THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.

WHEN WE ACTUALLY SET THE SET THE GOAL WITH SUPERINTENDENT INPUT.

SO IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS AT THIS POINT, THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW THEM.

BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE NUMBERS ON THIS INSTRUMENT, THIS DRAFT INSTRUMENT AS CURRENTLY PRESENTED.

IS THERE IS THERE ANY TARGET THAT LOOKS TOO EASY OR TOO HARD? ME. SO WE HAVE SPENT LOTS OF TIME AND SO WE FEEL WE FEEL CONFIDENT AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE CURRENT NUMBERS. TRUSTEE MACKEY.

YEAH, TWO THINGS.

I DO WANT TO JUST SPEAK TO THE FUND BALANCE POINT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING FOR WHY WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT THAT IN HERE BECAUSE IT'S MEANINGFUL AND IT CERTAINLY IS WHAT WE ARE IN ESSENCE DOING BY PUTTING IT IN HERE IS PUTTING IT PRECLUSION.

WE ARE SAYING, DR.

ELIZALDE, YOU WILL NOT SPEND MORE THAN $50 MILLION OUT OF THIS FUND BALANCE THIS YEAR UNLESS YOU'RE MAKING IT UP.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE ARE PUTTING A RULE ON IT.

AND IF YOU DO, YOUR EVALUATION WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE FUND BALANCE IS NOT AN IMPORTANT THING, ETC.

BUT WE ALSO CONTROL THAT WHEN SHE A, ADOPTS THE BUDGET AND B, APPROVES ANY EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE OF THAT.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER IT.

AND THERE MIGHT BE A VERY GOOD REASON WHY WE HAVE TO SPEND MORE THAN $50 MILLION OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS RECOVERY.

SO THAT'S MY REAL CONCERN.

AND IF IT WASN'T, AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO DIE ON THIS HILL.

BUT IF IT WASN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND WE EXPLICITLY SAID THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SAY THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN OUR CONSTRAINTS, WE SHOULDN'T GO AND PUT IT IN THE EVALUATION BECAUSE THERE'S A MILLION OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS WE COULD ALSO PUT IN HERE.

BUT IT'S TO BE FOCUSED ON THE MOST IMPORTANT.

[00:40:01]

AND SO THAT'S MY ONE CONCERN WITH WITH THAT.

THE SECOND, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAT YOU HAD, YOU WANT TO FEEDBACK ON THE NUMBERS SPECIFICALLY.

TO ME THAT IS A IT'S ALMOST A DIFFICULT GAME FOR US EVERY YEAR TO JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND SAY, YEAH, THIS SOUNDS GOOD OR NOT. THAT'S WHY I THINK WE ADOPT THESE FIVE YEAR GOALS AND GPMS AND TARGETS FOR THE GOALS AND CONSTRAINTS.

IF THIS MIMICS THE GPMS AND THE GOALS AND THE CONSTRAINTS AND THE PROGRESS MEASURES.

A, THE BOARD HAS SEEN ALL OF THOSE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND ADOPTED THEM.

AND SO IT SHOULD JUST BE AN EASY PLUG AND PLAY FOR THOSE BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED RIGOROUS GOALS.

AND THEN IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO CHANGE, LIKE I KNOW THE CONVERSATION WAS BROACHED AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TARGETS BASED ON THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION WITH THE PANDEMIC, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FINE, BUT AS SOON AS THAT GETS ADOPTED, THEN THEY GET PLUGGED IN HERE WITH THE NEXT YEAR'S GOAL BEING THE FULLY SATISFACTORY RANGE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY PUSH.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO IN A VACUUM LOOK AT ANY OF THESE ONE NUMBERS AND PULL OUT EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD CHANGE BASED ON MY WINS NOW.

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY HOPE AS WE MOVE FORWARD THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE FIVE YEAR TARGETS THAT THE BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT HAVE ALREADY SET AND ADOPTED AND PUT IN POLICY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

OK THANK YOU.

TRUSTEE CARREÓN THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SORRY, I'M BACK ON THE MATH OF THE COLUMNS HERE.

I DON'T. DO THEY ADD UP TO 100? TRUSTEE WHITE AND I WERE TRYING TO DO MATH HERE.

I REMEMBER SEEING SOMETHING.

LET'S SEE THE 12 SIX.

60% AND THEN PLUS 15 PLUS 12 PLUS 13.

IS THAT 90 OR CAN JOE NOT ADD? 25 AND 15.

JOE CAN'T ADD? YEAH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DISD TAUGHT ME MATHEMATICS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WHAT THE TYPO IS OR WHAT THE FIX IS.

I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. AND THANK YOU, TRUSTEE WHITE, FOR ALSO BRINGING THAT TO MY ATTENTION.

I GUESS I'LL HOLD BACK THE TIMES TABLES THAT I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU AS A CHRISTMAS GIFT UNTIL YOU GET THE MATH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, ACTUALLY, I NEED.

I NEED YOU TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO ME, BECAUSE WHAT BEN WELL WHAT TRUSTEE MACKEY WAS SAYING, IF SHE ISN'T BEING MEASURED ON THE FUND BALANCE, BUT THIS IS HISTORICALLY BEEN IN THIS RUBRIC, CORRECT? YES, THERE'S BEEN A FUND BALANCE METRIC.

AND THE THING THAT IS UNUSUAL, OF COURSE, IS THE COVID PANDEMIC AND THE FEDERAL FUNDING. OKAY.

YEAH, I WAS. I WAS JUST BECAUSE HE I WAS LISTENING TO HIM AND I WAS LISTENING TO THE POINTS HE MADE, WHICH I GUESS IF SHE SHOULDN'T BE GRADED ON IT.

BUT SINCE WE HISTORICALLY DO IT, WHY ARE WE DOING IT? WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THE DISTRICT MEASURES.

AND WHAT TRUSTEE MACKEY SUGGESTED WAS THAT THE ONLY THING WE SHOULD PUT ON THE SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION ARE THE GOALS AND THE ASSOCIATED TARGETS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE GOALS AND THE CONSTRAINTS.

AND WE CAN DO IT.

WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD INTO THE EVALUATION OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANT THE SUPERINTENDENT TO FOCUS ON. SO IF YOU TAKE THE PURIST VIEW, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT WHAT TRUSTEE MACKEY IS ESPOUSING THAN THE THE INSTRUMENT SUPERINTENDENTS VALUES, THE INPATIENT INSTRUMENT AND THE DISTRICT GOALS MATCH EXACTLY.

AND IF YOU HAVE A SORT OF MORE MODIFIED VIEW, YOU WOULD EVALUATE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE DISTRICT, THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY LISTED IN THE LIMITED NUMBER OF GOALS WHICH WHICH REFLECT THE MOST IMPORTANT

[00:45:09]

THINGS THAT THE DISTRICT IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

AND TRUSTEE MACKEY, I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMPLIFY OR CORRECT THAT.

NO. I THINK IN SO MANY WORDS THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

AND MY ARGUMENT IS FOR ALIGNMENT.

WE COULD MEASURE. WE COULD HAVE WE COULD SIT HERE AND NAME A THOUSAND IMPORTANT THINGS BECAUSE THERE ARE 1000 IMPORTANT THINGS.

BUT IF EVERYTHING'S IMPORTANT, THEN NOTHING'S IMPORTANT.

AND SO THIS IS NOT TO SAY THOSE THINGS AREN'T IMPORTANT AND THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT IT AND PAY ATTENTION TO IT.

IN FACT, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

I MEAN, EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES IS NOT IN THIS ANY LONGER.

BUT WE HAD THE PRESENTATION ON.

WE HAD THE QUESTION. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO KEEP ALIGNMENT AND FOCUS BETWEEN WHAT THE DISTRICT SAID WAS MOST IMPORTANT AND WHAT THE BOARD SAID IS THE MOST IMPORTANT.

YES, I THINK YOUR SUMMARY IS RELATIVELY ACCURATE.

OKAY. SO IT ACTUALLY IT'S UP TO THE BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT TO COME UP WITH AN INSTRUMENT AND CAN COME UP WITH ONE THAT DOES NOT MATCH EXACTLY THE GOALS, IF THAT'S WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS.

DR. ELIZADE, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I THINK THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES, BASED ON THESE KPIS WE CERTAINLY WERE UTILIZING.

AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IS IF WE HAD ALSO PROVIDED, WHICH WE CAN DO IN MAYBE EVEN OUR BOARD UPDATE THIS WEEKEND IS MY PREDECESSOR'S TARGETS AS WELL, SO THAT THE SIMILAR PATTERNING THAT WAS DONE WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS MIRRORED HERE.

RIGHT. IT WAS THE SAME PRACTICE.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE, BUT RATHER THAT THAT'S THE AT LEAST THE INITIAL THINKING WAS IN TERMS OF DECIDING HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THESE TARGETS. WE WERE UTILIZING THE SAME APPROACH THAT DR.

LEER WORKED PREVIOUSLY.

AS I MENTIONED, IF WE GO TO TIGHTER ALIGNMENT WITH THE GOALS AND THE GPMS, THEN WE WILL NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE TARGETS, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT CREATES NOT JUST ON THIS EVALUATION, BUT WITH REGARD TO, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, WHATEVER GOALS AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT TARGETS ARE.

THOSE ARE ACTUALLY THERE'S NO DISTRICT SCORE.

I MEAN, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ALL INSTRUCTION HAPPENS AT A CAMPUS IN A CLASSROOM.

NOT AT MY OFFICE.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE AGGREGATE OF EVERYONE'S WORK.

AND SO IT HAS AN IMPACT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION, THROUGH ALL OF THE TEACHER EXCELLENCE INITIATIVES, THE PRINCIPAL EXCELLENCE INITIATIVES, THE TEIS, THE PEIS AND SO ON, AS WELL AS MY EVALUATION.

SO I DO THINK AT THAT POINT WE CERTAINLY WOULD NEED TO I WOULD BE BRINGING FORWARD AT LEAST A REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF IF THOSE TIGHTER ALIGNMENTS ARE CREATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES IN THE GOALS, BUT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO REVISIT TARGETS.

YEAH AND SORRY.

I AGREE AND I THINK THAT'S A CONVERSATION TO REVISIT TARGETS ANYWAYS I WE DID NOT CHANGE TARGETS LAST YEAR.

WE ONLY CHANGE ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF TARGETS.

BUT YES, TARGETS SHOULD BE REALISTIC FOR THE REALITY WE ARE IN, IN MY OPINION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED DRAFT THAT STRUCTURALLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT GOING TO THE FIVE CONSTRAINTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND THEN AND THEN TRYING TO ALIGN THE PROGRESS MEASURES AND THE TARGETS MORE CLOSELY, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE THE NAMES OF THE CATEGORIES AND THEN THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, WHICH WILL BE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED BY A DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE GOALS AND TARGETS ARE FOR THE BOARD.

I MEAN, FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT, FOR THE DISTRICT, AND THEN REFLECTED BACK ONTO THIS INSTRUMENT.

TRUSTEE FLORES.

JUST WANTED TO SAY HELLO.

GLAD YOU'RE HERE EARLY.

ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING, NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

[00:50:04]

WE WILL ADJOURN. THE TIME IS NOW 4:54 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.