[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music]
Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Sinoa Henipin School Board work session for today, September 8th, 2025. Our first order of business is to approve the board agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? with a motion from Director Langenfeld.
Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Cocher Arco. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. With six in favor and zero opposed, the agenda is approved. Members, the next item on our agenda is
item C, consent agenda. As normal, members can remove items for separate consideration and discussion if that's their desire. Otherwise, is there a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented? Thank you, Director Adet. Is there a second? Thank you, Director Simon. Any
discussion? All right, hearing none. Would all those in favor say I? I. Any opposed say no. With six in favor and zero opposed, the consent agenda is approved. So, uh, board members, thank you for your patience. We were having some technical difficulties with the
microphones at our presenters table. So, we are shifting a bit here and adjusting board members down to um this side of the table. So, Superintendent McIntyre and I will share this microphone. So, excuse us while we uh readjust here for a second. Um and then we will move into
our agenda item four, uh elementary and secondary literacy update. We welcome Sarah Hunter, the executive director of learning and achievement. And Sarah, if you'll just join us here at Jeff's normal seat and then um your team can sit with you here maybe and we might have to ask them to move up to the
microphone if they're speaking. Thank you for your flexibility. All right board, is everyone settled to where we can see everything? Feeling good? All right, please go ahead. So, board members, thank you for
adjusting here. We're going to make this work. Um, last spring, uh, we want to give you a literacy update both on on our elementary and secondary efforts as the school year starting. The board took action last spring to support our efforts around the literacy adoption for the elementary level. And it was just really wise for us to also give you an
update on secondary. We're very excited. It's been a busy summer with training, buying materials, getting everything to classrooms, and then starting the school year with our whole new program. So, um, and this team has been extremely busy. many others join have joined them to help with this implementation and roll
out. So they're just giving you a status report on how things are going since you uh made that approval and uh gave us the resources to move this whole um strategic initiative forward. So without any further comments from you, I'm going to turn over to our excellent team here
led by Sarah. Thank you. [Music] [Music] Thank you so much. Really appreciate that information. Board, what um questions do we have for our presenters? Okay. Uh, Director Simon
Director Langenfeld. Director Aette Director Langfeld. Director Hman [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] Director Langfeld Director Simon [Music] [Music] All right, board. Any other final questions or discussion? All right, with
that, thank you so much. Uh, thank you for pivoting to this unique seating arrangement and and thank you so much for the detailed presentation. I think that was really helpful to sort of walk through the stages where we've been, where we're going, some call backs to presentations we've seen before with some like additional information to show
the progression. I I really appreciate that and I think it was super helpful to facilitate this conversation. Thank you. And I appear to be the only one with uh audio working. So um our next agenda item board is phase uh
item 4B phase three budget reduction and reallocation process planning. So, we'll have Superintendent McIntyre, Michelle Vargas, our chief financial officer, Tanya Constantine, our deputy superintendent, Dr. Ginger Gustiffson, assistant superintendent for elementary schools, and Dr. Annette Ziggler,
assistant superintendent for secondary schools, joining us uh at the board table to have this discussion. Yes. Okay. Uh uh we are going to take a five minute break before we start this next topic to address some of the audio challenges. Thank you all. Back in five.
Say that. Yeah. Possible. Probably is possible. This one's on. Testing. Mine's on. Flip the switch.
Test one, too. Testing. Okay. How about those? Did those come up? No, I'm still not getting those. [Music] Yeah, exactly. Hello. Hello.
[Music] Microphones are hot. I mean on cable and [Music] Oh, Vargas wants to sit. It will be on when the light is green over there. Okay.
Okay. Got it. All right, we'll go ahead and uh resume our item 4B. Again, board members, thanks for being flexible as we work through our technical challenges here. Our team is here with us tonight to help help us uh
work through together our first conversation around phase three budget reduction considerations. So, the three overlying uh goals and objectives of tonight is to review I'm not on slide two in your materials, by the way. I'll kind of help help uh call those out. Um but to review phase one
and two briefly of our past reductions and realignments, give you a brief overview of our uh FY26 budget and our phase three reduction target and then some initial phase three budget reduction considerations.
So just by way of review, a lot of the the variables that all districts in the state and and beyond are are working through is a number of factors that uh really impact our our budgeting process in our expenditures and our what we call in our slide our funding reality. Um we
consider things like enrollment growth. Uh we've been flat. Now you've been seeing lately we we're seeing an uptick. We'll see how that shakes out by the end of the month. So that is up. We have some optimism there. Otherwise, the um higher than available budgeted employee contract settlements we've had recently,
inflation, increasing costs of transportation and other operational areas. Um you know, we've got some new revenue from from state resources, but it's woefully short of what the cost factors are with inflation and other increased
costs. Then the additional requirements as we've talked talked about a number of times with requirements around um underfunded or unfunded mandates. So those things coming without the funding support we need. So you add all those things together, it's put many many
districts in this similar position here in the last um more recent times. As we work through with you the first and second now third phase there are a number of considerations and planning parameters that we look at closely that have impact. So there's I continue to
bring that list forward. It's on the next slide. Uh it's uh the budget reduction realignment draft draft recommendations planning parameters. So I'll just name a few of these but they're all uh important. First letting our strategic priorities guide our work.
looking at enrollment, looking at our range of services and programs, trying to do this through a a phased or staggered approach, looking at what we've done administratively at the central office, looking at past reductions and the impact that those have had over time. Um, we've talked a
lot with the board about restricted and unrestricted funding areas and the the flexibility that we have in some areas and not so much in others. keeping an eye on our fund balance, our operational efficiencies, and delivering on those must-have operational um pieces of our
district, instructional time, the supervision time we have within existing schedules, reviewing schedules as well, staffing allocations by level, and then the way our teachers work within those schedules. And then finally, the legal and financial compliance pieces that
Michelle and her team do a great job keeping us up to date. you've you've had our auditing results as well as we've moved through the process making sure we're in uh maintaining those compliance requirements. So, I'll I'll just briefly go through uh and this is really just kind of a
reminder for all of our audience in our community when we talk phase three. Well, what was phase one and phase two? And phase one briefly was a $5.1 million reduction in the 2425 year. That was um about u 50 positions that were affected
either through elimination or reallocation. That was when we had an original target though of between 26 and $30 million. and we knew we had to move quickly to try to get out in front of that um where we could. The next slide looks at the 9 million
then an additional uh central office office reductions putting that at about 14 million that was approximately 200 positions. Really the list is just giving a picture of across all departments everywhere from senior leadership to our operational areas um
communications, community education, special education, technology, HR across the board uh was impacted by those uh reductions to help help us protect and keep as much stability at the school
sites as possible. So this that was just a brief review. Um, we're going to now launch into some of the information you've been getting a little more informally and have Michelle cover some of the budget parameters looking ahead to FY26, some overview and adjustments
that we've been able to make. If Michelle, you could pull that microphone towards you a little bit, that would be good. Turn it on. There we go. Um, looking at the fiscal year 26 budget overview. Um, just wanted to start as we look at it, our total budget that's adopted is 780 million.
Um, it consists of all of our funds that for all of our operations. When we're looking at our budget reductions, we're looking at the general fund. You cannot use your food service fund, your community service fund, your debt service fund, um, or the trust fund to, um, close that budget deficit. It's not
allowed for transfers that way. if the food service fund or community service fund get into trouble, the general fund has to take care of them. That's legally what we can do. But so the area that we're focusing on is the general fund budget of the 700 um 229
million that we're looking at um for the reduction process. We'll go to the next slide. Um so in um the detail in appendix J is the breakdown of uh how that general fund budget is built. Um
starting with the restricted funds. So those are restricted funds that have reserve fund balances, the 126 million. Um there are some flexibilities in a few of them that we've talked about in the past like compensatory or achievement
integration. Um but the majority of them are are very restricted and aren't available then for um the discussion of the target. our federal grants. Um federal grants are to supplement, not supplant. So
although they're not in a restricted fund balance, they are extremely restricted. Um and they're part of our single audit every year to make sure we are following the guidelines. Um and that's about 6 million. We have some other miscellaneous and grants and fundraisers. Um fundraisers generally
our sites generate donations um either fundraising all different ways. So, we monitor that. We know we're going to get about 2 million a year. So, we make sure we have the expenditure side of that, too, for that revenue to offset it and allocate it as
those funds come in. In our assigned budget, we just lost our screen. Oh, no. In the assigned area, um rate this year, we have 9.4 million. Um the majority of that is the strategic investment that was done with the
associates a couple of years ago, that $5 million about. Um the other portions have to do with capital infrastructure, um finishing up aesthetics and security, um dollars set aside for Project Lead the Way, the 225,000 annually. Um and
there's also um textbooks that are in there. Another area that is although not a restricted area is special education. um that area you have to maintain effort
in there. So um you you have to spend as much as you did the year before or you will lose revenue. There are a couple of instances where you can reduce some but um they will pull back your general education revenue if you don't maintain
effort. Um that 135 million does not include transportation. That's part of operations. But in addition to the the services, supplies, staffing, there's another um portion about 24 million that
is in the operations in the transportation area. So in our unassigned, that's that large area where we have about Can we take a question there before we move on? Coach, sorry, I just had a thought based on the what you were talking about about maintaining effort. So just
hypothetically, let's say there just wasn't as much of a need maybe for the next year or two or three for special ed services for whatever reason. Just hypothetically if that were to occur and the demand just wasn't there for like even what we currently have, would we still have to spend the same amount of
money or how would that work? My understanding is it's based on your student count and how much you spend per that student. So if your student count went down, then you could spend less because you're you're supposed to maintain effort based on the number of students you're serving that have the IEPs.
And I can add, great question. Thank you. So if if we did have fewer uh students that just um require more services and ultimately are more kind of high needs, high cost, if we just have fewer of those, that is one of the exceptions. Yeah. Yeah. And if you remember, we
we've talked about um also like we have just a larger number of retired teachers and there's a reduction in cost because we've had more uh staff through retirement. There's some like those are just a short list of exceptions that give us an if you approve those reasons that are
allowable, it's okay. Not just budget reductions that you reduce services or staff to support the students that are there. All right. Um, so the next area is in our unassigned um, and that's the area when we look at your unassigned fund balance.
That's the area where we look at the 10% minimum. So this area um, adding up to I believe it's five about 559 million um, broken down between our our prek12 programs. So that's all your prek all the way up through the high schools. And
these are all of our our schools. um step program, regional high school, all of that's in that area and that all of the supply budgets for those areas and all of their staff is 275 million. Unassigned operations.
So that's operations is your transportation and your operations of um the building. So that's your your lights, your heat and custodial staff. that um is $83 million.
And then we have our unassigned central services. So that's the central area of our central departments that are going to be anywhere from HR, finance, curriculum department, all of the central services that are done um centrally. And then we have our
unassigned other 36 million and that's also detailed out. But that has to do with items that just don't attach to a specific operation or site like our severance pay. We know we have about 2 to three million of severance a year but we don't know where it's going to land.
So it's it's sat there. Our substitutes we try to budget some of it out but not all of the miscellaneous. the teachers ones, we kind of try to to do it by sight based on assumptions, but um our non-licensed staff subbudget is in one area because you just really don't know
where it's all going to land each year. Um and there's other other items in that area. So, the amount that we're looking at um for our reduction is in this unassigned area. Again, the um the
details of all of this is in that large appendix J with the details of it. Um but it doesn't there's a limited area um that is available um within that that limited structure.
The update that we wanted to bring and we spoke about um as we finished fiscal year 25 and as we built 26 in 26 there was a very um large effort to build it
very specific and earlier because um generally there's a lot of assumptions made on staffing and that because staffing is being done up until we move in but um the budget is completely loaded for fiscal year 26. Um line items
um to the site and staffing and assumptions made for open positions that still haven't been filled at this point or when we were working on about a month ago. Um and when we roll that and we look at how we finish fiscal year 25, we don't have audited data at this point in
time yet. Um but there is a can we go to the next slide? There is about seven and a half million dollars of unallocated. So when everything was put out for everybody's staff, all the teachers, all the paras, their supply budgets, everything was put
out, um, and the dollars for open positions, there's about a fluctuation of 7.5 million. So that's about, uh, 1% of our budget. When we look at it, last year we had um about a $5 million
fluctuation. So it's carried over. In looking at it as we finish the last two years, our oped reimbursement on our insurance has been about 1.3 million more those retirees. So that's reduced our overall cost for health insurance. And two years in a row, what we've also
seen is a reduction in our staff accessing as insurance costs have went up. Um our staff, those that have other options have opted out of taking the insurance. So that's been another couple
of million dollars. In addition to that, what we've seen um is that some of our contracts as we budgeted and costed them out during negotiations, the rollup costs and expecting all the people to go through
all of the steps um are not as high. So as you're and what happens in our teachers contract, we tend to have our teachers are are our more um are more um senior teachers when we're
doing all of the different areas that are restricted those areas, they're really high in those areas because you're putting your higher staff into those intervention teachers and all of that. So when you're just budgeting across the board, our unassigned areas,
um those are more of our newer teachers and not as our our our senior teachers. So what's happening is those restricted funding sources which are limited, you get to spend what you have are taking on more of the higher costs. So that the way that that's balanced out, we've ended up um a few million about four
million there. So we're about 7 and a half million in costs that aren't just there. So, we've reduced um as we roll forward where we originally looking at fiscal year 27 for about 15.5 million. Take that 7.5 million off and we're looking at an adjusted target for
reductions of 8 million. So, as we finish fiscal year 25, um we had projected to be at about a $ 58 million fund balance. We're looking at 66 million. We also had our our um interest we had our interest earnings.
We're still holding on to them. They're starting to look at dropping our interest rates, but um we we budgeted last year for 4.6 million. We budgeted this year for 4.6 million. I will tell you five six years ago we were making
$300,000 a year. So the last couple years we've made eight or nine million. It can change overnight. Um but we did bank that. So, um, as we look into finishing fiscal year 25, um, we're at about 11.8%.
Adjusting then for 26 that we had that 7.5 that we would 26 and 27 are about the same. We looking at that 15.5 million. If it's an $8 million reduction, you'll be right down basically around year 10% still is where we would project to finish fiscal year
26. if everything holds to true, you settle contracts the way that we budgeted. So, there's still things to happen. Um, the only other thing that fiscal year 27, we should still have the funding for unemployment. That was the
one-time addition will probably get us through there. We don't have the full summer yet because we really only got second quarter 2025 that went through June. We haven't seen the July, August, September yet. the June one, which is
just a smaller period, I believe it doubled over last year. So, we're waiting to see where that comes. But those are some things that are still in the future, but as you look at um where we're at, we haven't taken down our fund balance as far as we thought we would um
due to some of the revenues, reduced expenditures, and then also still doing better on some of those revenue areas. Um, ending the year fiscal school year 25, we are down a little bit for our pupil units. Um, and as Corey mentioned
earlier, right now projections, you know, we're running high. We generally drop about 400 students from the time we hit our highest weekly amount to October 1. That's kind of been our last year we dropped 400 students from our high to
our October one count. It's just, you know, what you have on the books and that time to show up. So, um it would be nice to fill to to finish, you know, start October one higher as opposed to last year where we started low be lower
than our um projected enrollment. Dr. Simon, thanks Michelle. Just I want to repeat this, make sure I um am thinking of it correctly. Our initial um reduction target was 15 a.5 million
for phase three and if I'm remembering correctly that 15 a.5 million was going to leave our fund balance at like 7.8%. Like the initial projections of it was under 8% I believe and now all the all the numbers actually come in
if we adjust if we reduce $8 million our fund balance will be at around 10%. if thinking if we settle contracts on what we budgeted that's the big thing right um otherwise it could be lower than that okay okay and that that's correct
yes so if you look up there we had this is when you look up at this slide the 5 a.5% was assuming we had a full um hit of that 15.5 million in fiscal year 26 and you would take the full hit in fiscal year 27 that's what brought you
down to five and a half we knew we were going to make reductions to shore that up. But that is if we followed through and just kept spending and spending and not making any reductions, we would have been um at 5 a.5% in our previous estimates.
Thank you. Mhm. Board members, just to touch on something Michelle covered and thank you, Michelle, and I want to give Michelle a huge um shout out here just because of that 75 slide presentation uh that's in the background materials. That is the way to
I mean that's organizing our budget detail in a very different way. So that is organized in a sense that it's got the funding sources with pro program specific details that breaks it down breaks down the funding by those specific program and
cost centers and it details the specific staff positions and the associated costs that program and it was formatted across those cost centers in kind of this the same exact way. So, it was much hopefully much easier to
um and for our public to understand, you know, what goes into each of those broken out pieces of our overall budget. And I know how much time that took for Michelle and her team to put together over the last few months. um knowing that we've really tried hard to organize
that in a way that um really accurately reflected in an under understandable way what goes into each of those areas and how the staff and associated costs tie back to it. So that's in your backup round materials. I also just in included in the materials was a summary of the
phase one and phase two reductions that the board approved uh back last November. Uh in our slide deck I did include our timeline again. I think it's our next slide and this is just a a reminder of our uh process at least as it stands now
proposed process we after discussion tonight we just continue to refine right so we would come back at the uh regular board meeting later this month with any adjustments based on conversation tonight and then I believe it's the 24th of September we go out and start you
know just providing those considerations for our community meetings that go through the end of September early October so that we can come back to the October board meeting with any adjustments based on feedback from our community giving the board a month's time. I believe that's October
28th with the final approval estimated on to be on the November 24th board meeting. So just a quick review of of of the timeline. What I want to get to though is some of the details I think you want to talk about. Um the next slide is just a reminder of a decision
that was part of that phase 2 board decision last November. So the board part as part of that package was part of that overall decision was to you know finish off our and end early our strategic investment. So the way this is showing up on the slide here is it's
we're in our final year now of and we're ending that limited term one-time set of dollars that were committed four years ago. and that and this is the breakdown of those uh details for that 4.8 million uh in those strategic investment um
allocations. So that was just that's a piece of that puzzle from last November. Now, this this last slide here as Jim goes there, what we did is take the considerations, and I'm going to have uh Annette and Ginger and Tanya talk
through the process we were able to take with our staff that were here this summer, our our school leaders, really making a considered effort to work closely with our principles and um move forward with considerations knowing we had to hit and this was at a time where
we were thinking about a $15 million reduction target as We were still working through those settleups. So, what you have on here is a breakdown of on the left side what's left of the COVID relief fund allocations.
And uh just maybe for our public's u conceptual understanding when those dollars were first given to all school districts, the thought was, you know, this was a short-term burst of funding that we all knew would go away. Um and really at the time um all the districts kind of understood kind of a two-year
burst of funding. So over time what we've we've done is with certain positions we've found ways to continue to hang on to for those supports as we've some of the effects of the pandemic have lingered on and gotten you know creative with how do we continue those supports. So these are
the there's about $8.6 million here of the ESSER positions. So those were, you know, pandemic related and we're not there prior to the pandemic. And so now as we continue to talk about post- pandemic and that the p pandemic is, you know, you know, we're beyond that now.
Um, this structures up those those positions and allocations that were part of what what the Esser's dollars were for. Then on the right side is is some additional considerations for the board to think about everywhere from uh the
middle school module schedule change the um discussion we had last year for phase two um just putting that on the consideration list and then we look at just some uh staffing ratio adjustments. So if you think of uh these are ultimately fairly small staffing
adjustments that we could make really giving the building some autonomy on where to allocate those staffing um across the elementary, middle and high school levels. Then there's a piece here our team will talk more about knowing that we have elementary literacy intervention teachers included in the
ers funded areas. How do we uh continue to provide that strong literacy support through a restructured model of um intervention in those key roles especially in a year where we have um implementation of our elementary adoption and beyond and thinking K12 as
well and then an additional consideration for some administrative uh support positions. So it's in a sense a little bit of an a menu or some options that you could piece together in different ways. Um, but as we've worked through our with our school leaders, uh,
this is where we landed. So, I'm going to ask our team to talk more about how we got to this, uh, spot with with about 60 people, all of our leaders in our in our school sites. Check. Okay, it's working. Hi, everyone.
Um, so with Annette and uh Ginger and I being new as a leadership team, we wanted to um prioritize bringing in the voices of the principles because they're the ones closest to um these budget
considerations. So perhaps you have heard uh the phrase working genius. Um if you've heard of Patrick Lencion, he is he's been around for 20 25 years. um coaching leaders and different
organizations about how to effectively collaborate. So all of us on our leadership team as well as the principles have all taken this working genius assessment so we know where we fall in our areas of how we enjoy doing
work. Now, everybody has to work, right? Um and everyone has to collaborate. If you everything from starting a new initiative to um planning a trip, if you have um a significant other, you know
that every time that you have to collaborate, you have to come up with an idea. Um you need to evaluate the pros and cons and then you have to actually go forward um and activate this work. So there are six steps to the working
genius and we went through this with the principles in order to provide a voice from everybody and I'm going to let Annette and Ginger talk about that how we did that. Well, good evening and um before I get started I just would like to say how
incredibly grateful I am to be back in the Anoka Henipin School District. Uh so thank you for the opportunity. Um yes, as uh Deputy Superintendent Constantine had mentioned, uh we walk through a process, a structured process
uh with our K12 leadership and uh our goal uh not only for this process but throughout the year is to really bring together our K12 principles into one space, provide time for that
collaboration, And this uh this process was a launch into that. Uh and um during that time we had principles come in uh it was approximately for about 10 hours
uh uh mid August actually to come in and start to have conversations not only horizontally across uh with each level but also vertical conversations. And uh I have to say uh even though we
got to this point of uh some of these considerations, probably the most um impactful uh uh activities that we had done was the conversation and really that
understanding of what each level does. And um again uh a lot of the time was spent uh with that wi and when you do that as you know that builds capacity uh across the system across the
organization and that was one of these goals and in order to really look at the budget considerations from a K12 perspective versus level by level. Now keep in mind there there are different
needs at the different levels. Uh however what we wanted to uh come to the board with was uh were recommendations that were really mostly K12 and uh I will say that there were recommendations
by level as well. However uh we wanted to bring forward that K12 uh model the commons. Yes. So common themes did emerge um through all of the different levels and also they want to have a balance and I think there's a great balance of we can
see that and you can see this too that there's intervention teachers there's support teachers there's support staff there's administration there are both in strategic investments and esser that will have a great impact on how we support our teachers our students and
just the whole experience for every um aspect of the learner. So, what we're hoping that we can continue to do is to increase that conversation, to continue to have that conversation, not just with our building leaders, but to have them go back because in between each of those
sessions, which were three-hour sessions and three to four hour sessions, they went back to their buildings and had that conversation with their teams and with their other leaders because they were also having leadership team meetings with teachers and things like that to get ready for the school year to
gather some insights and some uh feedback about potential um pieces of these models. So um we would like to go back and really start to build back what would be the best model proposal given what is really difficult decisions to
make. Um because reductions are always very difficult. They're always very hard and we don't want to have an impact on our learners and we're we know that that is something that that is a mutual desire from every single level and we feel strongly that our principles have a
understanding of what is needed at every level and um they will work together to make sure that process is fair and equitable for each student at each level. So board members, what you have here as a result of that those those efforts and
honestly some hard decisions about, you know, how do we get to that target? Now, we were still working under the premise of a higher target. So the good news is, you know, that's a different number to hit now. But what's on here is really a starting point for board discussion. Um,
you can see it's really trying to maintain the integrity of the class- size discussions we've had in the past. and um not eliminating any uh full levels of support, but also um and I think maybe I can just ask the team to talk a little bit more on the front end
here about thoughts and early discussions you've had when we think about how to support the literacy work that you heard about tonight. So with some of the changes that you see on the on the slide here, we still have other staff that we can reorganize and
repurpose to do the kinds of support work that needs to be done around our priorities. So maybe I'll just flip it back to the team to talk a little bit more about some preliminary preliminary discussions. We will come back to you with a little more detail on this as we're just at the beginning phases of
the of the work. Um but it's I I want to preface this the any reductions in those er pieces uh we still have other staff and other FT that we can kind of repurpose or reorganize to make sure we accomplish those things. So maybe the team you can add some more context to
that. Yeah, there are um positions that are funded out of other funding sources like compensatory education and things to that effect. We also have u comp coaches that add to that piece of you know providing feedback to our teachers. There's literacy specialists or lit aid
that will also be the 14.2 FTEES they're allocated to the elementary. So those are pieces that we can couple along with that support. Um we also have the achievement coaches at the high school level and instructional coaches at the middle level that we need to continue to
look at for funding. Um we understand the importance of that intervention teacher and the support that allows for the students who need that additional time and energy and support. So, those are those pieces that we're trying to balance with that FTE to make sure that we can allocate that piece off to the
side with along with maintaining that staffing um and asking our our principles looking at what that would do with that class size or the pieces of that they can maintain that class um ratio within the um expectations that have been set, I think, by the
guidelines of policies of the board. So, I'll just kind of wrap this up and turn it back over to co-chair Dashaine. Um, so there's roughly slightly over 50 additional positions in our district that whether they're um QC
comp coaches, literacy specialists, other instructional coaches that are not in this essie that we can utilize to restructure a model that still provides that support for the priority area. You know, number one is literacy that we've talked about tonight. We you know the
team if that's a direction the board wants us to continue to explore we would tie that back together you know so should the board say yes you know we can get to that $8 million reduction just by really tackling the ers those co funded positions that we knew would go away uh or those dollars would go away we don't
leave that big void we don't leave a hole uh behind there uh we have another way to address the needs in the district and still achieve our budget cut target or you may take us down a different direction and and piece together some different options that you see here or
something else that um the board wants us to explore. Okay. So, thank you. I'll turn it back to you to facilitate conversation board. What questions do we have for our presenting team? While people are thinking of those, I'll
just start with um the process I think that you outlined of including stakeholders are building leadership and doing um more than just a kind of a cursory ask having in-depth meetings and discussions I think is really important. The more voices we get involved in
discussions like this uh especially those that are going to have to um effectuate the changes that come with the cuts, I think we'll we'll end up with a better decision. So, I really appreciate you doing that. Director Hulman,
thank you. uh tying this together to the conversation that we just had about reading and um just looking at some of these pieces, we certainly want to keep all of the momentum that we have moving forward on the reading initiatives moving forward.
We're going to have to make some difficult decisions here in order to make um things work. But I hope that when we consider these positions um that we look much more carefully and not just
a a broad sweep. Um to me that esser position cut with the elementary literacy intervention teachers um is concerning. If I just read what um was on the last slide deck from that
literacy intervention teachers deliver targeted small groupoup literacy interventions and there's a number of other things there. So I hope that um just as we look into this discussion that um really appreciate the hard work and um principles coming together and
other leadership people working um to do this. It's hard. I I can't imagine what it's like looking at that. You know, where what could I lose out of my building? There's so many important pieces there. Um we we as a group, I hope, can take time
to look more carefully, as you just said. More voices will make better decisions. um that we take these into consideration, but that we look at it with a lot more detail um to be wise. Uh Director Langfeld,
I would concur with that. I think one of the really important things is to really understand the work of what people are doing in the trenches to support the children. And I think um just even having a just a recent conversation with one of the principles,
what's happened with the cuts we saw in phase one and phase two are already being felt in our schools. And that's an important part of the discussion that we have to take into account. What does that look like? What kind of impact is that having? We didn't even start the
school year yet. So I think that that's a really important factor and and I appreciate director Hulman's comment about we have to look deeply because at the end of the day if we are moving pieces and thinking you can't look at
anything in isolation I always think about it everything is interconnected and so what does that really mean if we move this piece or that piece what does that do and that's why it's so critical to have the voice of the leaders in the
schools. And what's interesting and important, having been a sightbased principal, being able to make some of those decisions at that level, um really mattered because what we were doing maybe at Rapids Middle School back
in the day was not necessarily what my colleague over there, Dr. Gustiffson, was doing at Oakview. And so those are the kinds of conversations I would appreciate having um that level of of understanding of what it really means
for schools to have these there. You can do some general things, but it does come down sometimes to that level of granularity for schools. And so I'm not suggesting that everything everything is is off the table, but
rather offering a space for autonomy for some schools to make some decisions. I received a packet from someone recently who had been a teacher in the district for more than I think 40 years. And uh it was a very successful story of of the
journey where the school was afforded autonomy to be able and the principal and the wisdom of the whole school team to make decisions and saw significant improvement in student achievement. and not every school was probably doing the same thing and they had the support of
the the district as well. So I I want to make sure we have a very holistic look at this and I appreciate Dr. Langenfield. I appreciate you saying that. And one thing that um really struck me last week in one of the meetings that Dr. Ziggler and I had with
one of the high school principles. Um this high school principal and his um assistant principal were sharing all their successes that they've had with their graduation rates and um getting kids to school and um you know raising
those scores. And the principal said all these cutting these folks, we will not be able to effectively get those kids to the graduation rates that we've been so proud of. And it just
Dr. Ziggler and I just looked at each other and and we just felt the enormity of this decision as much as all of you do where you know these are kids' lives. So, I don't envy any of you your decision right now, and I appreciate
that you're taking it um as seriously as you are. It's it's a very very emotional time. Director Simon, thanks, Casey. Uh thanks for the presentation. Um first of all, I'll echo the shout out to Michelle. I thought the
background and the detail really allowed at least this one board member to um to not think of it as kind of an overall, you know, and look at the detail and really um kind of really understand, you know,
this slide also. So, thank you. I thought it was I thought it was very well done and I think it's very well done for the public, too. I think it's a it's a view that um educational funding isn't easy, but it's a view that our public and community can actually look at and maybe understand. So, thank you.
Um Corey, I guess I want to make sure I understand. So, um this slide with if you want to you can go back where the ESSER positions are and then the kind of the menu if you will. So, and I guess it's for you you folks to all the
leadership is that when you looked at our budget and you looked at what it takes for schools to educate kids properly, I I tell me if I'm right with this and then you got with district leadership, your expertise and building
leadership and expertise when they looked at the whole system. This is where even though it's would highly impact our schools, these are the areas that their expertise says you could potentially make cuts right there. Are
there other things out there that the board doesn't know? I would I would think you've looked at everything and this is kind of it's not necessarily a recommendation, but it's the recommended areas. Is that fair, Corey? Well, these are the considerations that rose to the top through that process.
And you know, for example, um if the board said, you know, we really want to collectively hang on to the 32 FTE around literacy intervention, you have and you could say to the elementary, middle, and high school levels. We're going to reduce overall
our staffing total across the levels on the right here, the 37. It's basically kind of balances out gives the buildings the autonomy to decide you know we'll reduce the overall staffing allocation and they will decide where to prioritize things in their schools knowing that you
said hang on to the this is just an example but you're hanging on to that literacy piece. So if you said Hank you know maybe cut the other things in in the academic support list but keep those 32 FTE and then you you give the building you know principles that
autonomy by level um where knowing that the priority from the board is those three areas that you know you can you can kind of work amongst these different options here. Now, if there's other things that maybe come out through our engagement process with community or other stakeholders, surveys, the things
we do may rise to the top and maybe not on here. So, I'm kind of looking back at the team here as we worked with our principles. This is the as we narrow down the scope. How do we get to that target? Director Hokman said it well is a tough task getting to a hard place because there's value in everything we
we do we believe. And and also like what what is the biggest return on on some of those things? So um that way that that might accomplish something Dr. Langenfeld was talking about along as along with preserving that high level focus on on literacy you can kind of
work amongst these things is is one way to put it. So I'm looking at Annette Ginger and Tanya would you reframe that in any way or anything you want to add? The only comment I have to that is that when you see these the list up here, it
does not come without emotion. These were not just offered up easily. There were tears, there was crying, there was hugging, there was it. This was a very very challenging 10 hours. And
you know, when I I think of the elementary folks, and that's where I spent the majority of of my career, um, when you're what when you're a elementary teacher and you're alone in a classroom, you don't have anyone else.
And they really feel when you're with kids all day long, the same group. and if they don't have these interventionists coming in to support them with some of their struggling learners, it is a challenge. Um, so I guess I just wanted to reiterate that
any principal that might be watching this right now, this was a very very emotional handover, so to speak. They just know that we need to make cuts. And we're hoping that in our new remodel that we can combine some of these coaching
positions. Um, for example, a Q comp coach can be an instructional coach. I know because I did it for three years. So, there are ways to collaborate some of these positions. And doc, call you Dr. Simon. That
Dr. Director Simon, um, I appreciate you mentioning the the other slide deck that has all the background. You know, that is as in essence a list of other options or considerations just organized by those cost centers. So that's a very detailed long list of those uh that you know are
always every year we go through that is on the table. Um this is a culmination of as we narrow down the scope through those conversations where we landed. So hopefully that helps you. It it oh sorry I was continuing. Um, so
how I I mean how I take this slide and if it sounds like it's true, there was a lot in that answer that through your process that our district and building experts are saying cuts are horrible. We we believe all of them are horrible.
here are some options and we don't think there's anything else on this list but again if you think there are um it seems like you're giving a caveat that there might be please bring those back. I I would I would hope that this is this is administration saying we
work through the process and this is what we're bringing forward for your consideration. So if not let me know. Um I agree with Linda and Michelle on um literacy. We how can we can't say it anymore, right? Our district, not just
the board. It's the priority, right? So um I I am not comfortable taking a step back in literacy, especially with launching this. Um so I I'm glad you gave other menu options because maybe those will have to be considered at
least from my perspective. Um, also I'm going to jump back to the strategic investments and I just want to make sure the board and the public understands part of and Michelle you can correct me if I'm wrong. Part of those strategic investments were directly for student
and staff safety specifically at our five high schools. Our five high schools, Michelle, are you nodding? Am I right about that? We gave money for our five high schools to create programs to help with student disruption and dysregulation. Blaine High School came and presented to the board about their
highly successful program. I also know Rapids High School has a highly successful program that really impacted that. So, I'm not saying we've already agreed to to not go forward with that. I understand that. But I just want to put that out there as a consideration. I
think that literacy and safe environment are well, I know those are two very important strategic priorities for this board. So, another consideration there of if those high schools are not going to have those programs or the money for the program, what how what are we going to
do? And that brings me to my last point. So, when Superintendent uh McIntar, you mentioned this, but um what I would also like to see in these cuts is flexibility for our schools, right? So like in our
high schools if there is we need to cut X amount but there's flexibility for Blaine High School to keep their um their program to help student disruption and I don't know exactly how we can work that but um different buildings have
different needs and have had different levels of success with these programs and I think that we should do everything we can to give the flexibility to keep those. So just a brief comment the the sta the school staffing column there that's
intended to do just that. So if you if the board said at each level uh here's the total number of reductions by FTE then that allows the buildings to figure out where best to prioritize the things the board has commitment to and where
they have the flexibility to make those ultimate reductions land school by school. Ju just one last comment off of that. Sorry, Zach. I'll be done. Um, so at least this one board member I would love to see, you know, it keeps being put
saying board you can, you know, choose, pick and choose and do what you would I would personally like a recommendation. So, and I think the at least my view of the board role is the board might agree with my sentiment of keep flexibilities
with high school. those kind of those overarching themes. Um, keep literacy, keep this, keep that and what or and then have a recommendation. At least I would like to see that. Um, okay. So, just to make sure I'm
understanding perfectly what this is the on that that slide, we're looking at the phase three budget considerations. It lists 64 employees or 32 FTE that are elementary literacy intervention teachers. I know we've been talking about this. Are those what
Director Hulman referred to as the ones who are um doing the small group essentially pulling students from classroom to doing small groupoup literacy coaching? That's what that is. Okay. That's what I thought. Yeah. I would never be in support of cutting that. Um, just to go by the, you know,
simplest metric we have last year, the MCA test results showed us that at third grade we had about 50% of students passing the MCA test. It's just a metric. It's not perfect by any means, but um we it's critical for every other
subject that students can read presumably um at a third grade level in third grade, but if they can't, we got to get them all the support they need. So, I would never be in favor of cutting those 64 employees. So, it seems like that's what the board wants. I would definitely want that removed from the re whatever the
recommendation is. So, I guess that's my first thought. Um, yeah, I guess that's all I have for now. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to add like I think it's it's heartening to hear echoes of the conversations that we all had individually, you know, when we did
our small group board meetings to preview this information to start talking about it with the team so we could learn, you know, what was coming, how might this look. I I think there was um nearly unanimous support for talking about possible considerations and at the
same time keeping or rebuilding into the new literacy support model whether it's carving those positions out of this conversation or it's at the same time rebuilding them into a new literacy support model as you had mentioned with
um coaching plus intervention small group supports that that our students desperately need. So, it's it's really nice to hear those same kind of comments that came out of the summary conversations uh being shared here today at the board table. Thank you.
Anyone else have director? Thanks. Could we um could you give us a little more detail into the level of um I don't know what how would I want to say it? How how how our principles were
able to weigh in. And so when you bring this forward and you say that this like for instance if we look at the esser position reductions and we have yeah we've proposed to reduce those literacy intervention teachers
is are you saying that our elementary teachers were in support of doing that by putting this recommendation here? No one does. uh director Aad. Um
I would say that uh within our process uh one of the things that was immediately um uh put out as a boundary were the ESSER reductions. So right away that was something that was um proposed
to uh our K12 leaders uh because these uh these reductions were already set to sunset. Mhm. And so that was a that was a given. And so when you look at the table on the
right, that is what really uh had come out of our process uh with our K12 leaders uh was the table on on the right. Now also in that discussion uh as Dr. Ziggler had mentioned the next part
of this process uh is to bring our leaders back again and say okay here's our here's here's our direction and continue forward with that process in rebuilding uh what can
that uh K12 coaching model look like? How can that help support knowing that the esser positions uh are suns setting? How can our rebuild of our K12 uh coaching model, our administrative model
uh how can that help support then the sunsetting of those potential ESER positions? Okay. So then based on what's on the right, I just want to make sure I understand it. So the this this group came forward then
in and and are they are on board with making in elementary 10 FTE cuts in middle school 13.46 and high school 14.2. That is correct. So those are those are teacher cuts,
right? that would uh that would lead to a change in our ratio for class size. Uh great question. Great question. What I can what I can uh give you an example of so for example at the elementary
school for staffing uh you'll see up there there's a proposal for to add one student to grades one two three at the elementary level. Uh, so we have our um our staffing allocation ranges, if you will.
And so you have what we call a minimum and you have what we call um maximum range. And so um uh when staffing is first allocated um uh buildings go back they work through their processes and
then for at the elementary level if there is a need then we keep a very very close eye uh on uh on class size uh as uh throughout the throughout the year. And so like for this summer, if there
are class sizes that go above the range, then we allocate uh additional staffing. What we're saying here is that in grades 1, two, three, and remember I talked about a range. You have a low range and
a high range. And there's a plus two within that range, if that makes sense. Mhm. So when uh when staffing is originally allocated, then when as we're keeping an eye on class sizes uh in sections, when
uh there's an increase of two students, uh uh a principal will call and say, "Hey, I'm um I'm at the top of the range." Yep. We take a look at it. We will allocate staffing. In grades one,
two, three, we are not uh we are not at that top of the range as of yet. So, we're not above two. Uh and so, if we were to raise one, we're still within that range. We're not at the max range,
if that makes sense. Yeah, it does. I I I get the way that range works and how you have to get a certain part over before you would allocate an additional resource. Otherwise, you're just going to have, I guess, uh, underutilized the folks. So, correct. Correct.
Um, so thanks. Could you talk about what is it? What does this restructure K12 coaching model mean? What is that? What what what specifically is that going to be? That I think is like there was quite a few coaches that were added across the system. Um, and so looking at everything
and considering like a system for intervention plus coaching across the system, we'd have to figure that out and look at how that would work across K12 like with the strategic investment cost or the cuts and considering the ESRE cuts, what would that look like and what would that look like for elementary,
middle, and high school for the learner needs. These are people who work with uh staff. Uh, the coaching yes would be working with staff. Okay. Thanks. And just to correct, I think that, you know, you had kind of stated that they
were in favor of cutting staff. I don't think they are in favor of cutting staff. I'm not trying to I think I'm not trying to make a a Yeah. And I think even with the middle school model schedule change, I just to say, you know, publicly, I mean, it's not that the middle school principles
put that up there. They just said it, I know it's been there. We know it's an expensive model. We're going to, you know, say that we know that that is an expensive model. has been discussed for years. Um, so we know that that's been a discussion on on the on you know for years as well too. Yeah. I I don't mean it in the nobody
wants to cut anybody. I'm just I just want to I want to understand what they came forward and and what they said. Um and so because you know to Mr. Simon's point, it's this is their expert recommendation. So I I I'm trying to
understand how they came to it. Um, and could could somebody explain uh maybe a little bit I where I got lot. So, Superintendent McIntyre, you said there
are roughly 50 positions of a kind out there where we could repurpose, we could reorganize in some way in order to do literacy intervention, which uh a question I have is um rather than do that, rather than have them do
the literacy intervention, which would seem to put lesser specialized people looking over that, um why not why wouldn't we consider just keeping the literacy intervention teachers that we have and then make make cuts in in those
other 50 positions and reorganize it in that way. A fair question and I can jump in. So 27 of those are Q comp teachers. They're required by our QC comp program by the state. So we can't just cut them. That's an agreement with our union. That's a negotiated agreement. So we would have to end our UC comp program to eliminate
those positions for example. So some of these restrictions that are a part of this discussion um and I'm glad you asked it because I didn't know if I said that clearly enough earlier like if we if you these are in those ers originally ess pieces and
um when you think of our u comp coaches the additional literacy aid funded that's another restricted area that we're required to support. So when we add up the staff that we have in there, we can shape that role in a different way to kind of offset some of this. Uh
you know, if you went there, it's we've wrestled with this uh many times and it's a great question because we're still wrestling with it. Um what making sure we're not falling out of compliance with what are the requirements? So for example, that literacy aid, we don't want to put ourselves in jeopardy of that money
or the QC comp that we get from the state to help us support teachers through the evaluation process during the year and their their performance. So we were trying to get creative with how can we and and what those coaches are doing. They are helping support literacy. They're in there, you know,
observing and giving feedback on on the way they're instructing, teaching, reading, for example. So, it's a great question because it's a kind of a complicated one, but I hope I'm glad you heard that there is there there would be a way to take what we still have left that's not in that bucket and and still
fill and do the roles of support that we want. Um, but if the board just doesn't want to go there, I'm kind of hearing that we'll we'll go another direction. And and I also I'm hearing some of you at least like the concept of well we we'll just take back the staffing allocation and it gives that flexibility
of the sites on making sure we're prioritizing our three strategic priorities and gives the sites whether you run a big or small school the ability to decide and in likely those FTE adjustments may not be classroom teachers. They're in other areas for example too. There's other staffing
areas that they would look at. Yeah. Yeah. So, I hope you caught the concept um at least the way I did that this would still preserve the staffing ratio, the staffing ranges, right? We're still living within those ranges knowing that they're they're a bit fluid throughout the year anyway, especially as we start
the year where, you know, we're watching that closely. But the goal was to really kind of honor the class size guidelines concept, keep those ranges intact and live within those ranges. Yeah. So, I think that that's a good lead into where where I wanted to go
with this, which is where I really wanted to start, which was and I've mentioned this half a dozen times, but my my concept for approaching these cuts always I don't know the what we've done here
feels backwards to me because we work our way through this whole budget. Uh, Miss Vargas, you provided new detail. I agree that's that's been helpful. I've kind of been critical of what we got or didn't get. A large part because
while this provides a view that we have not seen before, where we arrive at this spot right here with this chart is in effect saying that um really all the cuts that could be made everywhere else in the 38 pages that I have here,
they're cut. They've we've done what we can do. And so then we land at this, you know, this place where what we're contemplating is cutting literacy intervention teachers and a variety of other, you know, roles
that were part of ESSER and then andor making adjustments to our class size ratios um you know in effect cut teachers so that we will we'll take on more students in each class and that's the that's the only effect I mean what you're what you are effectively saying
if I understand it is by your recommendation, this is the only place left we have to go. I've said that in a school system, I just don't see how you could put more priority uh to anything other, you know, the highest priority thing is the
teacher. I I every time I put the teacher in my right hand, I put other stuff in my left hand and I just kind of do a little mental balance in my head. All all good things, right? And with no disrespect to anybody, but since we're a school, you the teacher has always sits
here on the right hand. And you know, it's kind of neat because I don't think most of you would figure you have to do a whole bunch of justification to explain why that would be the case. Um, we we all know the value of the teacher. We know that's what we're here for.
So, it's kind of cool because in terms of metrics or other things, um, we probably wouldn't have to spend very much time evaluating the effect of the teacher. It's really most other things where we would, um, and it and again, it's not to say they're not valuable,
but um, but you have to weigh it. So h how I would have appro how I want to approach it would have but want to is we we staff our teachers in all those roles at the at the staffing levels we
currently have um including those literacy intervention teachers by the way um first so if I you know me I don't like to do math in public but if I added it up based on the unassigned PE uh PK12 program overview you gave gave
salaries and wages and benefits for um uh across teachers basically is something like $265 million. So you put the 265 you you just take a huge cut right there. We've spent that's there and we know we have every teacher every that and I'm talking about the teachers
specifically here who have daily um hands-on interaction with kids. So the easiest ones I would call them like first grade teacher etc. When you start it starts getting a little more complicated when you put special art class and some of those others in there,
but we have others people who fall under the the teacher definition, but they do other stuff. So, I'm I'm not necessarily putting my arms around them at this point because I'm trying to maintain with with all clarity the same class size ratios we have.
So, I start there and then I build I I build off of it. And the concept that I threw out of zerobased budgeting, which for reasons I don't understand were re rejected out of hand, was that that wouldn't work. But the concept basically is when you start adding stuff back in,
you take a little time to say what is it? Um what's its value? How do we what metric could we use to measure it? What what measurement would prove successful? and we say, "I want to add this position into the mix and here's why." And I
don't know if I'm suggesting that you had to talk about every single one of them. But to me, you spend your time talking about them because they're not teachers. Frankly, we already know the value of the teacher and the value of the class size. And we've done
referendums in the past. We've told the public the reason we did the operating levy was to keep class sizes a certain way. You can't just throw all that out. You can't just throw out many years of saying that was the most important thing in favor of something else. So my issue
is that we still we we just arrive here trusting the experts that you've made good choices. And I I like it. I want to do that. But I also think it's prudent to just spend some time talking about what are those things and why did you make the choice you made? Um, and if
you're holding it like I'm doing, you have a teacher here you're going to have to cut in order to sustain this. Just just tell us why we're going to do it. Um, my guess is we we may agree on on many of them, but could I just I I love what you're saying. I do. Um, I was in the classroom
for 20 years. Yeah. And and maybe Linda could agree with what I'm going to say here. Let's So when I taught elementary, I had say say I had 28 kids in a classroom in a fifth grade classroom. And if you if you said
to me, Tanya, we're going to take away your literacy coach and then we're going to and I'd say, no, please don't take my literacy coach. But then if they said, you can keep your literacy coach if you add one more kid to your classroom. Yeah. I would do that. I would have added four
more to my classroom to have another set of hands in the classroom with me. Yeah, I think many would I think director Audet that's no teacher is going to say please you know throw off that ratio and add more kids into my
class but they will say that if you're going to take away their literacy interventionist we're so we're not right like I'm not I'm not going to but but now but those aren't the ones I want to I you're putting the wrong thing in the other hand. Yeah, I I now let's talk
about understood what you were saying there. Yeah. No, you didn't. You you got it. Um but the false choice was you have to cut your literacy intervention teacher. That's not what I'm saying. Okay. I'm saying there's something else. There's another pos there's another position someplace in the district.
That isn't either of those two because they both meet the definition of a classroom teacher. Right. And to your point of that rebuilding that starting at zero, that's what we want to do now with these interventionists. Okay. If we have to get rid of all these people, what do we have left? And how
are we going to rebuild that with that teacher voice, with that principal? Yeah, I I I got it. I'm saying that that isn't the way I we're good, but that's not how I wanted to do it. My my firm stance is we shouldn't cut any of the teachers.
Not until we've gone through the other things and I positively identified that. Yeah, we can't live without that. We can't live without that. So So I I'll I'll just give you examples that I of how I might do this. They're not examples of anything I'm proposing, but
I I just pulled a a a directory. I I just went online and pulled a directory of a of a high school. And there, you know, if you if you just read through the the jobs we have, the just the names of the jobs, um, you get,
you know, you get assistant principal, principal, um, school monitor, school office supervisor, um, then you keep going, I get to, um, student achievement advisor, teacher, ABS,
teacher, academic support, teacher, special assignment achievement coach, teacher, special assign assignment curriculum integrator teacher special assignment tech coordinator. So the these are these are when I see those I don't even I with respect to those folks I just I don't know what they do because
it's not intuitive right the other ones are like teacher English right I know what they do teacher French I know what they do right so this is what I'm saying so you you have to put a special ring around those who are in the classroom
um and and then we look at other areas and we evaluate them we don't look at elementary literacy intervention teachers as as part of that chunk because I'd put them all already off to the side. So,
I feel that's really critical. I think it's the right way to do it. It puts the focus on the academics which we clearly need in the case of the literacy intervention teachers. Sounds like we have mostly support. I think general I don't mean most. I think generally I think I heard folks don't want to make
those cuts. I don't want to keep those though and cut more classroom teachers. I want to keep those and cut something else. And my problem with the way this was brought forward and it was different than I I personally requested was we just don't get the opportunity to do that. You have to accept that all of
this was right in and in in order to land here. And I wanted to see your work. I wanted to hear it out loud. I wanted everybody to be able to see your work and hear it out loud so that when we had to make those difficult decisions, now we're doing it knowing
all of the facts. And for some reason that couldn't be part of this process and that troubles me. But as to what's on the page, yeah, I I would look at it just as one hypothetical example of how I could get
to the 8 million, keep the elementary literacy intervention teachers, make cuts to the rest of the ESSER positions, go over to the right hand side, do this restructuring of K12 coaching,
make the six FTE reduction of K12 12 admins and interns, whatever that was, million dollars. So I go on the left on the Esser, that's 4.25. You add the 2 million, you add the 1 million, you're at
what? 7.25. And then I would go and say, I just need to find another $2.5 million out of all the other places. And if you took 10% off the top of that, you'd be there. I don't I'm not suggesting that's the
way to do it. I don't even feel qualified to do it. I'm just saying there are other ways to do it when you start with the idea that we're not cutting the teachers and they're not being considered here and I think that they should. Uh, Director Langenfeld,
as we move forward, I think one of the most important things um is to make sure that we have a clear and structured process. And what I'm hearing um because we've never really as a board talked about uh what the process would look
like, it sounds like you have what you believe is a pretty solid process in place already. So what I'm hearing and maybe I'm hearing it inaccurately but this board has prioritized some very core things aligned to the strategic
priority. That's very clear to me and that that for me is an important part of budgeting strategically around the mission and vision. So um I would certainly be in support. So looking at the core functions which factors right
into your classroom teacher that is the core function of a school the teacher in front of the kids. Absolutely true. Then looking at um within this framework as the the experts who are in the in the field and I think it it goes to the the
point around restructuring and coaching looking at what will continue to support those core functions while also promoting greater efficiencies and maybe not everything is up there to look at that and I think that's the piece I look
at is what are those greater efficiencies I I'm truly not in a place where I think we as a board um can say cut this, cut that, but rather I would rather have and maybe it goes back to Director Simons. I
I'd like you to come back with with your recommendations really focused in on those core priorities um that we've already laid out and then the core functions. And I think what what I'm hearing and maybe
I've heard that wrong is that what I may see as a core function maybe my colleague here would not. So I think that's an important part of the granularity of making sure everybody understands because there are positions there that I don't know that I've ever
had in any of my leadership roles either. So I there's a lot of names and things that maybe we we need to look at. But so I don't want to do things indiscriminately and say because I don't know what they all are either. But I would go back and say okay prioritizing
your core functions as a school. Um and then looking more specifically at at how are we going to deliver that? So um you know what would promote that efficiency? We need to have we need certain positions intervention people. We need
people to make sure the teachers know and have what they need for resource to deliver this new curriculum and then what does that look like? It's different than zerobased budgeting I would I would say but it's more strategic. It's really looking at the priorities to deliver and
that's why I keep going back to the principles having some autonomy because quite frankly they're on the they're at the top of the line there in that school to deliver and we need to be u conscious of that as well. So that's where I go back and say and are there greater
efficiencies that we haven't looked at that we that aren't on that list up there. I think that um you know we did and in in all fairness we did talk about the esser positions being sunsetted. So I don't want that lost in the
conversation. And so then the question is we have new information. We heard from a great panel. We just purchased millions of taxpayer dollars to ensure our children have the best literacy curriculum in front of them. And now we
need to make sure we have the best programming with the with less than $9 million is basically what we're talking about, right? 8 point how much? Yeah. Yeah. So that's where I'm at. And that's
I I would like to have that structured process coming through very clear. I think the process is so important because that factors into trust and transparency. Director Simon, thanks. Um,
so I this board or I believe this board, but um, past boards also have always prioritized class size. So I think that when you talk about 15.5 million compared to $8.6 million, it becomes a different
conversation, right? So, um I I think that um director Audett's um I just want to reiterate that I agree we should pri prioritize class size. I think we have an opportunity now because it's not 15 and a half and it's 8.6. And
just by using this chart and coming up with $7 million, I mean, uh, again, I want to talk about, you know, what are we going to do for student, uh, dysregulation and disruption at our high schools, but, um,
I mean, that gets us, if we did get to that level, and I still want to see the, um, administrative recommendation, but our fund balance would probably be 9 and a half%. So, I'm not saying that's what we should do, but it gets us it gets us near where we would need to be to
maintain that 10% too. So, as I talk about wanting to see the administrative recommendation and giving themes about hopefully what the board wants to see, I do think we can add um well our strategic priorities reading which we
talked about those positions. We talked about um safe environment so that student disruption and dysregulation and I would add I would reiterate what uh director said and say another one is prior um prioritizing class size. So I
agree. So well just just to add on one thing quickly to what Director Simon said. You know I think that given the new information that we have right in this financial reality that we're in with the 8ish million cut target. This is
precisely the reason why we decided two cycles ago to do this in a phased approach. Right? It's like, okay, phase one, bite off some of it. Phase two, the next thing that was to buy us time, to give us more information, to give us time for process, additional transparency and discussion with our
community. I think we've prioritize those meetings along the way. That's going to be a really important step in this. And um to director Simon's point, you know, maybe there's maybe there's another phase, right, where our target came down, we have more information. We
can get really close there, it sounds like, with a lot of agreement on on the board. Um and then we can see where we're at. We can see where the fund balance leaves us. just just throwing out there another option to us to continue this iterative process so that we can be smarter, we can have more
information, we can have the enrollment realities, you know, all sorts of things that that help us shape the financial picture of the district. Superintendent McIntyre. Yeah, just a couple themes I'm hearing here. So, I hope I hope when you please help me hang on to the concept that
everything here was with the concept of not impacting core classroom class size. Um, now the the hard part was the literacy piece. We thought we, you know, we we can make those aster based reductions and and create a new model
that still supports literacy. It's not wiping that out. That's number one priority. But we really talked hard about preserving the class size concept. But I hear I hear that. I hear u the literacy anything tied to that literacy piece really uh hanging on to that. I
hear some of you saying gives some of the building some autonomy around things and um um I mean even the middle school schedule change that that that preserves class size. It is a it is a teacher reduction but it was you know it's a a
way to maintain class size as well and and shift and I'm not hearing many of you talk about that. So that tells me it's just not rising to the top of the list but it was a choice. It's an item there for you to to discuss. We are meeting again this week with our site leaders. We've did that intentionally so
we could come back based on board feedback and continue to work through that structured process to, you know, try to pull the themes that you you do agree on um and get a little closer here. So when we come back in a couple weeks, we got a more refined process. I I've refrained from making it a
recommendation tonight. It's these were just considerations. um if if the board really wants us to dial that in and make more of a stronger recommendation piece and that's what we did last year and then you know you took that and you worked with it. Um and then I hear the priorities piece director Simon I think you captured what many of
the board um agrees on when it comes to to reading uh safe and welcoming environments and then that class size component. So I mean we're getting closer I think as I'm listening to teasing out the things that you're more in agreement around.
Okay. Coach Jericho, thank you. So, I am very encouraged by the conversations I've heard tonight and yeah, I think it's encouraging to hear we agree on some core things. I guess my only request is as you kind of work through, you know, taking the feedback and building out a recommendation,
please just ensure you know, you know, cuz the board is split after all. Um, so to ensure the whole public is kind of represented, make sure that the recommendation that comes forward has a majority support of the board because that guarantees at least one, preferably all, but at least one board member from
each side of the split will be in favor of whatever the recommendation is. Director Hman. Yeah, I'm encouraged also that um that we're going to find a way to ensure that our kids are getting the opportunities
they need to daily in the classroom. Um and one thing that I'm hearing is about efficiency and new model and I think it ties with that um restructuring the K12 coaching perhaps as we look and I think some of the mystery and the um confusion
that's come in is just there are so many titles. Um perhaps that this would be a great time to bring that down and say let's we can have some of that flexibility for you know the building leaders but also some
clarity for everyone yeah we started working on that director I I just like to provide one other just thought uh it's insight it's insight based on my own nearly early 30-year career, which is that every I
work in business, but it cycles. Um, sometimes business is great, sometimes it's not. And so, um, as a person who's been a manager pretty much my whole career, there's been, I don't know how many times, but a handful where we've had to cut. Um, nobody likes it. Um,
I've seen a whole lot of different ways of top down level telling us we're going to cut. and on the first day it's in fact I lost my job that way one time by the way. So I've I've I've been downsized. Um and it really was miserable. Um but you know you take this
whole sum of things through throughout the course of life and career and what I know is that every time I've been asked to cut at first we think we can't do it. There's no way. We've we've built these positions. We need them. Sweet and
we in business will typically put a ring around something. Um sometimes it's been customer customer service whatever. Frequently it's been quality of the product like there's no way we're going to do that or safety. There's certain things. So we we say I don't care what
we're not going to do that but these other things we'll figure it out. And all I will tell you is that as hard as it is on the first day, if you do that, once you once you once you go back and go through it, we've always found a way and frequently we found an even better
way. Um because because it forces us to just take a look at what we were doing, whereas before we didn't have to, you know, if you're in a business that's growing like like gang busters, you it's kind of nice. You don't ever have to do that. And I'm not we're not a business, but we we don't we don't have to do this
all that often. And so there is just is something like pruning a tree and then it just kind of grows back stronger. And um I just think it's wise. It's only because I've I've had that experience and and it does matter in in this case.
So thanks board. Any further questions or comments for the presenting team? All right. Thank you so much for your time and for all of the hard work that went into these prep discussions and to the materials. Really appreciate that. That was great feedback. Thank you.
All right, board. We're nearing our last agenda item, board correspondence and communication. Uh members, this is your opportunity to share happenings in your community, report on committee assignments, or any other items of interest. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to share?
Director Langenfeld. I just want to thank all of our schools. I had the privilege to be in seven schools in the last week or so and uh just compliment all of them and I heard repeatedly this was one of the best starts they've ever had. Um certainly
after coming back after the pandemic. So I think that's a very positive and that factors in transportation. It factors in busing change of schedule at the high school. um just some of the kids just were a little more tired than they thought they'd be. So, a big note of
gratitude to everyone involved from the parents at home who got their kids ready and out the door and through the rain and the buses and all of that. So, and thank you to the principal, administration, and particularly all the staff that came out to greet these students and welcome them to the new
school year. Thank you, board. Any other updates? Uh, Director Arco. Yeah, just a shout out to Jefferson Elementary. My daughter started her first day of kindergarten and she loves it. So,
much appreciated. I have to add my granddaughter at Jackson. I asked her how how did it go the first three days out of a scale of 1 to 10? 15. Well, that leads right into my update. I think those those web leaders that I I
mentioned before really made a special experience for those sixth graders coming in for their first day. And I know our freshman start day also got a lot of really positive uh praise and energy for those students getting to figure out what activities are available, how the schedule might work, all of the opportunities that are
available to them at the high school. So, I echo those ex those comments and I've heard a lot of positive positive things as well. All right, uh board, any other updates in that section? All right. Our next item is an executive sess session to
discuss security measures at district high school football facilities. This portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant to 13D.05 subdivision 3D to discuss current and future efforts to ensure student and fan safety during football games hosted at each of our five comprehensive high
schools. This closed session will be held in room 311. So I would therefore entertain a motion to move into closed session for the aforementioned reason. Thank you, Director Simon. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Coacher Arco. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
I. I. Any oppose say no. With six in favor and zero opposed, we will move to executive session in room 311. I propose a 5m minute break and then we will meet there. Thank you.
[Music]