[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.