[0:00] Regarding

[0:01] decision-making, we are currently

[0:02] simply gathering your

[0:03] advice so that we can

[0:04] move forward with our

[0:06] budgeting plans

[0:07] for the year. Scott,

[0:09] Melody, and Norberto

[0:10] will guide us

[0:11] through the

[0:12] presentation tonight and

[0:13] give us assignments

[0:14] at each table, and

[0:15] then we will

[0:16] wander around, answer

[0:17] any questions

[0:18] , provide support,

[0:19] and interact with you

[0:20] throughout the

[0:21] process. So I'll

[0:22] pass the word on to them.

[0:23] Thank you, Dr. Smith.

[0:25] Good evening everyone.

[0:27] We're actually really

[0:28] excited to be here and have

[0:30] the opportunity

[0:30] to talk about how

[0:31] we're formulating

[0:32] strategies and

[0:33] reaching some

[0:34] consensus on how to

[0:35] use our

[0:36] staffing

[0:37] ratios and

[0:38] our processes both in the

[0:39] departments and on the

[0:40] campuses at the

[0:40] most

[0:41] effective level.

[0:45] Melody, you can

[0:46] continue. So, from a

[0:48] purpose perspective, we'll

[0:49] talk about what

[0:50] we're doing today and

[0:52] maybe some

[0:53] ideas and recommendations

[0:54] for what we're

[0:55] doing differently to

[0:56] maximize these

[0:57] resources and

[0:59] contribute to our

[1:00] long-term

[1:01] financial sustainability.

[1:03] And as Dr. Smith just pointed out

[1:04] ,

[1:05] the presentation is

[1:06] only intended to continue

[1:07] our strategic

[1:08] discussions. At this

[1:10] point, this is not a decision,

[1:12] conclusions, or even

[1:13] recommendations, but

[1:14] an opportunity to have an

[1:15] active discussion and

[1:16] make sure we

[1:17] get feedback

[1:18] from the board. So why does

[1:22] efficiency

[1:23] matter in

[1:24] department

[1:25] and campus staffing? You know,

[1:27] obviously we're

[1:28] trying to solve the

[1:29] financial problem of

[1:30] the district. I think

[1:32] most of you know

[1:33] that 90% or more of

[1:35] our budget

[1:36] comes down to

[1:38] staff costs. Well

[1:41] -funded, well-

[1:42] placed and well

[1:43] -targeted, but they

[1:44] account for

[1:45] the vast majority of

[1:46] our budget, so

[1:47] we need to be

[1:48] as efficient as possible

[1:49] in trying to address

[1:50] this budget shortfall.

[1:52] In the process of doing this, we

[1:53] want to make sure

[1:54] that we protect the

[1:55] student experience. We

[1:56] want to make

[1:57] the right decisions

[1:58] about efficiency. We do

[1:59] not want to do anything

[2:00] that contradicts the

[2:01] results of quality

[2:02] student learning. And

[2:05] finally, we want,

[2:07] by considering these

[2:08] strategies and these

[2:09] alternatives,

[2:10] to strengthen the

[2:10] effectiveness of our

[2:11] system. We want

[2:14] to look at processes,

[2:15] what works, what has the

[2:16] potential to work

[2:18] differently.

[2:20] Thinking about things differently

[2:21] is often the path to

[2:22] improvements, unlike

[2:24] how we

[2:24] necessarily did it

[2:26] before. And then

[2:27] put planning

[2:29] behind how we will

[2:30] achieve it. So

[2:31] I'll hand it over to Norberto for a moment

[2:33] , and he'll

[2:34] walk us through the

[2:35] neighborhood comparison.

[2:37] So, on this

[2:38] first slide, it was

[2:39] shown when we

[2:40] had a public

[2:41] hearing on the

[2:42] budget. And

[2:43] you will see several

[2:44] slides in the same

[2:45] format with

[2:46] similar

[2:47] districts. And this will be

[2:48] different

[2:49] data being compared. So here you

[2:50] will see that on

[2:51] each slide there will be

[2:52] our district with an arrow pointing

[2:53] to it. And then this one

[2:55] just shows the

[2:56] fund balance as

[2:57] of 12/25, and it shows

[2:58] two asterisks

[2:59] showing what the

[3:00] fund balance would be at the

[3:02] final limit, and

[3:03] then the fund balance with the

[3:04] adopted budget. And

[3:06] we just recently

[3:07] entered the

[3:08] bond market, and one of the

[3:09] strengths that

[3:10] both rating agencies attributed to us

[3:13] was actually a

[3:13] high rating, a

[3:14] strong financial

[3:15] position. Our

[3:16] policy requires

[3:18] us to have 90 days or

[3:19] more, so it's fine for now

[3:20] . On the

[3:21] next slide,

[3:22] just a moment, Mr.

[3:23] Director, if I may

[3:25] . I just want to

[3:26] point out to our council

[3:27] that the districts that you

[3:28] see us

[3:29] compared to below, the ones

[3:30] that you adopted, we

[3:31] presented to you

[3:32] over a year ago. We

[3:33] presented to you to

[3:35] say, "Let's

[3:36] capture the counties

[3:37] we want to

[3:38] compare ourselves to." And we

[3:39] used this

[3:40] set of districts in

[3:41] several ways.

[3:42] So you might

[3:43] wonder why you

[3:44] see several

[3:45] names there. These are the ones we

[3:46] presented to you. I think

[3:48] it was actually in

[3:49] November 2020,

[3:51] if you remember.

[3:54] So this slide

[3:55] shows the first

[3:56] comparison of ratings

[3:57] . There is a note at the bottom.

[3:59] It is based on

[4:00] data for the 2024-25

[4:01] financial year. This is the

[4:03] same data that will be

[4:04] presented at the

[4:04] public hearing

[4:05] tonight.

[4:06] So for this

[4:08] particular schedule,

[4:09] as of 2025, all

[4:10] periodic issues

[4:12] were rated A. On the

[4:13] next slide, you

[4:15] see the overall

[4:16] tax rate. This is for the

[4:18] 2025-26 financial year,

[4:20] which is last year.

[4:22] I don't have data for the

[4:23] current year because

[4:24] maybe

[4:25] they have

[4:27] n't implemented

[4:28] their tax

[4:29] rate yet by the time I was compiling this. Again,

[4:31] you see us here, in

[4:32] this case, closer

[4:33] to the middle. This

[4:35] includes both Plano and

[4:36] IMS. On the next

[4:39] slide, you see the same

[4:41] like-minded districts, but you

[4:42] see the total

[4:43] general

[4:44] fund spending per student.

[4:47] So, the larger ISD districts

[4:48] are on one

[4:49] side, but there are a few

[4:50] that are very comparable

[4:52] in size to us

[4:53] that are doing more

[4:54] closer to the middle.

[4:56] Districts like Klein,

[4:58] Conroe, hover

[5:00] just below the market with

[5:01] 50,000 students. On

[5:03] the next slide you

[5:05] will see the average

[5:06] number of students in

[5:07] the school. This does not take into account

[5:09] the range of classes. So

[5:10] , there's a little note at the bottom

[5:12] . What I did was

[5:13] take the last

[5:15] reported

[5:16] enrollment figure

[5:17] from the TA TA report, and I took

[5:19] the number of schools that the

[5:20] ISDs report.

[5:23] So, it's simply the

[5:24] total number of

[5:25] students divided by the

[5:26] total number of

[5:27] schools. So, depending

[5:29] on the Individual

[5:30] School District (ISD)

[5:31] and how

[5:32] the grades are set,

[5:33] this may have some

[5:34] skew.

[5:37] This

[5:38] ratio

[5:39] was mentioned earlier on the next slide.

[5:40] This is the ratio of

[5:41] the number of students

[5:42] to the total staff.

[5:44] Um, and it shows where

[5:45] we are. On the

[5:47] next slide, the

[5:48] ratio of

[5:49] students

[5:50] to teaching

[5:51] staff. So, this is the

[5:53] same number of

[5:54] students, this

[5:55] includes the teachers from the

[5:56] previous slide,

[5:57] but here–only the

[5:58] teachers. If the

[6:00] previous slide

[6:01] had all the

[6:01] employees, then this one has

[6:02] only

[6:03] the teachers. And you

[6:04] see where we

[6:05] ended up. The

[6:07] next slide

[6:08] will show everyone

[6:09] else who is not a

[6:10] teacher,

[6:11] right? So we had

[6:13] all the employees, and

[6:14] then a second chart

[6:16] with just the faculty, and

[6:17] then these four

[6:18] tables show

[6:19] all the other

[6:20] employees. They are

[6:23] based on

[6:24] TA TA categories. There's

[6:28] a note here, a

[6:29] handout

[6:30] at the very end of your

[6:31] documents, and it

[6:32] contains all the positions. I

[6:34] can't list

[6:35] them all. And then you

[6:37] see us

[6:37] shaded in blue

[6:38] . The first is

[6:40] the number of students

[6:41] divided by

[6:41] administrative

[6:42] staff, and

[6:43] administrative

[6:44] staff is listed there. The

[6:46] campus administrative staff

[6:47] includes principals and

[6:49] assistant principals

[6:50] . A local street was introduced a few years ago

[6:53] that

[6:54] excluded

[6:55] campus staff. So the numbers

[6:56] between these two will be

[6:57] different. Next

[6:59] is the support

[7:00] staff. And then

[7:01] you have assistants, which

[7:02] only include

[7:03] assistants and

[7:03] certified

[7:04] translators. And

[7:05] the last one is the

[7:06] support staff.

[7:07] This is a kind of

[7:08] general list. It

[7:09] includes, um,

[7:11] campus and department specialists,

[7:12] nurses,

[7:13] counselors. So,

[7:15] you see us, I think

[7:16] , at different points on the

[7:17] table. And

[7:20] the note in bold is that the higher

[7:21] the number, the higher the

[7:22] efficiency of the birds.

[7:24] The key word is

[7:25] inverted

[7:25] efficiency, because just because

[7:27] you have a very

[7:28] high level doesn't

[7:29] mean you are very

[7:30] efficient. It just

[7:31] depends on what

[7:32] your

[7:33] staff looks like, what

[7:34] your

[7:35] operations look like, and how

[7:36] involved you are with your own

[7:37] employees,

[7:38] right? Because if

[7:39] the district is concerned with

[7:40] assistants who have

[7:42] support staff,

[7:43] then they could have

[7:44] distorted their

[7:45] own data. So, this is

[7:47] just a general

[7:48] comparison. So,

[7:51] moving on, here is the

[7:52] first point for

[7:53] discussion. So,

[7:55] three questions that you

[7:56] can discuss with

[7:57] your tables, and

[7:58] then we'll come back as a

[7:59] whole group in a

[8:00] few minutes and

[8:01] share popcorn

[8:02] throughout the room.

[8:04] Looking at all these

[8:05] graphs, which ones

[8:06] best

[8:06] align with what

[8:08] we have in our

[8:09] strategic plan?

[8:10] Another question,

[8:11] another topic for

[8:12] discussion might

[8:13] be how do we define

[8:14] and measure success?

[8:16] And finally, if you

[8:17] go back to these

[8:18] graphs and divide

[8:20] them into quartiles, we

[8:21] have the top four, the

[8:22] bottom four, the

[8:23] middle four, does

[8:25] that change the perspective of

[8:26] how our race has changed

[8:27] ? So, we'll give

[8:29] you all a few

[8:30] minutes to

[8:30] talk to your

[8:31] groups, and then we'll

[8:32] come back as a whole

[8:33] group.

[8:34] And you should have

[8:35] printed

[8:36] presentations at

[8:37] your desks. We'll

[8:38] leave it here so

[8:39] you can see

[8:40] the questions and links,

[8:41] but as for

[8:42] comparing the slides

[8:43] with the questions, we'll

[8:44] just share and

[8:45] you should have a

[8:46] printed

[8:46] presentation. Number

[8:48] one. How many slides

[8:52] ...

[8:56] We're going to get

[8:57] back together. We

[8:59] are going to

[9:00] come back together. Do you

[9:03] all want

[9:03] to share what

[9:04] you talked about? This

[9:07] table will be the first.

[9:15] So we're going to, uh,

[9:16] look at the

[9:16] most important slides, the

[9:18] most important

[9:19] parts were

[9:20] slide 10, which is

[9:21] about student

[9:22] teachers, and it

[9:23] ties into slides

[9:24] 7 and 9, which are really the

[9:26] same story of

[9:27] spending money on a

[9:28] whole bunch of people.

[9:33] Essentially, that's what

[9:34] this slide is saying.

[9:36] So, when it was

[9:37] ours, we really

[9:38] fit into both of

[9:39] our families. Do you

[9:44] want to continue? Do you

[9:45] want to share?

[9:48] Yes. For us, slide 9

[9:54] was key, but we

[9:56] assumed that the ones

[9:57] provided. Hmm, this one

[10:05] clearly shows that we are

[10:07] seeing

[10:07] inefficiencies. What

[10:10] slide is this?

[10:11] Slide

[10:12] nine and all that.

[10:13] students to all

[10:14] staff.

[10:15] And then when you

[10:16] look at teachers,

[10:17] it's also interesting that we're

[10:18] all in the

[10:19] middle and

[10:20] narrow range.

[10:21] Hmm, because of, you know,

[10:24] teacher ratio requirements. But this

[10:27] shows that besides

[10:28] teachers, we have

[10:29] some inefficiencies

[10:30] that we need to

[10:31] pay attention to. But

[10:34] the one you

[10:35] shared right

[10:36] after that would be this one

[10:37] . Slide 12.

[10:41] Stark noted that

[10:43] for each of these

[10:44] categories, there are

[10:45] significantly different

[10:47] average

[10:48] full-time

[10:49] employment costs associated with these costs. And our most

[10:52] underperforming

[10:53] residency is

[10:54] paraprofessionals, and

[10:55] they're probably not,

[10:56] they're probably the

[10:57] lowest paid

[10:59] group here.

[11:00] Not ineffective, but

[11:01] inexpensive. Is that what you

[11:02] mean?

[11:03] Ineffective, that's what

[11:04] ...

[11:04] Yes, they are definitely

[11:05] effective. We

[11:06] need a couple...

[11:07] No, I'm for... No, the

[11:08] staff ratio...

[11:09] I get it. I

[11:10] understand.

[11:11] Ineffective.

[11:12] Yes. Uh-huh.

[11:15] But we need to

[11:16] look at, you know,

[11:17] how to optimize...

[11:18] You know, there are other

[11:19] constraints that we

[11:20] need to

[11:21] optimize or

[11:22] minimize

[11:23] reductions that

[11:24] directly

[11:25] affect the class.

[11:27] Yes.

[11:28] Wherever possible. And in

[11:30] this case, if

[11:31] we focused only

[11:32] on where we are

[11:33] most inefficiently

[11:34] staffed, the savings wouldn't

[11:36] even be

[11:36] that great.

[11:38] And the reason I

[11:39] also mentioned

[11:39] paraprofessionals is because

[11:41] they support

[11:42] learning. They

[11:43] help

[11:45] teachers in the classroom with

[11:45] teaching.

[11:47] I think it's

[11:47] really important for us

[11:48] to consider this when

[11:49] we're considering

[11:51] adjusting

[11:52] staffing ratios. Are

[11:53] we asking questions?

[11:54] Liz, I understand.

[11:56] Sorry. I don't think

[11:57] we say something is

[11:58] inefficient until we

[11:58] define what

[11:59] efficiency means.

[12:00] I understand.

[12:01] So if you look at

[12:02] it as a pure

[12:04] staff ratio, and it's

[12:04] huge because of the

[12:05] students, it doesn't

[12:06] necessarily indicate

[12:07] inefficiency, and

[12:09] you can know that there is

[12:10] value that you're

[12:11] getting for that

[12:11] position. So there might

[12:13] be some positions,

[12:14] for example, I'll just

[12:15] make one up.

[12:17] For example,

[12:18] teacher assistants, which we

[12:19] may not be

[12:20] responsible for in some

[12:21] other districts. I don't

[12:23] know if this is the exact

[12:24] position, but there may

[12:25] be positions that we

[12:27] actually find

[12:28] valuable for our

[12:29] classrooms, even if

[12:30] we use them

[12:31] more compared to

[12:32] our comparable

[12:34] districts, because

[12:35] they help

[12:36] teachers and

[12:36] improve elementary

[12:38] education. So they

[12:40] could arise without

[12:41] increasing the

[12:42] ratio only with

[12:43] efficiency.

[12:45] And we have...That's what we

[12:46] had a caveat about,

[12:47] right? This is a deduced

[12:49] efficiency because it is

[12:50] all true. But it

[12:51] depends on how

[12:53] we compose and how we

[12:54] want to compose.

[12:55] Lazy in how I

[12:56] choose it.

[12:57] I would also like to

[12:58] share,

[12:58] comment on slide

[13:00] six. You would be

[13:01] interested to know which

[13:02] districts have made the most of

[13:03] M&O or

[13:04] at least achieved

[13:05] it.

[13:06] Good.

[13:07] And just to know where there

[13:08] is some room for

[13:09] growth for them, or are

[13:10] they in

[13:11] this place because they

[13:12] can't grow?

[13:13] Because some of these

[13:14] areas are not

[13:15] going to grow

[13:16] out of there in the future.

[13:17] What I can do is I

[13:18] can go ahead and

[13:19] create a pretty much the

[13:20] same graph,

[13:21] divided into three

[13:22] parts. M&O, M&O and

[13:24] Richmond Penny, and

[13:26] then I&S. They will be

[13:28] covered there.

[13:29] And then we have three. Are

[13:31] we showing ourselves in the

[13:32] second question? Uh,

[13:35] for this

[13:35] ratio,

[13:36] four tiles

[13:37] doesn't really make

[13:38] sense.

[13:39] Which one do you want, uh

[13:40] , nine. Uh, and

[13:43] then you know,

[13:44] especially when you

[13:45] want for all of them in

[13:47] range. What is, where is this

[13:52] outer limit of what

[13:53] is considered a

[13:54] good

[13:55] ratio, and that

[13:56] , I think, is more

[13:57] about the

[13:58] average of

[13:59] this group, and that's more

[14:00] applicable, especially

[14:02] because when we hit the

[14:03] average,

[14:04] we'll completely close

[14:05] our budget

[14:06] next year.

[14:12] This is actually a great

[14:13] transition because you

[14:14] will be talking to

[14:15] me too soon.

[14:16] Any final

[14:17] comments before I

[14:18] get back on topic?

[14:19] Do we know, if the

[14:20] vertical line

[14:21] that we're looking at is

[14:21] the ratio of

[14:22] students to total

[14:23] staff, what number

[14:24] typically

[14:25] moves

[14:26] one percent

[14:26] relative to what it

[14:27] actually roughly

[14:28] equals? You know,

[14:29] if we wanted to

[14:30] move one to

[14:31] the left, what is that?

[14:32] So if we

[14:33] work

[14:34] backwards,

[14:35] we would multiply that by

[14:37] 15,000 students, just

[14:38] to get it close,

[14:39] right? And then, and then

[14:41] you would come back to

[14:42] it. And that would give you,

[14:45] because multiplied by 50

[14:46] students gives you

[14:47] the number of

[14:48] employees, which for

[14:49] this

[14:50] benchmark was,

[14:51] I think, 8,100. So this is a

[14:53] way of working

[14:54] backwards.

[14:55] Yes, I'm trying

[14:56] to figure out what it

[14:57] takes to

[14:57] move. And

[15:01] you need to

[15:02] take all this into account. So, we will have

[15:05] three different

[15:06] possibilities. This was the

[15:07] first. Now I have

[15:09] some discussions and

[15:10] I want to make sure

[15:11] we take them into account. So

[15:12] I'm going to

[15:13] move forward

[15:14] at this point. Regarding

[15:15] departments, if we

[15:16] are going to improve

[15:18] efficiency, we

[15:19] need to improve

[15:20] effectiveness. Um,

[15:22] the departments should be

[15:24] either the same or have a

[15:25] higher level of influence

[15:26] than the campus currently has. And we

[15:29] must do everything we

[15:31] can to

[15:31] directly

[15:32] protect the audience.

[15:34] With that in mind, we

[15:35] need a structure

[15:36] for how we make

[15:37] these decisions and how we

[15:38] arrive at a strategy

[15:39] for what we do or do

[15:40] n't do. And so we

[15:42] put together this

[15:43] eight-step process

[15:44] , at least to

[15:45] discuss how

[15:46] we get there from here

[15:47] . When we

[15:50] think about

[15:51] planning for a

[15:52] central office transformation,

[15:53] we conduct the analysis

[15:54] we just

[15:56] participated in with this kind of

[15:57] data. We have already started

[15:59] visiting

[16:00] districts to

[16:01] try to get

[16:02] best practices

[16:03] of what they are doing,

[16:04] which we may not have

[16:05] thought about in terms of

[16:06] efficiency,

[16:07] particularly for the

[16:08] central office. And

[16:11] as a result of that

[16:12] level of analysis,

[16:13] turning this

[16:14] into a case of

[16:15] defining our

[16:16] goal. We don't want to

[16:17] just set a blind

[16:19] goal, so the first

[16:20] step comes first. But

[16:22] once you have a goal

[16:23] , you go and take

[16:24] inventory of

[16:25] the work and assess the

[16:26] criticality of the value of

[16:28] some of those thoughts,

[16:29] suggestions,

[16:29] recommendations, and

[16:30] strategies. Hmm, it's really

[16:34] important that we

[16:35] do things like

[16:37] make sure that we're not

[16:38] creating compliance issues

[16:40] or strategic

[16:41] priorities, and that we're

[16:43] not having

[16:43] unintended

[16:44] consequences. So that we don't

[16:47] focus on

[16:48] one thing and not pay

[16:50] attention to what changes

[16:51] can do in

[16:52] other directions. Hmm,

[16:54] so that we have a very

[16:55] broad perspective

[16:56] as we go through this

[16:57] process. Hmm, there are things

[16:59] related to

[16:59] rethinking the

[17:00] implementation model

[17:02] that may arise.

[17:06] We can achieve

[17:07] certain results

[17:08] today with a certain, um,

[17:10] certain staff, meaning

[17:11] all of them are salaried

[17:12] or all of them are auxiliary

[17:13] or all of them... It was said a moment ago

[17:15] that there are... And

[17:16] it is correct that there are

[17:17] parts of the staff

[17:18] that cost more

[17:20] than others. And do

[17:24] we do things a certain way

[17:25] in the implementation model,

[17:27] or who is responsible for

[17:28] implementing that in the

[17:29] most efficient and

[17:30] effective way

[17:31] ? Hmm, and these things

[17:32] require

[17:33] thought and

[17:34] consideration. So

[17:35] before we

[17:36] move forward and

[17:37] we have some

[17:38] ideas about what we might

[17:39] want to

[17:41] do differently, the

[17:42] key thing is to slow down

[17:43] , make sure

[17:44] that we assess the

[17:45] trade-offs and the

[17:46] systemic implications,

[17:47] sorry, systemic

[17:48] implications, and that we don't

[17:49] lose

[17:50] service levels, that we don't

[17:52] inadvertently

[17:52] impact campuses,

[17:54] that we don't displace

[17:55] work, that when we

[17:56] focus,

[17:57] particularly on departments,

[17:58] on, "Hey,

[17:59] let's not

[18:00] do this and

[18:01] let's not

[18:02] do that," but

[18:03] maybe we're not being

[18:06] straightforward enough

[18:06] to say, "Well, this

[18:07] work is really

[18:08] not going anywhere, and

[18:09] now someone else is going to

[18:10] take it." And we

[18:11] feel good about

[18:12] reaching the numerical

[18:13] goal, but in reality

[18:14] we haven't really

[18:15] solved the problem, we've

[18:16] just moved the

[18:17] problem, and we

[18:17] need to be

[18:18] aware of that. And

[18:19] then, ultimately,

[18:20] taking all these

[18:21] steps, turning

[18:22] it into a

[18:23] departmental proposal, but

[18:24] actually going

[18:25] to the cabinet

[18:26] . And if this

[18:27] proposal is

[18:28] responsible not only for

[18:29] discussing

[18:30] cuts and

[18:31] savings, but also for doing

[18:32] work that impacts,

[18:33] ahem,

[18:34] risk reduction, and making

[18:35] sure that

[18:36] it doesn't have a

[18:37] negative impact from

[18:38] campus to campus,

[18:39] sorry for closing

[18:41] some of these things off by

[18:42] departments. And

[18:45] then, based on

[18:46] that review,

[18:47] coming up with some

[18:48] final decisions

[18:49] about where we

[18:50] move next to

[18:51] have a better structure

[18:52] than what we have

[18:53] today, particularly

[18:55] with respect to the impact on the

[18:56] budget.

[18:57] Scott, can I interrupt you

[18:58] for a moment

[18:58] , please

[19:00] ?

[19:00] Scott is building on

[19:01] these next few

[19:02] slides, I want to

[19:02] point out two things about

[19:03] this.

[19:04] First, it is the structure of

[19:05] the efficiency of

[19:06] centralized

[19:07] management. One of

[19:08] the numbers that Norberto

[19:09] shared with you, and

[19:10] which he clarified

[19:11] earlier, was related to the

[19:12] entire management. As

[19:14] you may remember McKay

[19:15] from what we did

[19:16] a few years ago,

[19:17] here's a pretty brief one. And

[19:18] the only reason I'm

[19:19] saying this is because

[19:20] God said

[19:21] something that I need to make sure

[19:22] everyone

[19:23] understands. He

[19:24] noted, "Hey, we don't

[19:25] want to drop

[19:26] below a certain level of

[19:27] service." We'll

[19:28] have to

[19:28] consider some

[19:29] things. When we

[19:30] talk about

[19:31] downsizing and changing the

[19:32] way we do

[19:33] business, some of

[19:34] our

[19:35] service models and, in

[19:36] fact, some of the services

[19:37] that we offer as a

[19:38] central office will have to

[19:40] change next

[19:41] year. The second thing I

[19:42] would like to point out

[19:43] is that we are talking,

[19:44] first of all, about

[19:45] central

[19:46] management in

[19:46] departments. And we intend to

[19:47] act

[19:48] first and foremost and

[19:49] feel most at home

[19:50] in the central

[19:51] administration.

[19:52] Any executive

[19:53] sitting in this

[19:54] room today will be

[19:55] shocked by the

[19:57] cuts

[19:58] we may

[19:59] face in our departments. This

[20:00] applies to each of

[20:02] us. And that will be here first

[20:03] , before we

[20:05] talk about

[20:05] campuses. And I would like to

[20:07] start with that,

[20:08] because we are going to talk

[20:09] about central

[20:10] government, but then

[20:11] we also need to

[20:12] talk about

[20:13] campuses. And two of

[20:14] you mentioned

[20:15] protecting everything you

[20:16] can from audiences.

[20:17] I just need

[20:19] you to know that we are not

[20:20] in a

[20:21] position where you can

[20:22] say that audiences are

[20:23] no longer being

[20:24] influenced. They must

[20:25] suffer.

[20:28] Thank you. So, the task

[20:31] that we would like to

[20:32] work through, as we

[20:33] showed you, we

[20:34] will show this slide again

[20:36] so you can refer to it

[20:37] . What

[20:39] advantages do you see in the

[20:40] proposed

[20:41] model? What

[20:42] concerns might

[20:43] you have together

[20:45] as a table? And which ones do you

[20:47] think are important for

[20:48] advancing this

[20:49] process? So,

[20:50] can you

[20:51] turn the slide

[20:52] back, Wally? Okay,

[21:03] can we

[21:04] get everyone back?

[21:05] I know it was

[21:07] n't long ago. Oh,

[21:09] sorry. If you don't

[21:34] mind if we

[21:35] can start at the

[21:36] back table,

[21:37] Melody, you got it. That's

[21:38] it. So,

[21:39] the benefits, advantages,

[21:40] concerns, and

[21:41] caveats. Uh,

[21:43] if I may ask

[21:45] this table to start

[21:46] first.

[21:48] Good. I remember, I

[21:50] will intervene because I

[21:51] know I could be

[21:52] wrong. We

[21:53] actually have something to

[21:54] say. Overall, we are

[21:56] very supportive of this

[21:57] structure. One of

[21:59] the things we

[22:00] talked about in Brooklyn was

[22:02] how important it is to have

[22:03] cross-departmental

[22:04] views watching

[22:05] everything that

[22:06] happens in a

[22:07] particular department. So

[22:08] , it shouldn't just be as

[22:09] if

[22:10] the head of this

[22:11] department is making

[22:12] decisions in isolation. And

[22:13] you can, I

[22:14] mean, no matter

[22:15] how

[22:17] unbiased you are, there's

[22:17] bound to be something

[22:19] you miss. And

[22:21] so when we

[22:22] talked about this, I'm

[22:23] very grateful that

[22:24] feedback

[22:25] from

[22:26] campus leadership will be invited. And even

[22:29] step seven

[22:30] says, “Consider

[22:31] the impact on campus

[22:32] based on feedback from

[22:33] campus leadership.”

[22:35] We know that the

[22:37] campus director will

[22:38] really make an

[22:39] important contribution and

[22:40] be a facilitator.

[22:43] For example, if they

[22:45] don't support what

[22:46] we're doing to

[22:47] improve

[22:48] staff effectiveness, it will definitely

[22:49] have a domino effect

[22:51] and we'll miss out

[22:52] because they

[22:53] understand well what

[22:54] their

[22:55] campus needs.

[22:56] Right. Thank you.

[22:57] I'm sure I'm

[22:59] missing something.

[23:01] This table?

[23:02] Yes, so a lot of what

[23:04] Sara or

[23:05] Navarro's confidant just shared is exactly what

[23:07] we were talking about

[23:08] . I would say the

[23:09] most important

[23:09] takeaway from your

[23:10] statement is

[23:11] that Dr. Gill

[23:12] gave examples of

[23:13] when you change

[23:14] the effectiveness of

[23:15] staff, when you

[23:16] change what it

[23:17] looks like in these

[23:17] departments. I asked for a

[23:19] specific

[23:20] example of a situation and

[23:21] what it would look like. And

[23:23] he said that

[23:24] if we cut back on

[23:26] staff, it

[23:27] would look like they would

[23:29] only mow the

[23:30] front of the

[23:31] school this week and the back

[23:32] later, or something like

[23:33] that. So I asked that as

[23:35] we make

[23:36] these decisions and

[23:37] implement this, it would be

[23:39] great for caregivers to know about all of

[23:40] these implications so that when we

[23:41] answer

[23:42] questions in the community,

[23:43] we have more to

[23:44] say than just

[23:46] staff effectiveness, changed

[23:47] workload,

[23:48] and so on.

[23:50] Thank you. No.

[23:58] Of course. So thank you.

[24:37] Okay, I really appreciate your

[24:38] feedback. Mellie,

[24:39] can you continue?

[24:41] Actually, let

[24:42] me introduce myself.

[24:43] Sorry if I didn't

[24:43] do this sooner.

[24:45] Uh, Mellie Lopez, I have

[24:45] n't met her before

[24:46] , she's our

[24:47] Director of

[24:49] Customer Service HR. Her group

[24:50] is responsible for several

[24:51] things: adaptation,

[24:52] exit. Her entire

[24:56] staff takes care

[24:57] of the employees in

[24:58] everything that

[24:59] happens,

[25:00] such as how to

[25:00] get my

[25:01] grade reports, how to

[25:02] get

[25:04] credit confirmation of my

[25:05] employment.

[25:08] But she is also

[25:09] responsible for the

[25:09] number of

[25:10] employees in the

[25:11] recruitment process

[25:12] . So,

[25:13] luckily, she's a lot

[25:14] smarter than me in

[25:15] that regard, and she's

[25:17] very good at it

[25:18] . And it's a

[25:19] balance between being

[25:20] good at

[25:21] metrics, being good at

[25:22] communicating with

[25:23] people, and being good at

[25:23] getting things done,

[25:25] because it's going to be a

[25:25] complex process. So

[25:27] she does

[25:28] her job perfectly. So,

[25:29] regarding recruiting

[25:30] staff at camps,

[25:31] we'll talk

[25:33] about campuses now. We

[25:34] will divide them into three

[25:35] groups. We will start,

[25:38] in particular, with elementary

[25:40] school. So it's important that

[25:43] I go over some of these parts quickly

[25:44] because I want to

[25:45] leave room for

[25:46] all of you to

[25:47] talk. Some of

[25:48] these things are really

[25:49] key to our

[25:50] conversations moving

[25:51] forward and making

[25:52] some progress. We are

[25:54] all familiar with our

[25:56] campus student-to-student ratios during

[25:57] the semester or

[25:59] staffing ratios, sorry,

[26:00] but those were hard

[26:00] limits. These were not

[26:02] averages as such

[26:03] . They are based

[26:04] on a state

[26:06] regulation that,

[26:06] specifically for

[26:07] preschool and

[26:08] four grades,

[26:09] says, "You shall not

[26:10] exceed a

[26:11] class size limit of 22 to

[26:12] one." So, these are not

[26:13] averages as

[26:14] such, they are limitations. And

[26:16] we can

[26:16] exceed these

[26:17] limits with

[26:17] waivers, but it's

[26:18] still a limit for

[26:19] preschool and

[26:20] four grades, for

[26:20] preschool and

[26:21] four grades.

[26:22] Fifth and sixth grade,

[26:23] and also, I'll talk

[26:24] more about middle

[26:25] school, which are a little

[26:26] different, but

[26:27] fifth and sixth

[26:28] grade will not be

[26:28] required by the

[26:29] state. These

[26:30] ratios for

[26:31] fifth and sixth

[26:31] grades, we

[26:32] use the

[26:33] same premise, even though

[26:34] it's a district choice. So

[26:35] we go to 26 to

[26:36] one. The state doesn't hold

[26:38] us accountable

[26:39] for this, but we still

[26:40] treat it the same way

[26:41] we

[26:41] treat

[26:42] preschool and four grades

[26:43] , which is, the goal is not

[26:44] to exceed that

[26:45] number. To be honest,

[26:48] this process that we've been

[26:49] going through throughout

[26:50] my

[26:51] time here has

[26:52] some limitations.

[26:53] Some of you may have

[26:54] walked around

[26:55] campuses during the

[26:56] workday and said,

[26:57] "It seems like there are

[26:58] n't as many

[27:00] kids in this class as there are in that one."

[27:01] When you

[27:02] use this as a

[27:03] limit and think

[27:04] about the normal

[27:05] distribution and the

[27:06] bell curve,

[27:07] you can understand

[27:08] that anything below

[27:09] the limit is, by

[27:10] definition, to

[27:11] the left

[27:12] of that number. This

[27:13] number is not in the middle,

[27:14] it is on the left, which in

[27:15] this case

[27:16] means fewer

[27:17] students in

[27:18] that particular

[27:19] class. So our

[27:20] average

[27:22] teacher-to-

[27:24] staff ratio can

[27:25] reduce

[27:26] small classes and

[27:27] improve

[27:29] teacher ratios if we

[27:30] look at it

[27:32] differently, which is, let's

[27:33] consider the idea

[27:34] of treating the same

[27:35] number, 22:1 for

[27:36] kindergarten through

[27:38] kindergarten and 4th

[27:39] grade, 26:1 for fifth

[27:41] and sixth grade, not

[27:42] as a limit, but as

[27:43] our

[27:44] average. And we'll talk a little

[27:46] more

[27:47] about what that looks like

[27:48] .

[27:49] So, yes. Do

[27:50] you still remember that

[27:51] we used to pay

[27:52] teachers for every

[27:54] student over the age of 22?

[27:55] Yes, I know. Do

[27:57] you pay teachers

[27:57] for

[27:58] preschool and 4th

[27:59] grade teachers?

[27:59] Yes.

[27:59] Oh, yes. Thank you.

[28:01] Here are some good

[28:02] questions. Thank you. And a

[28:03] few scenarios that

[28:04] help

[28:05] emphasize the point

[28:06] I was making a

[28:07] minute ago. In

[28:09] scenario A, and these are

[28:10] real examples,

[28:12] one class for 30 students,

[28:13] meaning you have 30 students

[28:15] in the class. You can't

[28:17] have 30. We're aiming for

[28:19] 22:1, right? We have a

[28:21] state mandate

[28:22] that says 22:1 or

[28:23] waive it. And 30 is a

[28:25] lot for a

[28:27] preschool and 4th grade class. So

[28:29] you can't

[28:30] do that. So you

[28:30] share it. So what's

[28:32] going on? Well, we have

[28:33] 15 in the class now.

[28:35] So, especially on our

[28:36] smaller campuses where there are

[28:37] only two sections per

[28:38] class, it limits your

[28:40] choices. And it also

[28:42] follows that the

[28:43] smaller the campus, the

[28:44] fewer the number of

[28:45] sections in each

[28:46] class, and the more

[28:47] limitations there are to

[28:48] approaching this

[28:49] goal. And such examples

[28:51] occur often.

[28:53] So, here's another

[28:55] example. 52 students in

[28:56] fourth grade. Well,

[28:59] if you divide that by

[29:01] two, that would be 26 students

[29:03] in the class. So, if you

[29:04] then need to

[29:05] go to three, you'll

[29:07] end up with 17 to 18 students

[29:08] . And again, this...

[29:10] Although these are real

[29:11] examples, and they are not an

[29:12] anomaly. They

[29:13] happen often.

[29:14] So when we say

[29:15] we

[29:16] staff according

[29:18] to a certain

[29:18] ratio, that's

[29:19] true, and the end

[29:20] result is usually

[29:21] much lower than the

[29:22] target number. And that's exactly how

[29:24] it works

[29:25] today. Let's.

[29:28] So that's the view, and

[29:29] thanks to our

[29:30] outstanding

[29:31] research and

[29:32] reporting department. Hmm, they're

[29:35] great at giving us

[29:36] data, and this is a look at what

[29:38] it looks like

[29:39] today and

[29:39] historically in our

[29:42] student size distribution from

[29:43] preschool through

[29:44] grade four. And you can

[29:48] see that you have

[29:50] tails here in terms of the

[29:51] number of kids in the

[29:52] class, and also here.

[29:55] If you take four, and the

[29:57] average

[29:58] is 17.4. So it's

[30:01] not 22, it's 17. If you

[30:02] go to the

[30:04] next slide, we

[30:05] would like to get 22.

[30:07] So we said we

[30:09] would

[30:09] use 22 in the

[30:11] past.

[30:14] The formula just doesn't work the way

[30:15] we practice it

[30:17] , and I practiced it over

[30:18] time. By changing it

[30:21] from

[30:22] being a limit to a

[30:23] true

[30:24] mean, you can

[30:25] see a much

[30:26] more balanced

[30:27] distribution. However, we

[30:29] also believe that

[30:30] if you're doing something

[30:31] like this, it's important

[30:32] to make a conscious

[30:33] choice that we're

[30:34] going to

[30:35] set limits

[30:36] . We don't want to

[30:37] get what you might

[30:39] call a flat

[30:40] distribution and have a

[30:41] bunch that comes out

[30:42] here and you have too many

[30:43] kids in the classroom. This is not

[30:45] normal. It's not good

[30:46] for teachers and it's

[30:47] not good for children.

[30:49] So, we are talking about

[30:50] improvement, but

[30:51] we would have a

[30:52] governor, and that would have

[30:54] limitations. And

[30:54] usually we're talking

[30:56] about a district where the

[30:57] education level is about

[30:58] three points above average

[30:59] . Let's.

[31:02] So there are two ways to

[31:03] do it, wait

[31:04] a minute, but there is a

[31:05] state mandate.

[31:07] One of them is the

[31:09] innovation district exemption, which

[31:10] says, "We

[31:11] exempt ourselves, if

[31:12] this is approved,

[31:14] of course, we

[31:14] exempt ourselves from

[31:16] this 22-to-1 requirement."

[31:17] Remember, anything

[31:18] beyond the requirement

[31:19] from preschool

[31:20] to 4th grade is, sorry,

[31:21] not state

[31:21] mandated. You will not

[31:22] need to

[31:23] receive a

[31:24] district innovation, but you do

[31:25] need one for

[31:25] preschool through 4th

[31:26] grade. This will give us

[31:27] continued local

[31:28] flexibility. We will

[31:29] have to do

[31:30] fewer waivers because it will

[31:32] already be established

[31:33] that we are not limited to this

[31:35] particular

[31:35] 22 to 1 standard.

[31:37] Class size expectations at the

[31:39] local level are

[31:40] much more

[31:41] controlled

[31:42] by the district, which gives us

[31:43] the authority to do

[31:44] this. Here, if we didn't

[31:46] continue to

[31:47] do this or if it

[31:50] wasn't successful on DOI for some reason,

[31:51] we would continue

[31:52] to use

[31:53] waivers, although we

[31:54] do it today,

[31:55] we would be doing significantly

[31:56] more than we have been doing

[31:57] so far. There is no guarantee

[31:59] how many students will be

[32:00] approved or not,

[32:01] especially if we

[32:02] start doing this on a

[32:03] much larger

[32:04] scale. This is

[32:05] uncertain. It's

[32:06] just a potential

[32:08] risk. Um, and those

[32:09] state restrictions

[32:10] remain in effect

[32:12] without a DOI. So now you're

[32:13] trying to get

[32:14] yourself fired

[32:15] through the system,

[32:16] making waivers after

[32:17] waivers, as opposed to

[32:19] having the

[32:20] broader authority

[32:21] to say, "No, we have a

[32:22] deal with the state. Here's

[32:23] how it works. We

[32:24] do this through DOI.”

[32:26] Let's. So,

[32:28] let's talk

[32:29] about high school for a

[32:30] second. So the

[32:33] middle school staffing model

[32:34] is different from

[32:35] elementary school because in

[32:36] elementary school, the way

[32:37] it's distributed, you

[32:38] can do it by

[32:39] grade level. In

[32:41] high school, and

[32:42] Melody

[32:42] will correct me if I

[32:43] get off track. In

[32:47] high school, we

[32:48] allocate

[32:49] student numbers

[32:50] based on the total

[32:51] number of students, because

[32:53] high school principals have

[32:54] autonomy and

[32:55] need autonomy

[32:56] , frankly, with

[32:57] different programs

[32:58] they have particularly

[32:59] small classes to

[33:01] meet the needs of

[33:02] that program, and then of

[33:03] course you have

[33:04] larger

[33:05] classes here to

[33:06] balance that out,

[33:07] because you have a fixed

[33:09] number of students

[33:10] proportional to the

[33:10] total number of

[33:12] students on campus. I

[33:15] know that was a

[33:15] difficult thing to say, but I

[33:17] hope it made

[33:18] sense. So, we

[33:19] staff our

[33:21] junior high

[33:22] schools with a total

[33:25] student-to-

[33:26] campus population ratio of 26 to 1. So, 26

[33:28] to 1 teacher. Our

[33:29] high schools

[33:30] are staffed at a

[33:31] 29 to 1

[33:32] teacher ratio. Although,

[33:33] of course, based on the

[33:34] explanation I

[33:35] just gave you, that doesn't

[33:36] mean that every

[33:37] class is staffed

[33:38] at a 26 to

[33:39] 1 ratio. It doesn't mean that

[33:40] everyone is at a

[33:41] 29 to 1 ratio. And we also don't

[33:42] dictate that for every

[33:43] English or

[33:43] algebra or anything

[33:44] like that. The director has

[33:45] this autonomy. Um, and that

[33:47] doesn't take into account

[33:48] specialized

[33:49] programs that

[33:49] affect

[33:51] class size. So

[33:52] there is no

[33:53] relief for specialized programs. The

[33:54] principal

[33:55] is using his

[33:56] autonomy to

[33:56] figure out how to

[33:57] do this while

[33:58] making some of the other

[33:59] classes larger than the

[34:00] specialized

[34:01] program class, which will be

[34:02] very small. And

[34:04] let's move on

[34:05] . So, what does

[34:08] our

[34:08] distribution look like today

[34:10] for the junior high school?

[34:13] Well, remember, if

[34:14] we look at the target

[34:15] for the junior high school

[34:18] 26 by

[34:19] 26, that means our

[34:21] average,

[34:22] our

[34:23] median.

[34:25] Well, considering that the

[34:26] average is

[34:28] actually 23.

[34:29] And you have some up to 35, and

[34:31] you'll literally have

[34:32] some as

[34:34] small as how many?

[34:36] And it will vary

[34:37] depending on

[34:38] specialized

[34:39] programs, things like that.

[34:40] If you take it to the

[34:43] next level and

[34:44] say, "Well, if we

[34:45] use the

[34:46] same principle

[34:47] we talked about in

[34:47] elementary school to

[34:48] look at this like, we

[34:49] want

[34:50] to

[34:51] staff to the

[34:51] mean

[34:52] or to the

[34:53] median, rather than

[34:54] using this

[34:55] as what we have and

[34:55] using it as

[34:56] intended as a limit."

[34:57] Or then we

[34:58] use a

[34:59] waiver of claims.

[35:00] If we apply this

[35:01] different approach to

[35:02] elementary school,

[35:03] we actually get an

[35:05] average of 26

[35:06] students per class. If

[35:07] you compare the

[35:08] student-

[35:09] to-staff ratio across the

[35:10] campus, then

[35:11] again, cut it

[35:13] and say, "I'm not

[35:13] going to...I'm going to

[35:15] put in some

[35:16] controls." I won't

[35:17] let this grow more than a

[35:18] little more than

[35:19] three students above the

[35:20] average,

[35:21] lest we end up with

[35:22] class sizes that are

[35:23] simply not appropriate

[35:24] or

[35:25] manageable. Let's.

[35:30] So, the

[35:30] high school program, the

[35:31] special cases, you

[35:33] can see whether it's IB

[35:34] , AP or Smart programs, the

[35:35] nature of these courses,

[35:37] and each of them is valuable,

[35:38] but the nature of these

[35:39] courses by

[35:40] definition, through

[35:41] experience, is that there are a

[35:44] lot of

[35:45] kids in these classes. And that doesn't mean

[35:48] they aren't valuable. This does

[35:49] not mean that they are not

[35:50] important. That doesn't

[35:51] mean we

[35:52] shouldn't do it,

[35:53] but it does mean we

[35:54] need to understand the

[35:55] broader perspective

[35:56] of how it impacts

[35:57] our ability

[36:00] to

[36:01] staff effectively, because for

[36:02] every small

[36:03] class you have, you have to

[36:04] have a much

[36:05] larger class somewhere else to

[36:06] balance out

[36:07] how you approach

[36:09] staffing. Let's.

[36:12] Okay, I said when I

[36:14] started studying this that there were three sections in

[36:15] this elementary school

[36:16] and it

[36:17] was cyclical, but

[36:18] fine

[36:19] arts and

[36:20] athletics are actually the

[36:21] third spoke in

[36:22] that wheel. And if

[36:24] you go further,

[36:25] fine

[36:26] art and

[36:27] correlation, it's

[36:28] just a whole different

[36:29] element of the

[36:31] staffing process. So if

[36:34] you look, we've

[36:35] talked about classes up until

[36:37] this point. So I'm going

[36:38] to change direction a little bit.

[36:40] Instead of

[36:41] the ratio of the

[36:42] number of students in a

[36:43] class as they

[36:44] go through elementary

[36:45] school, for example, a

[36:46] grade school class and

[36:47] Melody, help

[36:48] me if I'm

[36:49] off track here, this is the

[36:50] workload that a

[36:51] teacher has to have

[36:53] comprehensively in their

[36:54] schedule. This is not per

[36:56] class or per section.

[37:00] So, ideally, to

[37:01] achieve our goals, a

[37:03] middle

[37:05] school or high

[37:06] school choir and drama teacher would have these

[37:07] 26 students, in reality

[37:09] they would have a

[37:10] full

[37:11] workload, they would be

[37:13] taking care of 156 students

[37:14] . In fact, today it is

[37:19] 78 and 58, these are separate

[37:21] programs. In fact,

[37:25] in a high

[37:26] school today, based on an

[37:27] average

[37:29] class size of 29 students across the entire

[37:30] campus, their

[37:33] art teacher workload throughout the

[37:35] entire schedule, they would be

[37:37] taking care of

[37:39] 174 students in a single day or week

[37:40] . But based

[37:44] on how it's

[37:45] managed today,

[37:48] it's 91,125, and this chorus is 229,

[37:50] but it's 229 by three.

[37:52] So you do

[37:52] the math and divide

[37:54] that and it still doesn't

[37:55] equal 174.

[37:55] Again, I'm saying

[37:56] someone is doing something

[37:57] wrong? I

[37:58] absolutely do not. Am I saying

[37:59] these programs are not

[38:00] appreciated? I'm

[38:01] absolutely not

[38:02] saying that. I'm just

[38:05] bringing to the surface

[38:07] the areas where they're

[38:08] creating attraction

[38:09] , as opposed to the

[38:10] simplistic, "Well, we

[38:11] just need to have a

[38:12] certain ratio

[38:13] or proportion,"

[38:15] because in those areas they're

[38:16] attracting more

[38:17] staff, and by

[38:18] attracting more

[38:19] staff, you

[38:19] have to fill in

[38:21] somewhere else. Let's. So,

[38:28] examples, it was

[38:29] fine

[38:30] art. There is a similar

[38:31] message here with

[38:32] athletics. But

[38:34] whether

[38:35] we're talking about

[38:36] current practices, or

[38:37] campus proportions, or

[38:39] scheduling tensions, I'll

[38:40] just try to

[38:41] get to the point, which,

[38:42] at least in my

[38:43] opinion, is

[38:45] that campus size is

[38:48] irrelevant to how

[38:49] we

[38:50] staff

[38:51] athletic departments right now.

[38:52] Rightly? And the

[38:56] good news with that is that

[38:57] we

[38:58] can say that we

[38:59] offer the same

[39:00] programs and the same

[39:02] teams and all that

[39:03] because we have a

[39:04] minimum number of

[39:05] coaches on each of

[39:06] our campuses. But

[39:09] our campuses,

[39:10] especially in high

[39:11] schools, they are strikingly

[39:12] different. So,

[39:16] if you are on a

[39:17] smaller campus and

[39:19] need to have

[39:20] at least the same

[39:21] number of instructors

[39:22] as a large,

[39:23] mid-sized campus,

[39:24] you will be left with less

[39:25] staff for everything

[39:26] from ELAR to algebra. And

[39:31] this is one of the problems that

[39:32] exists here. Let's.

[39:36] So I want to try to

[39:38] get right to

[39:39] it. We posted

[39:40] this second column

[39:41] because you will have the

[39:42] opportunity

[39:43] to talk again. What is our

[39:47] current limit that

[39:48] we practice and

[39:49] what is the actual

[39:50] average

[39:51] today, um,

[39:52] based on data and

[39:53] experience. So, with that

[39:57] in mind, what do

[39:58] you think the

[39:59] ideal average

[40:01] and maximum

[40:02] class size should be for the

[40:03] following classes? What

[40:04] concerns or

[40:05] unintended

[40:06] consequences should we

[40:07] consider if we

[40:08] consider

[40:09] making

[40:10] such changes? What

[40:11] implementations or

[40:12] protective barriers do

[40:13] you think are

[40:14] important? And do

[40:16] you have any thoughts or

[40:16] recommendations on the

[40:17] revised standards

[40:19] for

[40:19] fine

[40:20] arts and sports personnel?

[40:22] And I didn't really

[40:22] give you any clear

[40:23] recommendations. I gave

[40:25] you more of a

[40:26] problem statement. But do

[40:27] you have any suggestions on what to

[40:29] do if

[40:30] something is related to

[40:31] this? So, that gives

[40:32] you an idea of where

[40:33] we

[40:34] are at. These are our

[40:35] questions, and I would

[40:37] greatly appreciate

[40:38] any feedback you

[40:39] can offer

[40:41] , perhaps in short

[40:42] minutes.

[40:43] I have a recommendation.

[40:45] Can

[40:46] we start with 50?

[40:48] Can we start with

[40:49] this?

[40:50] I don't know, I think

[40:51] it's really a creation

[40:52] ...

[40:53] We drink.

[40:57] I know. We, we, we

[41:00] just want to... We

[41:01] want to start by saying that

[41:03] we appreciate the way

[41:04] you guys

[41:05] have articulated everything,

[41:06] especially on the second

[41:07] level of variation, how

[41:08] nuanced it is, um, and that

[41:10] yes, the limits and the

[41:11] averages

[41:12] go up, and then

[41:13] you have all these

[41:14] specialized courses

[41:15] , and then you have

[41:16] fire, and you have... So

[41:18] we really appreciate the way

[41:19] you guys have articulated this for us

[41:21] . Um, I'm

[41:24] thinking about preschool

[41:25] and fourth grade

[41:26] , going back to

[41:27] our vision,

[41:28] strategic plan,

[41:30] and priorities that

[41:31] we're trying to

[41:32] achieve right now, especially, um,

[41:34] I just said that I

[41:35] think

[41:36] the number of children should not

[41:37] exceed

[41:38] 24. I know that we're going to

[41:39] need to be more

[41:41] efficient and

[41:42] expand the cap, and

[41:43] we also have

[41:44] long-term

[41:45] planning that will be

[41:46] implemented, and I

[41:47] think it's

[41:48] safe to say

[41:50] that it will help us with

[41:51] the inefficiencies at the

[41:52] elementary level.

[41:55] So, taking all of

[41:57] that into account, I don't think it would be a

[41:58] good idea

[41:59] to go over the

[42:01] 24 limit for

[42:02] preschool and fourth

[42:03] grade. And then,

[42:04] Brooklyn, can you

[42:05] share what

[42:06] you need to do?

[42:07] So, one of the things

[42:08] we talked about was

[42:09] that

[42:10] when you had to

[42:11] split these classes with a

[42:13] lot of

[42:14] kids, and then you

[42:15] had classes with 13

[42:16] or 15 kids, we

[42:16] weren't being inefficient.

[42:18] We were

[42:18] ineffective. That we

[42:20] need to look

[42:21] at the map of the area of

[42:22] these schools, and when we

[42:23] have two or three such

[42:25] schools near each

[42:26] other, that's where we

[42:27] need to consider

[42:29] consolidation.

[42:30] So these classes that are

[42:31] shared with a

[42:32] small number of

[42:33] students, let's

[42:34] consolidate and make the

[42:35] most of

[42:36] it,

[42:37] instead of having two

[42:38] or three campuses that can't make the

[42:39] best

[42:40] use of their

[42:41] financial needs.

[42:42] Thank you. This table.

[42:47] Oh, I'll just say what's on my

[42:49] mind.

[42:50] Um,

[42:50] you know, I mean

[42:52] , yeah, I have the same

[42:53] feeling. The only thing that

[42:55] worries me is

[42:59] our balance of funds,

[43:01] I think

[43:03] it will be even lower in 2027,

[43:05] right? So if we

[43:07] don't make

[43:08] any changes to the

[43:10] staffing ratios in time,

[43:11] we will significantly

[43:14] reduce this figure. And

[43:16] I don't know if

[43:17] consolidation

[43:17] will happen

[43:18] quickly enough for

[43:19] us to be able to handle

[43:21] that aspect. And

[43:23] since I believe that,

[43:24] while I don't

[43:25] like the

[43:26] ratios to

[43:27] change,

[43:28] only the

[43:29] percentages change, because I

[43:30] was asking about the

[43:31] percentages of classes that would

[43:32] have a higher

[43:33] number of students

[43:34] exceeding that limit. There are

[43:37] lower percentages. Well, that's

[43:40] not what I

[43:41] like. I don't

[43:43] know of any other

[43:44] option to solve the

[43:47] problems we have

[43:48] without going beyond the

[43:50] ...

[43:50] So I want to share

[43:51] that I would like to know

[43:52] if we have any

[43:53] research that

[43:54] shows that this gives

[43:55] us reason

[43:56] to stop at a

[43:57] certain point.

[43:58] For example, is there any

[43:59] inflection point where

[44:01] you think the

[44:02] ratio or

[44:03] average number of

[44:04] students in a class changes, and how is that

[44:05] related to that

[44:06] number of students, and

[44:08] what is the magnitude of that

[44:09] effect? And if so, then

[44:10] we have to make a

[44:11] value judgment at

[44:12] some point when

[44:14] we cut off

[44:14] based on what

[44:16] we think

[44:16] will happen to the students,

[44:18] because I think there is

[44:19] that connection.

[44:20] Hmm, another question

[44:22] I have is how many

[44:23] districts around us

[44:24] are using DOI to

[44:26] determine the

[44:26] 1 to 24 ratio

[44:28] at this point, because

[44:29] I get

[44:30] the impression that some

[44:31] districts have been doing this for

[44:33] a while, and whether we

[44:34] do it or not.

[44:36] This is true. I think, I

[44:38] think that's true, and

[44:39] I think the other

[44:40] part of it now is

[44:41] that

[44:42] probably in some

[44:43] areas a little more

[44:44] like Arlington,

[44:45] there are schools that are

[44:46] much smaller, where

[44:47] you see other schools,

[44:48] and I use

[44:49] some of the fast-

[44:50] growing schools, right?

[44:52] in other buildings for

[44:53] over 800 students to

[44:54] spread

[44:55] some of that out a little bit so

[44:56] they can be more

[44:57] efficient. Regarding

[44:59] Scott's comment,

[45:00] when you have a small

[45:02] canvas and you

[45:02] actually have to

[45:04] split up, and you

[45:05] only have three teachers in

[45:06] that classroom or two

[45:07] teachers in that classroom

[45:08] , it puts us in a

[45:09] very difficult

[45:10] position. So, I

[45:11] think that's another

[45:13] thing that you see in

[45:14] some other districts

[45:15] is that the average

[45:18] elementary school enrollment is

[45:19] probably higher than

[45:20] ours.

[45:21] Yes, and that's why I said I would like to take

[45:22] that

[45:23] into account, there are a

[45:24] lot of variables. But I do

[45:25] n't know if I should

[45:27] do that, I would say there

[45:28] 's a hard limit of 24, there's a

[45:29] hard limit of 26,

[45:30] depending on what the

[45:33] student achievement data shows, and

[45:34] where we think the

[45:35] actual

[45:36] average

[45:37] class size will be based on those

[45:38] ratios.

[45:40] Because if we, from

[45:41] preschool to

[45:42] fourth grade,

[45:43] if we

[45:43] staff

[45:44] it with the same

[45:45] number of students - 1

[45:46] to 25 or 1 to 26, but

[45:48] our average class size is still

[45:50] going to be less than 20, I think

[45:51] that's wrong.

[45:52] I understand. Thanks for

[45:54] the feedback. I can't

[45:57] give you well-

[45:59] thought-out

[45:59] comparative

[46:00] research data right now,

[46:01] but we'll definitely

[46:02] look into it. What we

[46:04] noticed, and what

[46:05] Roberto and

[46:06] Melody can add if you

[46:07] look at it

[46:08] differently. As we

[46:10] looked at the data,

[46:11] particularly the slides that

[46:12] Roberto showed

[46:13] earlier, we noticed

[46:14] some areas in

[46:16] terms of ratios,

[46:17] whether

[46:18] we were talking about the

[46:19] total number of

[46:20] staff or

[46:21] specific breakthroughs in

[46:22] those staff.

[46:25] Some of these same

[46:26] districts that were

[46:27] more efficient

[46:29] had higher

[46:29] ratios,

[46:30] meaning they actually

[46:31] performed better as well

[46:32] . So it

[46:34] definitely goes against the

[46:35] grain. And I do

[46:37] n't think you

[46:38] mentioned it, but it

[46:38] goes against the idea that

[46:39] maybe we're

[46:40] exceeding the point where

[46:41] we could be

[46:42] effective because there

[46:43] are districts that

[46:43] seem to be doing it.

[46:45] Right. Because

[46:46] for me, the

[46:46] most important thing is what

[46:48] will actually happen. What does it

[46:49] actually look like in the

[46:50] average classroom?

[46:51] As for the

[46:52] natural sciences,

[46:53] they were initially...

[46:54] Yes.

[46:54] Increasing

[46:54] the ratio

[46:55] doesn't really make that

[46:56] much of an impact. I would

[46:57] say that it gives a

[46:58] lot of freedom of action.

[47:00] Maybe a little of

[47:01] this too.

[47:01] Good. Thanks for

[47:02] the feedback. Something else?

[47:04] I think that was a

[47:05] summary of a lot of what

[47:07] was just

[47:08] said, but it's clearly more

[47:09] effective the

[47:10] larger the elementary

[47:11] school. We really

[47:13] focused on

[47:14] classes 1 to 21. And

[47:15] then we also

[47:16] realized that it

[47:18] couldn't be based on

[47:19] class ranges

[47:20] because you'd still

[47:21] leave it at

[47:22] level 22. It had to be

[47:23] based on something

[47:24] bigger. That is, this is the

[47:26] average across the

[47:28] entire district,

[47:28] take four. I'm

[47:30] trying to understand

[47:32] how a DOI is structured.

[47:33] Is it by campus or by

[47:34] district? I

[47:36] mean, that's something we're going to have to

[47:37] figure out,

[47:38] because if you make

[47:39] it too broad,

[47:40] you can have both

[47:41] extremely high

[47:42] and extremely

[47:43] low numbers. But if you

[47:45] make it too

[47:46] narrow, you won't

[47:47] change anything. If you

[47:48] just do it at the

[47:49] class level, you're

[47:50] literally leaving

[47:51] it at level 23 or 24.

[47:52] So, I think that was a

[47:53] point that we

[47:54] just kept

[47:55] coming back to.

[48:02] So we kept it and

[48:03] talked about it, and there was an

[48:04] opportunity for

[48:05] discussion. Hmm, that

[48:08] relates to

[48:09] Mr. Thompson's question to some extent. If

[48:12] we look at the

[48:13] average

[48:14] class sizes, not the limits, but the

[48:15] average

[48:16] class sizes, understanding that

[48:17] we're setting a

[48:18] control limit

[48:20] that shouldn't

[48:20] exceed that

[48:21] value by more than

[48:23] three, then...And it's

[48:24] just...It's just a

[48:25] conversation right now. This is

[48:27] definitely not a solution or

[48:28] anything like that. And if

[48:29] you go to these...

[48:31] And if you go

[48:32] to these

[48:33] averages, you're

[48:35] talking about a

[48:36] projected 21.67

[48:37] million. And that's

[48:38] compared to our

[48:39] deficit of 27. So that's

[48:41] about a third. And that's what

[48:45] we

[48:46] talked about. Again

[48:48] , this is not a

[48:48] recommendation, it's

[48:49] just a context for

[48:51] this, an influence. Let's

[48:54] continue. Last

[48:56] slide. Hmm, we

[48:58] tried to

[48:59] build

[49:00] a chronology because

[49:01] it's a detailed work.

[49:04] This is personal work

[49:05] towards people. This is

[49:07] personal work

[49:08] towards students. And we

[49:09] must be

[49:10] thoughtful about this.

[49:11] And in order to

[49:12] make progress, we

[49:13] need to bring some

[49:14] structure to the

[49:15] schedule. So, here we are today

[49:16] ,

[49:17] having looked at some

[49:19] county benchmarks. Um

[49:21] , and of course,

[49:22] holding a seminar

[49:23] for the board of directors.

[49:27] It's about early

[49:28] October, November,

[49:29] coming back with a progress report to the

[49:32] board, which is where we

[49:33] are now, and

[49:34] then the culmination,

[49:35] ultimately, as a result of

[49:37] this work, we

[49:38] discussed with

[49:39] the departments

[49:39] the recommendations, actions, and

[49:40] impact, if that's what's

[49:42] happening at the

[49:43] department level,

[49:44] probably at the very

[49:45] beginning of December, give or take.

[49:46] And then, in

[49:50] January and February, if

[49:51] we're going to do

[49:52] something different, that's when the

[49:54] recruiting process starts every year

[49:55] . So if

[49:57] we're going to do

[49:58] something different, we need to

[49:59] be in a

[50:00] position where we've

[50:01] properly

[50:02] communicated to our

[50:03] campuses, our

[50:04] leaders, our

[50:05] directors, and our

[50:06] employees that this

[50:08] impacts not only what,

[50:09] but what, so that

[50:10] when we start the

[50:11] recruiting process

[50:12] as part of the

[50:13] annual cycle, it's not

[50:14] "this is all brand

[50:15] new, what are you

[50:16] talking about?" This is not how

[50:17] I want to treat

[50:18] people. I know

[50:20] none of us want to

[50:21] do this. So to

[50:22] achieve this goal, we

[50:23] need to make

[50:24] real progress

[50:26] here. So, that was all

[50:28] we had for the evening

[50:29] . Of course, I would be happy

[50:30] to take any

[50:31] final comments or

[50:32] questions you

[50:33] may have, and I

[50:34] greatly appreciate your

[50:35] participation.

[50:36] Guardians, are there any

[50:37] final questions,

[50:38] comments regarding

[50:39] Umberto, uh, Scott,

[50:41] and Melody?

[50:42] Thank you. It was wonderful.

[50:44] Thank you very much. I was

[50:45] pleased.

[50:46] Thank you.

[50:46] Scott, I want to

[50:47] make it clear that what you

[50:48] saw there is not, and just in

[50:50] case the

[50:51] public

[50:51] has any questions, there are

[50:52] no

[50:53] recommendations here. We're

[50:54] trying to

[50:55] get a sense of your pulse

[50:56] on some things and

[50:57] then lay the

[50:58] groundwork for those conversations

[50:59] , because you see

[51:00] this graph in front of us

[51:01] . We have a clock

[51:02] that ticks and makes

[51:03] some of these important

[51:04] decisions. Um, I really

[51:07] appreciate the work, and you

[51:08] see, the collaboration

[51:09] between

[51:10] HR,

[51:11] research and

[51:12] accountability, and

[51:13] finance. This is one of the

[51:15] best recruiting seminars

[51:18] I have ever

[51:19] seen in any

[51:20] district I have ever

[51:21] been to. We have

[51:22] done our best to

[51:23] outline very clearly the

[51:24] mathematical challenge

[51:25] that lies before us

[51:26] , and to make sure that

[51:27] everyone understands the

[51:28] mathematical challenge

[51:29] that lies before us

[51:30] , and it is not personal. We have a

[51:32] math problem, and

[51:33] we have to

[51:34] figure out together how

[51:35] to solve it. So thank you

[51:36] all for working

[51:37] with us.

[51:39] Good. Yes, thank you all

[51:41] . This was great

[51:42] wording and

[51:42] context, and we

[51:43] really appreciate your

[51:45] hard work and

[51:46] time. It is

[51:47] 6:10 PM. At this time, we

[51:49] will discuss and

[51:51] resume a closed

[51:52] session in the boardroom

[51:55] pursuant to

[51:57] Texas Government Code

[51:59] 551.071, 551.074, 551.089 of the

[52:00] Texas Government Code

[52:02] and Texas

[52:03] Open Meetings Act 551.071.

[52:08] Yes.

[52:09] Good job.

[52:10] Great job.

2029-09-24 Arlington ISD School Board Workshop Meeting

Transcript