Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

[1. Notice and Return]

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.

ALL RIGHT. THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE EITHER PHYSICALLY PRESENT OR PARTICIPATING SIMULTANEOUSLY BY VIDEOCONFERENCE.

A QUORUM OF THESE SUPERINTENDENTS VALUATION AD HOC COMMITTEE IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TRUSTEE BEN MACKEY, WHO IS ON THE COMMITTEE.

TRUSTEE CAMILLE WHITE WILL BE RUNNING LATE, BUT WE EXPECT HER HERE BEFORE THE MEETING ENDS.

OUR SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, DR.

STEPHANIE ELIZALDE, JOINS US.

AND I'M DAN MICCICHE, THE COMMITTEE CHAIR.

DR. LEAR, IS THERE A NEED FOR CLOSED SESSION FOR THIS MEETING? NO.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

[4. Discussion Items]

OUR AGENDA IS THE INSTRUMENT FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT'S APPRAISAL.

AND DR. LEAR, IF YOU WOULD.

CERTAINLY.

GOOD MORNING, VICE PRESIDENT MICCICHE AND TRUSTEE MACKEY, SUPERINTENDENT ELIZALDE.

TODAY WE'D LIKE TO START OUR SECOND SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING BY SHARING WITH YOU A REVISED INSTRUMENT BASED OFF OF OUR DISCUSSION APPROXIMATELY A MONTH AGO.

SO I WANT TO TAKE YOU THROUGH IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SCHEDULED FOR THE THE BOARD BRIEFING IS TO GO THROUGH THE ACTUAL STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS.

SO WE WILL HAVE THE DISCUSSION LATER ON THIS AFTERNOON.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU THE REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE BASED OFF OF YOUR GUIDANCE IN OUR LAST CONVERSATION.

SO THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WERE A SUBSET OF GOALS AND GPMS THAT WERE SIMILAR IN THE PREVIOUS SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION TOOL, BUT IT WASN'T A 100% MATCH OR ALIGNMENT.

THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE GPMS AND THE KPIS AND TO SELECT THOSE THAT HAD THE HIGHEST LEVERAGE FOR HELPING US REACH OUR GOALS.

SO I DO WANT TO THANK THE TEAM SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, DR.

OAKLEY'S DEPARTMENT, DR.

LUSK AND MS..

TREJO IN TEACHING AND LEARNING, AND ALSO CHIEF HEWITT AND THEIR TEAMS. THEY DID A PHENOMENAL JOB IN COMING TOGETHER TO REALLY THINK THROUGH TARGETS THAT WOULD BE RIGOROUS AND THOSE THAT WOULD REALLY HELP US WITH THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.

SO WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, 100%, THE LANGUAGE MIRRORS THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS.

SO WE HAVE THE GOALS THAT STAYED THE SAME.

WE HAVE GPMS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL HELP US ENSURE THAT WE MEET THE ACTUAL GOAL.

THE SECOND THING THAT WE LOOKED AT AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH, I GUESS, EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE UNLESS YOU WANT US TO, BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT THE BOARD MEETING.

I DO WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO FULLY SATISFACTORY.

THE FULLY SATISFACTORY TARGET DOES MIRROR THIS YEAR'S TARGET.

SO WHEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION, YOU CAN SEE THAT WHAT'S UNDER PFS OR FULLY SATISFACTORY WILL BE THE TARGET THAT WE WILL MEET THIS

[00:05:06]

YEAR. THE NEXT THING AND DR.

OAKLEY, IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE SECOND PAGE, THE NEXT THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AS FAR AS A REVISION WOULD BE ON THE SECOND PAGE. AND ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, THERE'S ONE OTHER REVISION THAT I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.

WE DID CHANGE GOAL FOUR USUALLY GOAL FOUR DEALT WITH COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS.

AND THEN GOAL FIVE WAS MIDDLE GRADES AND THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME.

WE JUST INVERSED THEM SO THAT IT WOULD BE IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.

SO THE NEXT THING THAT THE COMMITTEE ASKED ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT UNDER GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, WE USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY ON THE HISTORICAL SIDE OF FUND BALANCE AND JUST USED THAT SAME METHODOLOGY ON OUR PERFORMANCE TARGETS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE NEGATIVE NUMBERS.

IT JUST SHOWS WHAT OUR PROJECTION IS FOR OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE.

THE NEXT REVISION THAT WE MADE WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS TO THE COMMITTEE, WE HAD THREE CONSTRAINTS AND WE ADDED ALL CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE AE LOCAL TO THE ACTUAL TOOL.

SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE CONSTRAINTS ADDED.

THE THERE ARE TWO DATA POINTS THAT WE ARE STILL WAITING ON AND ONE IS THE STUDENT SURVEY.

SO THIS WILL BE THE FIRST YEAR AND HANOVER WILL BE PROCESSING THAT DATA.

BUT THE STUDENTS ARE LOOKING AT SCHOOL SAFETY, THEY'RE LOOKING AT SCHOOL CLIMATE AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT A SENSE OF BELONGING.

AND SO ALL OF THAT DATA WILL BE AGGREGATED AND WE'LL HAVE A BASELINE.

MONTE VALDES-DAPENA IS REALLY LEADING THAT CHARGE.

AND THIS WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DATA, I WOULD SAY, IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.

THE NEXT PIECE OF DATA THAT WE'RE WAITING ON IS THE EQUITY PRIORITY ONE.

TEACHERS AT HPC SCHOOLS, AND WE HAVE THAT DATA PROBABLY TODAY, TOMORROW, SOMETIME VERY SOON.

AND SO THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, THEN WE WILL HAVE BASELINE DATA FOR THAT PARTICULAR CONSTRAINT.

SO THOSE WERE THE AREAS THAT THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT, AND THOSE WERE THE REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO DISCUSS? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THE THE KPIS THAT ARE NO LONGER REFLECTED ON THIS DRAFT VERSION, IF YOU COULD, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME METRICS THAT WE HAD ON THE PREVIOUS VERSION AND USED IN PREVIOUS YEARS.

THEY WERE EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF KPIS.

AND I THINK WHILE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THE COMMITTEE TO USE THE GROWTH PROGRESS MEASURES INSTEAD OF KPIS, I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT METRICS ARE BEING LOST BY MAKING THIS CHANGE AND GIVE THE COMMITTEE AND THEN THE BOARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO INCLUDE THOSE METRICS.

ABSOLUTELY. AND AT YOUR TABLE, I JUST GAVE YOU KIND OF THE TEMPLATE THAT WE USED IN THE PAST.

AND SO WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE TEAM LOOKED BOTH AT THE APIS AND THE GPMS TO MAKE WHAT WE FELT WAS THE BEST DECISION THAT WOULD GET US TO THE ACTUAL GOAL.

AND IF WE START WITH JUST KPI 1.1, WE'RE LOOKING AT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT FOR ALL SUBJECT AREAS USING THE STATE ASSESSMENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAD IN THE PAST.

WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT MATH AND READING AND WE'RE USING MAP.

SO IT'S TRULY IS A GOAL PROGRESS MEASURE AND THAT WOULD BE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR.

SO THAT'S ONE THAT'S TAKEN OFF.

THE SECOND IS KPI 1.2, AND THAT'S REALLY LOOKING AT THE THE GAP BETWEEN STATE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND OUR LOCAL ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED.

SO THAT'S ONE THAT'S COMPLETELY TAKEN OFF AND THERE'S NOT ANOTHER VERSION OF THAT PARTICULAR KPI, KPI 2.1 AND 3.1 LOOK AT CLASS DATA AND WE THINK THAT THAT DATA IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT

[00:10:04]

WE'RE LETTING GO.

WE'RE JUST NOT PUTTING IT ON THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION TOOL.

THAT IS REALLY LOOKING AT TEACHER BEHAVIOR AS WELL AS CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT.

SO OUR EARLY LEARNING DEPARTMENT AND OUR TEACHING AND LEARNING AND SCHOOL LEADERSHIP WILL CONTINUE TO TO RECEIVE THAT DATA AND USE IT TO INFORM PRACTICE. IF WE LOOK AT KPI 2.2, THAT KPI HAS BEEN REMOVED.

HOWEVER, WE'RE CONTINUING TO FOCUS ON AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE USING THE MAP ASSESSMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE STATE ASSESSMENT.

IF WE GO TO THREE POINT KPI, 3.2, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS IN THE AREA OF MATH, BUT WE'RE USING THE MAP ASSESSMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE STATE ASSESSMENT.

THE NEXT ONE THAT IS COMPLETELY TAKEN OUT AND THERE'S NOT ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS IS STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN RIGOROUS COURSES. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AND WE'LL WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR.

AND EVEN TODAY IN OUR CONSTRAINTS, THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR CONSTRAINTS.

WE'LL LOOK AT SOME DATA IN RIGOROUS COURSES AND THE GAP BETWEEN AFRICAN AMERICAN AND EMERGENT BILINGUAL VERSUS ALL OTHER STUDENT GROUPS.

THE LAST SECTION, OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND THAT'S KPI 5.1 AND 5.2.

AND WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE COMBINED READING AND MATH AND WE'RE USING THE MAP ASSESSMENT IN OUR NEW SUPERINTENDENT TOOL.

SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT LOSING THE METRIC.

IT'S JUST WE'VE COMBINED THEM TOGETHER AND WE'RE USING MAP.

SO THOSE ARE THE THE CHANGES WITH THE KPIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MACKEY.

YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE ALIGNMENT OF LOOKING AT THE GOAL PROGRESS MEASURES WE HAD BEFORE THE KPIS, PICKING THE MOST CORRELATIVE AND MOST IMPORTANT AND PUTTING THEM THERE.

I KNOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU GUYS ARE IGNORING EVERYTHING ELSE.

IT JUST IT'S NOT MEASURED HERE AND THIS ALL FOCUSES ON ACHIEVING THE GOALS.

SO I THINK THAT IS PHENOMENAL.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO THE FIRST ONE IS I LOVE THE FULLY SATISFACTORY BEING THE TARGET FOR THIS YEAR.

THAT SHOULD CHANGE INDEFINITELY FORWARD.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR AND IT LOOKS LIKE I'M CURIOUS HOW WE GOT TO THOSE, BECAUSE THOSE ALL SEEM TO BE JUST SLIGHTLY ABOVE WHAT THIS ONE IS.

ONE POINT. IN FACT, TO THE POINT I'M LOOKING AT 5.4 OR 5.3 SORRY, THAT FULLY SATISFACTORY IS GETTING 440 CERTIFICATES AND CLEARLY SUPERIOR IS GETTING ONE MORE CERTIFICATE.

THAT TO ME DOESN'T SEEM CHALLENGING.

IT SHOULD BE REALISTIC, IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT IT SHOULD BE A PUSH TO GET TO THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

SO I'M WONDERING HOW WE GOT TO THOSE NUMBERS.

YEAH, AND I AGREE ACTUALLY, TRUSTEE MACKEY ON 5.3, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WE WE NEED TO REALLY REVIEW AND LOOK AT. WE GOT HERE BY THE FULLY SATISFACTORY TARGET AND LATER ON TODAY CHIEF HEWITT IS GOING TO WALK THE BOARD THROUGH HOW WE GOT THROUGH THOSE TARGETS.

BUT IT'S RIGOROUS.

THE FULLY SATISFACTORY ABSOLUTELY IS, TALKING JUST CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

AND SO BECAUSE THE CURRENT OUR FULLY SATISFACTORY TARGET IS I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT JUST SLIGHTLY RIGOROUS.

I MEAN IT IS IT'S AGGRESSIVE.

AND SO WE FELT ANYTHING OVER THAT REALLY IS CLEARLY SUPERIOR BUT OPEN TO CONVERSATION.

AND AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK ON 5.3 AND REVIEW THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN THAT SHOULD BE HIGHER.

SOME OF THE OTHERS, FOR EXAMPLE, 5.4 LAST YEAR WAS OUR FIRST YEAR.

THAT'S THE ONLY DATA POINT THAT WE HAVE.

AND SO IT'S HARD JUST TO LOOK AT HISTORY TO DETERMINE WHERE WE SHOULD LAND WITH THAT CLEARLY SUPERIOR. SO THAT'S WHY THE INCREMENT IS 0.5.

YEAH. AND SO AGAIN, I AM A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF ADJUSTING THE GOALS AND THE CONSTRAINTS AND THE PROGRESS MEASURES TO BE REALISTIC

[00:15:02]

AND MEANINGFUL.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US DO THIS IN A WAY WHERE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT MAKING ONE OFF DECISIONS.

IT'S A SYSTEMATIC THING THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM THE GET GO.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF IDEAS AND YOU CAN TAKE THEM AND DISCUSS THEM.

SO MY THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, IF FULLY SATISFACTORY, IS THIS YEAR'S TARGET CLEARLY SUPERIOR DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE NEXT YEAR'S TARGET FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, BUT WHAT IF IT WAS SOME AMOUNT LIKE 40% TOWARDS THAT AMOUNT? SO IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, FIVE POINTS UP TO NEXT YEAR, THEN EXCEEDING BY TWO POINTS THIS YEAR WOULD GET US THERE.

AND SOMETHING THAT THERE'S A CONSISTENCY BECAUSE THESE ALL DO HAVE FIVE YEAR TARGETS THAT WE KNOW AND THAT IT'S STANDARD AND YEAH, THAT YOU'VE HOPEFULLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE REALISTIC AMOUNTS OF THEM WHEN WE'VE SET THE FIVE YEAR TARGETS AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE ONE OR IF NOTHING ELSE, TO KEEP THE SAME LIKE GROWTH JUMP HERE.

SO I SEE LIKE 44 IS SLIGHTLY SATISFACTORY, 46%.

I'M LOOKING AT GOAL ONE THAT MAY MAYBE 48%.

JUST SO THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY TO HOW WE DO IT RATHER THAN ONE MORE CERTIFICATION HERE OR 0.5% HERE AND ONE BECAUSE THEN THAT'S JUST GOING TO BRING A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO BE ABLE TO SET A RULE ON THIS THAT IS CLEAR AND CAN BE CONSISTENT.

AND THAT WAY YOU ALREADY KNOW IT.

NEXT YEAR, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.

IT'S 40% TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S GOAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, CONSISTENT.

AND IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST DOING DIFFERENT THINGS ON DIFFERENT ONES.

SURE. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HARD WORK.

I KNOW HOW MUCH TIME, EFFORT WE SPEND A TON OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, SO I CAN SEE IT REFLECTED HERE.

AS FAR AS THE CONSTRAINTS.

I AM SUPER APPRECIATIVE OF HOW WE HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE IN THE SAME WAY WE'RE GOING SUPERINTENDENT, THE CONSTRAINTS WE SET THOSE, WE HAVE TARGETS FOR THEM AS I'M LOOKING AT THEM.

SO I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THEY ALIGN DIRECTLY WITH OUR CONSTRAINTS.

SO I SEE LIKE STUDENTS, ALL THREE COMBINED.

THAT IS CONSTRAINT ONE, RIGHT? THAT IS SCHOOL STAFF, THAT IS CONSTRAINT TWO, THEORY OF ACTION, THAT IS CONSTRAINT THREE .

CONSTRAINT FOUR IS THE NEXT TWO.

YES. SO CONSTRAINT FOUR WE HAVE TWO CONSTRAINTS FOR 4.1 AND 4.2, WHICH WILL REPORT OUT ON ONE TODAY. YEAH.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE FINANCIAL INDICATORS CORRECT, WHICH I SEE THERE.

SO I DO HAVE SOME AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY A GET I MEAN WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE VALUE THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY CONSTRAINT FIVE TIMES AS MUCH AS WE VALUE THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE CONSTRAINT, TEN POINTS TOTAL FOR THAT ONE VERSUS TWO POINTS FOR THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE.

I DON'T I PERSONALLY THINK THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT MORE AND THEY SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT IN LINE.

SO MAYBE WE LOOK AT THOSE.

MAYBE WE DO SAY ONE OF THESE CONSTRAINTS IS MORE PRIORITIZED THAN THE OTHER.

I DON'T KNOW OF TEN POINTS.

WELL, THAT'S ONE THOUGHT I'M HAVING.

I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS.

AM I READING THIS CORRECT TO SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR DR.

ELIZALDE TO BE FULLY SATISFACTORY IN THERE, SHE MUST MAINTAIN A $610 MILLION SURPLUS THIS YEAR.

CORRECT. AND I'LL ASK CHIEF ALFRED ALFORD IF YOU HAVE MORE.

WELL, I DON'T HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THE SURPLUS.

I KNOW LAST TIME WHEN WE MET AND WE LOOKED AT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA, WE SAW THAT WE STILL HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT GAPS.

AND THIS BOARD, I THINK ACROSS THE BOARD SAID, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO DIFFERENTLY? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INVEST THIS MONEY HERE? AND WE EXPECT A BIG INVESTMENT TO REALLY HELP MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR KIDS.

TO ME, THAT SOUNDS CONFLICTING.

IF WE TELLING YOU TO COME BRING AN IDEA THAT MIGHT COST THE MONEY AND PUT US BELOW THE THRESHOLD.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING BECAUSE WE SET THESE GOALS AND YOU'VE AGREED TO THESE GOALS, THEN WE'RE GOING TO PUNISH YOU AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET ZERO POINTS HERE BECAUSE YOU HAD TO SPEND MORE THAN THIS THRESHOLD, BECAUSE FOR A VERY STRATEGIC AND THOUGHTFUL REASON, THAT SEEMS LIKE A CONCERN TO ME IF I'M IN YOUR SHOES, DR.

ELIZADE. SO I'M WONDERING WHAT ADMINISTRATION HAS THOUGHT ABOUT THAT CONFLICT.

SO FROM A SUPERINTENDENT'S PURVIEW, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT FUNDING TO MEET THE EXPECTATION OF NEEDING TO ADD MORE RESOURCES WITHOUT GOING INTO

[00:20:05]

BELOW THIS FUND BALANCE THAT'S ON HERE.

AND SO I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH OUR TEAM KNOWING, FOR INSTANCE, EVEN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR, WE WE'VE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THERE WERE CERTAIN POSITIONS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FILLED.

AND SO IT'S ABOUT REPURPOSING DOLLARS.

AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF AND IF IN FACT I END UP WITH NEEDING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE ACADEMICALLY.

AND I GO BELOW THAT AND I JUST THINK THAT'S THE SUPERINTENDENT KNOWING AND CARING MORE ABOUT STUDENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES AND THE POINT SHE'S GOING TO GET ON THE FINANCE SIDE AND IT'S A TRICKY PIECE BECAUSE WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT HAS TO BE SUSTAINABLE, NOT KNOWING WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH FUNDING WITH REGARD TO OUR PAY FOR PERFORMANCE. AND SO I THINK THERE'S ALSO A PROTECTIVE NATURE OF ENSURING THAT THERE'S ENOUGH MONEY TO CARRY THAT DEEP COMMITMENT FROM THIS BOARD.

I KNOW THAT'S WEIGHING HEAVILY ON US AS WELL.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I KNOW YOU HAVE A DEEP COMMITMENT AND YOU WOULD NOT LET THIS STOP YOU FROM DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR KIDS.

I JUST THINK IT'S A FLAW IN OUR SYSTEM TO SET THIS UP IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT THE BATTLE OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE HERE IF OTHERS REALLY THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE, IT'S CLEARLY IMPORTANT.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT IMPORTANT, BUT WE SHOULDN'T SET THIS THRESHOLD IN MY MIND AND THEN SCORE YOU ON IT.

IF THAT'S NOT ALSO IN THE BEST INTEREST OF KIDS, WE DO HAVE TO STAY FINANCIALLY SOLVENT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY, THE AUDIT, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE FIRST RATING, ETC..

NOW, THAT SAID, WHETHER IT STAYS OR GOES, I CAN MOVE EITHER WAY.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE RATED MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF TIMES WHAT OUR STUDENT EXPERIENCE IS.

SO THIS WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION AS POTENTIALLY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO LEAVE IT HERE BUT NOT SCORE THIS AS FIVE POINTS.

SCORE THIS ONE IS TWO POINTS AND ADD THOSE EXTRA THREE POINTS TO THE STUDENT SURVEY EXPERIENCE THE SCHOOL STAFF EXPERIENCE, THE THEORY OF ACTION EXPERIENCE.

THAT WAY YOU GET CLOSER TO SOME OF THE SCORES BASED ON THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU TRUSTEE MACKEY.

TRUSTEE WHITE. I KNOW WE STARTED BEFORE YOU GOT HERE, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD? OR WOULD YOU LIKE DR.

LEAR TO GIVE YOU A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS DRAFT? A QUICK SUMMARY.

SURE, ABSOLUTELY.

GOOD MORNING, TRUSTEE WHITE.

GOOD MORNING. SO THE LAST TIME WE CAME TOGETHER WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION AROUND THE INITIAL SUPERINTENDENT EVALUATION INSTRUMENT AND THE COMMITTEE GAVE ADMINISTRATION SEVERAL REQUESTS OR GUIDANCE FOR REVISION.

AND SO I JUST I TOOK THE COMMITTEE THROUGH THOSE REVISIONS.

AND SO WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THE THE VALUES AND THE NUMBERS BECAUSE OUR STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS IS ON THE SUPERINTENDENT REPORT LATER TODAY WITH THE FULL BOARD AND WE'LL GO MORE IN DEPTH THERE.

BUT WHAT I DID WANT TO DO IS TO SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE THE OVERARCHING CHANGES THAT WE DID MAKE.

AND SO I THINK THE A BIG CHANGE THAT WE MADE WAS WE ACTUALLY TOOK THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS AND WE ALIGNED IT 100% WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION INSTRUMENT.

SO WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE LANGUAGE IS 100% THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS.

THE NEXT THING THAT WE DID WAS UNDER F'S UNDER 20 TO 23 PERFORMANCE TARGET.

THAT'S FULLY SATISFACTORY.

SO THE WE HAVE PUT THE TARGET THAT WE'RE EXPECTING THIS YEAR TO BE FULLY SATISFACTORY.

AND SO THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

THE NEXT LARGE CHANGE THAT WE MADE WAS WHAT TRUSTEE MACKEY WAS SHARING UNDER GENERAL FUND SURPLUS.

WE CHANGE THAT SO WE DIDN'T HAVE NEGATIVE NUMBERS, WE CHANGED IT.

SO THE METHODOLOGY ON THAT SIDE OF THE TARGET WAS THE SAME AS HOW WE WERE SHOWING HISTORICAL VALUES.

THE NEXT CHANGE CAME WITH CONSTRAINTS.

INITIALLY, WE ONLY HAD THREE CONSTRAINTS.

THE COMMITTEE GAVE GUIDANCE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE LISTED IN A-E.

SO YOU CAN SEE ALL FIVE CONSTRAINTS LISTED THERE.

[00:25:05]

SO I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE.

YEAH, I THINK THAT GIVES YOU KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE CHANGES.

TWO THINGS THAT I DID BRING TO TRUSTEES MICCICHE AND MACKEY'S ATTENTION IS YOU'LL SEE UNDER CONSTRAINTS WITH STUDENTS AND IT SAYS ALL THREE COMBINED.

THIS IS A NEW CONSTRAINT THAT WE JUST PUT INSTITUTE OR WE JUST PUT IN PLACE IN AE IN MAY.

SO RIGHT AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.

AND THE WAY WE ARE PULLING THAT DATA TOGETHER IS BY GIVING A SURVEY TO STUDENTS GRADES THREE THROUGH 12.

AND THERE ARE THREE AREAS.

ONE IS SCHOOL CLIMATE, ONE IS SAFETY, AND THE OTHER IS A SENSE OF BELONGING.

AND SO WE'LL TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND AGGREGATE IT UP, AND IT IS DONE BY A THIRD PARTY HANOVER AND THAT SURVEY, IS IT PANORAMA? SORRY, NOT HANOVER, PANORAMA.

THANK YOU, DR. OAKLEY.

SEE, I NEED SOMEBODY HERE CHECKING ME.

AND THAT SURVEY HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND SO NOW WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE RESULTS.

SO AS SOON AS WE GET THE RESULTS, THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, WE SHOULD HAVE THAT BASELINE FOR YOU.

THE SECOND IS DEALS WITH OUR HIGH PERFORMING CAMPUSES, PROFICIENT ONE TEACHERS.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR HIGH PRIORITY CAMPUSES RECEIVE PROFICIENT ONE OR BETTER TEACHERS JUST LIKE ALL OF OUR OTHER CAMPUSES.

THAT INFORMATION IS CURRENTLY BEING AGGREGATED AND WE SHOULD HAVE THAT THE NEXT TIME WE MEET AS A COMMITTEE.

AND SO THE LAST THING I JUST WANT TO BRING TO THE FULL COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION ON GPM, 5.5, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S LEFT OFF THERE AND IT SHOULD INCLUDE LET ME JUST READ IT TO YOU.

IT SHOULD SAY THE PERCENT OF COLLEGE ENROLLMENT WILL INCREASE FROM 62% TO 67%, INCLUDING THE NUMBERS OF ASSOCIATE DEGREES ATTAINED.

SO THAT LANGUAGE WAS LEFT OFF.

SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS IN THERE.

SO TRUSTEE Y, THOSE WERE KIND OF THE THE BIG BUCKETS OF REVISIONS THAT WE MADE BASED ON OUR LAST MEETING.

SO ON 3 TO 3 THROUGH 12, IT'S GOING TO BE THEY WERE SURVEYED ON SCHOOL CLIMATE, SENSE OF BELONGING.

AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? THERE WAS THE SAFETY.

AND ALSO THE CONSTRAINTS.

THE FIRST TIER IS FOR STUDENTS.

THE SECOND TIER WAS WITH SCHOOL STAFF.

AND LATER TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BE REPORTING OUT ON OUR CONSTRAINT ON SCHOOL STAFF THAT REALLY LOOKS AT POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT.

AND SO THEY'RE TEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OR TEN DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.

AND SO I'LL SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU.

AND SO THE STAFF DOES THAT PARTICULAR SURVEY IN THE IN DECEMBER AND THEN ANOTHER ONE IN THE SPRING MAY.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY. FIRST, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT THAT LEGEND IN.

I LIKE THE THE FORMAT A LITTLE BETTER.

YEAH. I FULLY SUPPORT GOING TO THE GROWTH PROGRESS MEASURES INSTEAD OF THE KPIS.

SO STRUCTURALLY, I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

JUST IN THE FORMAT, I DON'T THINK WE PICKED UP ALL OF THE ABBREVIATIONS I SEE IN THE CONSTRAINTS AREA.

THERE ARE SOME ABBREVIATIONS THAT ARE NOT IN THE LEGEND, BUT SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC CAN ACTUALLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FIRST 60% OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.

BUT WHEN YOU WHEN WE GET TO THE LAST 40%, IT'S ALL SORT OF LIKE INSIDE BASEBALL.

YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WHAT IT MEANS AND PARTICULARLY IN THE CONSTRAINTS.

IT'S JUST LIKE, WHAT IS IT? AND SO I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE LEGEND, YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A FOOTNOTE THAT EXPLAINS WHAT STUDENTS ALL THREE COMBINED MEANS.

SOMEBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP THE DOCUMENT AND NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT BE COMPLETELY BEWILDERED BY BY BY WHAT THE WHAT THE DOCUMENT MEANS.

[00:30:04]

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS.

SO AS I LOOK ACROSS AND TRUSTEE WHITE, THIS ANSWERS THE HISTORICAL QUESTION THAT YOU AND I HAD A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION ON, ON, ON THE PAGE THREE OF THREE UNDER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS.

FIRST, THE NUMBERS SEEM SEEM A LITTLE BIT ODD IN THAT IN 2016-17 THAT LESS THAN 23 MILLION.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE APPLES AND APPLES IN EVERY ONE OF THESE COLUMNS? AND THE THIRD THING IS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, LIKE THE ANNUAL SURPLUS FOR A YEAR, OR ARE WE LOOKING AT THE GENERAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE IN THAT COLUMN? SO LET ME START WITH, BECAUSE I'M PUZZLED BY THE LESS THAN 23 MILLION.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE FUND BALANCE BEING LESS THAN 23 MILLION.

I'M SORRY. TRUSTEE.

I'M. BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE SHOWS THE BEGINNING AT 118 MILLION..

AND YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK THAT THAT COLUMN, THE 16-17 SHOULD NOT BE THERE THAT SHOULD BE HIDDEN.

SO SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, WE'VE NEVER HAD NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE.

BUT THE DOCUMENT I'M LOOKING AT STARTS IN 17-18, WHICH IS 118 MILLION.

OKAY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT MY DOCUMENT READS.

BUT I'VE ACTUALLY GOT ON THE ONE THAT IS POSTED HAS 2016-17 AND HAS THE 23 MILLION NUMBER IN THERE, WHICH I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS JUST A CALCULATION ERROR THAT IT IS THAT GOT ON THERE BUT IT WAS LIKE I JUST CAN'T SEE 23 MILLION AND 660 MILLION AND HOW WE GOT FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

BUT I DO I DO FEEL THAT THE 2017-18 NUMBERS ARE SORT OF CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I REMEMBERED, WHAT WAS IN THIS 20 1617? I DON'T REMEMBER.

AND THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUN BALANCE, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANNUAL SURPLUS THAT WE'RE.

SO WHAT IS REFLECTED HERE IS THE JUNE 30TH UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND.

OKAY. THAT THAT THAT CLEARS IT UP FOR ME WITH RESPECT TO TRUSTEE MACKEY IS A COMMENT ABOUT AND THEN IF IF I'M GETTING THIS, IS IT YOUR PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THIS THIS LINE, IS THAT YOUR PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POINTS ASSIGNED TO THIS LINE OR OR TO OR YOU'RE INDIFFERENT TO KEEPING IT, BUT JUST MY IDEAL IF THIS WERE JUST ME, WOULD BE TO REMOVE IT AND ASSIGN THOSE FIVE POINTS INTO THE REST OF THE CONSTRAINTS.

HOWEVER, I REMEMBER US HAVING THIS CONVERSATION LAST TIME AND PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION THINKS THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT THING, IN WHICH CASE I AM OKAY WITH LEAVING IT. AND IN THAT CASE MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE POINTS TO TWO POINTS.

SO IT IS REFLECTED, IT IS MONITORED, IT IS THERE.

AND TAKE THOSE THREE POINTS AND PUT IT IN STUDENTS, SCHOOL STAFF AND THEORY OF ACTION SO THAT THE CONSTRAINTS ARE MORE ACCURATELY COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE ASSIGNING POINTS THERE.

OKAY. THANKS.

YEAH, APPRECIATE THAT.

AND OBVIOUSLY SO MUCH OF THIS DISCUSSION ON THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IS DEPENDENT UPON THE NEXT MEETING AND COMING BACK AND LOOKING AT IT. AND SO WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR COLUMN.

I WANT TO JUST RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT AFTER WE HAVE THE PRIOR MEETING.

I MEAN, THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING.

AND THEN SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIONS UNDER CONSTRAINTS, LIKE I SAID, I CAN'T FOLLOW THE SUMMARY TO TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S THERE.

AND WHILE I MIGHT REMEMBER IT DURING THE MEETING, IF I LOOK BACK AT THIS IN A YEAR OR SOMEBODY CALLS ME UP AND ASKED ME A QUESTION ABOUT IT,

[00:35:08]

SAY, DAN, WHAT IS STUDENTS ALL THREE COMBINED? I ACTUALLY AM GOING TO HAVE TO DO A RESEARCH PROJECT TO ANSWER THAT.

SO.

I COMPLETELY AGREE. SO IF WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH ACTUALLY EACH ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THERE.

RIGHT NOW? NO, NO.

OK AND TRUSTEE MICCICHE, MAYBE IT MIGHT HELP, ONE, THAT WE JUST DO A BETTER JOB WITH THE WORDING OF THAT, BUT TWO, ALSO MAYBE PUT AN ASTERISK AS A FOOTNOTE AE LOCAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT REFERS TO.

AE LOCAL IDENTIFIES AND DELINEATES HOW THE METRIC AND WHAT IT MEANS.

YEAH, I REALIZE THAT ON THE CHART YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T PUT A PARAGRAPH.

SURE, BUT, BUT YOU CAN IN A FOOTNOTE.

AND SO WHAT I'D BE LOOKING FOR IS NOT JUST A REFERENCE TO, YOU KNOW, A 12 PAGE POLICY, BUT, AT LEAST SOME SORT OF INDICATION OF HOW THAT THAT POLICY IS IS BEING APPLIED IN THIS.

WE AGREE. JUST YEAH, A RECOMMENDATION I THINK YOU COULD DO IT JUST CONSTRAINT ONE, STUDENT EXPERIENCE AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE A NOTE, AN ASTERISK THAT HAS LIKE IT'S CALCULATED BY 1.1, 1.2 OR 1.3 COMBINED.

YEAH. CONSTRAINT TWO, CONSTRAINT THREE, CONSTRAINT FOUR A, FOUR B FOR THE TWO RACIAL EQUITY ONES.

AND YOU CAN EVEN SAY CONSTRAINT 4.1 AND 4.2 OR WHATEVER.

THEN GOING BACK TO THAT COMMENT ON GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, I'M NOT ACTUALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT TRUSTEE MACKEY IS SUGGESTING ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

I THINK THERE IS SOME VALUE IN HAVING CONSISTENCY, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME, OVER THE YEARS TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.

ON THE NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT WE HAVE.

I DO DO WORRY ABOUT SORT OF OPENING UP THE CAN OF WORMS THAT EVERYBODY WANTING TO MOVE POINTS AROUND.

AND ONE OF THE VERY VALUABLE THINGS ABOUT AN INSTRUMENT LIKE THIS IS YOU CAN COMPARE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

AND WHEN YOU CHANGE THINGS A LOT, IT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT THE THE INSTRUMENTS ARE NOT NOT COMPARABLE OR THE FACTORS ARE NOT NOT COMPARABLE.

SO WHILE WE HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES OVER TIME AND WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE FORM, IT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MODEL AND JUST THERE IS SOME VALUE IN IN HAVING SOME CONSISTENCY.

SO I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE WITH THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.

BUT AS SOON AS YOU START SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS FACTOR SHOULD HAVE FEWER POINTS, THEN IT SORT OF OPENS UP A DISCUSSION THAT ALL THESE OTHER FACTORS, YOU KNOW, SHOULD HAVE MORE OR LESS POINTS.

SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

DR. ELIZALDE, IF I COULD, I JUST WANTED TO AND I KNOW WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS DURING THE BRIEFING, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST TO TRUSTEE MACKEY'S POINT, I JUST WANTED TO, ON THE LIKE FROM THE FULLY SATISFACTORY TO THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR COMPONENT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND THE 441 IS AN ANOMALY THAT WAS JUST AN ERROR.

THE OTHERS WERE PUT THERE BY THE ONE POINT ADDITIONAL.

I BELIEVE PREVIOUSLY IT WAS TWO POINTS.

AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS AS AGAIN, AS THE TEAM WAS TOGETHER WORKING IS REALISTICALLY IF WE WERE NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME PATTERN.

GIVEN THAT I'VE ARRIVED AT A TIME WHERE OUR STUDENT PERFORMANCE IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS, THE TRAJECTORY WAS PRIOR TO WHEN THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DEVELOPED, AND I'M SO THANKFUL THAT THE BOARD IS ALLOWING US TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

AND SPECIFICALLY, THANK YOU TRUSTEE MACKEY, FOR REALLY BEING OPEN TO ALLOWING US TO REVISIT THIS.

I THINK PART OF IT IS REALLY, WE THINK FULLY SATISFACTORY IS ACTUALLY CLEARLY SUPERIOR, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WERE ALL STRUGGLING.

WE'RE LIKE, WELL, WE CAN'T PUT IT THERE.

THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET.

BUT AS WE CONTINUE TO ANALYZE WHERE OUR STUDENTS ARE, THE STRUGGLE FOR ALL OF US THEN WAS THEN THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS WHY THAT WAS THERE.

IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CORRECT, JUST SO THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW THE RATIONALE OF WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS.

AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS THIS IS NO LONGER FIVE YEARS BECAUSE TWO YEARS.

SO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES, LIKE THIS IS YEAR THREE, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE FIVE YEARS TO GET THERE.

[00:40:01]

WE REALLY HAVE THREE.

AND SO THAT'S COMPRESSED OUR TIME FRAME AND THAT WAS AFFECTING OUR CONVERSATION.

I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE.

AND THEN JUST AS A REMINDER, BEYOND OUR BOARD BRIEFING, WE'VE ALSO SET UP TRUSTEE TRIADS BETWEEN TODAY'S BOARD BRIEFING AND OUR ACTUAL VOTING MEETING SO THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF THE TRUSTEES TO WEIGH IN AS DEEPLY AS THEY WOULD LIKE BETWEEN NOW AND THE VOTING MEETING.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SAY THOSE FEW WORDS.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE MACKEY YEAH, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THAT'S THE FAIR CONVERSATION TO HAVE AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE.

AS FAR AS SO TRUSTEE MICCICHE, I DO WANT TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION BECAUSE I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE WORRY ABOUT MOVING POINTS.

IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT WE DO AS LITTLE MOVING OF POINTS AS POSSIBLE YEAR TO YEAR AND THAT THIS BECOMES AGNOSTIC OF WHATEVER THIS COMMITTEE DOES.

AND THAT'S WHY MY ORIGINAL REASONING FOR REMOVING THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS IS BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

MIGHT I ENVISION AND I CAN SEE THIS WE HAVE SET OUT FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT, HERE ARE YOUR GOALS AND HERE ARE YOUR CONSTRAINTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR EVALUATION SHOULD BE MONITORED ON.

AND THEN THAT STAYS CONSISTENT HERE ON.

MY FEAR IS WHEN WE HAVE OTHER THINGS IN HERE LIKE THE GENERAL FUND SURPLUS, THEN THE NEXT TIME THIS COMMITTEE MEETS, WELL, WE REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND WE ADD IT IN THERE AS A METRIC, ETC., AND THEN YOU REDISTRIBUTE POINTS.

I WOULD LOVE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN SAY SOMEWHERE IN OUR POLICY THAT 60% OF IT IS FOCUSED ON GOALS.

20%, 23%, 20 WHATEVER PERCENT IS FOCUSED ON CONSTRAINTS.

AND IF THE BOARD WANTS TO ALTER THE FOCUS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE BOARD'S PURVIEW TO DO SO.

BUT WE DO SO BY ALTERING THE GOALS AND THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO AND JUST TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF POINTS IN THE CONSTRAINTS AS A WHOLE AS IT'S ONE OF OUR CRITICAL COMPONENTS IN A LOCAL.

AND SO THAT'S MY POINT HERE AS WE GO FORWARD.

OKAY. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.

IT'S REALLY MORE OF AN ART THAN A SCIENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT VALUES ARE ASSIGNED TO WHAT WHAT CATEGORIES AND ACTUALLY WHAT GOES ON IN THE FORM AND WHAT DOESN'T GO ON THE FORM.

AND JUST IN FROM A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE, THE FORM IS KIND OF A NECESSARY THE EVALUATION OF A SUPERINTENDENT, BUT IT'S NOT THE TOTAL EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT LIKE A LOT OF IMPORTANT THINGS ARE NOT ON THE FORM, BUT THEY GO INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERINTENDENT'S PERFORMANCE IS SATISFACTORY.

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE HAVE ANOTHER PART ON THE INCENTIVES.

WE DO.. DR. LEAR.

WHICH SHOULD BE VERY FAST BECAUSE IT IT LET'S SEE, DR.

OAKLEY'S GOING TO OH, THERE WE GO.

SO PART OF THE SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT STATES THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE PLAN.

AND SO WE HAVE MIRRORED DR.

ELIZALDE'S INCENTIVE PLAN LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

AND IT TRULY IS THE FIVE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS.

AND WE HAVE OUTLINED THEM HERE FOR YOU.

AND THE ACTUAL VALUE, THE NUMERIC VALUE WILL MIRROR WHEREVER WE LAND ON CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

SO GIVEN THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING OUT THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS, THIS IS WHERE WE'VE LANDED AT THIS POINT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH THOSE GOALS WITH YOU.

BUT THEY 100% MIRROR THE STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE WORKSHOP.

STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS WE DISCUSSED JUST IN THE LAST ITEM AND THE NUMERICAL VALUE YOU'LL SEE ALIGNS WITH WHERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE CLEARLY SUPERIOR.

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? TRUSTEE MACKEY. I DON'T HAVE ANY NEW DISCUSSION.

I THINK JUST THE CONSIDERATION OF HOW WE SET THESE METRICS FOR THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR AGNOSTIC OF THIS YEAR OR ANY YEAR.

LIKE I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME STRUCTURE.

IT IS ALWAYS TWO POINTS ABOVE OR IT IS ALWAYS 40% TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR GOAL.

THAT'S MY ONLY FEEDBACK IS THE SAME AS THE LAST ONE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? WELL, JUST BRIEFLY, I DO APPRECIATE TRUSTEE MACKEY MENTIONING THE POINT THAT THIS DOCUMENT, WHEN ANYBODY PULLS IT UP, FOOTNOTES ARE IMPORTANT TO SEE WHERE

[00:45:08]

WE ARE GETTING THE INFORMATION, HOW IT'S BEING CALCULATED, WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE COMING FROM.

SO I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE IT BEING STAKEHOLDER FRIENDLY FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OK, THE TIME IS NOW 11:23 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.