work session the time is 5:46 p.m. for the purpose of discussion of casby resolutions session 5:46 p.m for the purpose of discussion
of casby resolutions session okay Jamie Lynn what kind of direction would you like from the board on the resolutions we're carrying forward all right here we go so let's start with resolution number one because we were
all neutral on that one um and I want to make sure we understand why we're neutral because when I need to make a vote I need to know what I'm going to go ahead and go forth with okay um casby supports adopting the accreditation and
accountability task force recommendations on opportunity advancement and equity in K12 Public Schools um I would like to know why we're neutral on that one so I would say not enough information about what those specific
task force recommendations were so they literally have that but I don't have a lot of information on that number one number two I would want before before I would say oh yes this is a great idea I want to know the financial implication of implementing anything that then
becomes an unfunded mandate and then before saying absolutely not this is horrible I want to know um does it address some of the problems we you know does it positively address some of the problems we see in the current um school
performance frame workk system um that is largely one data point based and you know the way in which that has really isn't giving us anything um for understanding what the long-term plan is me ultimately the task
force has been a bunch of professionals so um who do understand education so I'm hopeful that it it moves it in the right direction but I don't know that that's fully true because it also obviously will have a lot of politics based on
whether they're from rural districts or urban districts and kind of the way in which they've been impacted with it and so um that's where why I'm far more I'm more neutral on it and ultimately um it's also not a fight
worth completely having so if I was going to expend political Capital um this isn't an issue I would necessarily do it on because it's a way too complex issue to to end up making enemies over I guess would be the other
piece my other my perspective but that's just I wonder if uh Peter has any more information on the task force recommendations I know you just showed up yeah just I'm just rolling in um can we pause that while I pull up the language because I don't have it on
screen yet and then I I I do have some thoughts um I will tell you that generally taskforce reg uh recommendations don't have a very good track record of getting implemented even into regulation or final proposals um
but let me pull it up I just have to get to the calendar invite yeah my concerns were the unintended consequences um and then uh we don't know exactly the outcome of this
particular issue it's not very clear what their outcome is well it's for equity isn't it um it was accreditation and it did mention Equity but like I said they don't it doesn't
always mean the same thing depending on how it's being applied like you know it has one meaning for special education it can have another reason for culture wars so it's a word that depending on how it's
being used doesn't necessarily context yeah yeah okay I could give I could give the board reasons to support this I could give the board reasons to oppose this because um it it is reasonable to observe that
there are significant differences between different population groups so if if you wanted to kind of affirm that analysis support it on the other hand it's not I I wouldn't say it's unreasonable but there's not good evidence to support that the things they
would suggest doing differently solve that at all because I'm not sure that schools can solve the social dynamics that are underlying um if you correct for some of the factors um in the population then students from
these different ethnic groups perform almost identically okay Marie you understand this better than I do but is what I said generally accurate just now um that's my perception yes and but
like I said I the reality is I'm not familiar with everything the task force has done right so I hear the word Equitable in that whole phraseology I'm like okay are they talking about the problems with comparing the way in which the framework applies to a rural
district and versus you know Aspen and looking it high College rate attendance and emphasizing college is the only successful pathway versus a community where College isn't the most the the predominant successful Pathway to adult
life because the current system heavily favors College um College enrollment and college preparation over the wide variety of careers that are available for example but I don't know enough work of the work with the task
force um to know what their full recommendations are and I honestly think it's not worth expending the reason I say neutral is I don't think it's worth expending the political Capital um for a something that's probably not going to be implemented B we like to throw the word Equitable around because it
triggers all kinds of people in different ways um but I do agree that I think I think my my impression of most data along those lines is when you correct for some of those other social dynamics you don't really see a difference in performance but we don't have a way of doing that either and I
would share with the board a really complex formula that I agree with everything Mar said I would also share with the board that um even within our region the Pikes Peak region the school superintendents don't have consensus on this um which is a little unusual usually we we sort of
jump together in One Direction but um the fact that the ends in some of the cases like rural schools are so small several of our rural superintendents point point out that the the differences from year to year might reflect one family moving out or one family moving
in and so I'm just I'm just cautious about creating big Solutions yeah for problems that have somewhat unknown it's not perfectly unknown completely unknown but it's somewhat unknown
causation well I noticed think on the school performance framework that there were um points given depending on the number of uh Title One students so it seems like even with that they're trying to balance out
for things that can vary from Community to community as Marie pointed out there's a vast difference between what success looks like in Calhan versus Aspen right all right so I'm I think so
on that yep Jamie when I would think too so if we're if we're thinking about if that if voting against so voting for The Resolution basically tells casby to advocate for the task force things voting against it I don't believe tells
them to Advocate against it I think it's more they take no position and I would be in favor of casby taking no position which means if push comes to shove you vote no from my perspective as one board member um because you're not you're not
you're not arguing against against it with the no vote either you're just not fully endorsing their their outcome okay cool I think they got a lot of explaining to do before we do that personally I don't know where everyone else is yeah I think I'm clear on that piece I know time is valuable so
um yeah I think we're good on that one um any other comments before we move on to this next one Noe okay um with the next resolution um I know why I'm against against it um I just didn't know if we
were all on the same page for why um in case I wanted to State the reason why we are against it at the con conference and that one is casbia supports the modification of the official graduation rate calculation to include students who
successfully complete their GED before the expiration of their four-year High School term I can tell you that I'm opposed to it because to me it dimin is a high school diploma not to say that you know a GED is not an
achievement I think it also leaves loopholes um even though part of their rationale said it would be for outof State students that's not what it says in the actual resolution so I think that leaves a loophole for students who are in our state in order for them to kind
of get out of um getting their four-year diploma Peter I'd love to hear your thoughts on out of state um in our own District of how many students are struggling to get geds because they
transferred out of state or um diplomas because they transfer out of state Peter you're muted thanks um I oppose this I think it lowers the bar for graduation um but the bigger reason I oppose it is look at our graduation rates we have fairly
significant numbers of students that transfer probably well higher than average because of how um how many military connected students we have and yet our conventional schools all are well well into the 90s on graduation rates and um if I were going to support
this I would I would want geds to be a post four-year graduation metric so that a student who missed it would have a chance to recover because this is this is kind of the bottom line idea let's say that we have a student that doesn't make graduation
they don't get a chance to walk they still have several Pathways they can complete that credit by July they can they can complete it by December and still be considered a a graduate in July and a completer by December they can compl complete it a year later through the ascent
program this resolution doesn't increase opportunities for students what it does is it lowers the bar for District accountability and I don't want to lower the bar because it's still better for
students if we can get them I I would say that in general a course of credits leading to Mastery is a better preparation for life than a GED a GED is still a valid preparation but it's not as good and so
I don't want to give districts an incentive to serve students right less and to serve them more to serve them poorly or or comparatively poorly I still think there's a lot of value in GED I just don't think there's as much
value as in a traditional diploma right it's still a Thing If you apply for a job it's still a thing that if you apply for a job they will ask for a copy of your high school diploma and so that still has cach a uh today and it would
be an advantage over a similarly qualified applicant who has a GED well and I I was neutral on it but I guess my my thought process was slightly different in that um what about the kids who have met the credit numbers but um
could the GED test be another Pathway to Mastery demonstration um watch your speed um for those who don't who have their credits but didn't get a high enough score on the SAT for example I know we have
multiple Pathways but so my thought process was along those lines instead but that would be more like Peter situation where okay we're approaching May and you haven't been able to complete any of these other things if they can pass the GED test it would give them a way to demonstrate Mastery
possibly but um I agree that it shouldn't be um something that then I agree with the problem with disincentive disincentivizing districts so I'm okay with it being against okay that's good to know anyone
else NOP okay we already discussed the third one which is increase required instructional hours I don't think I think I'm very clear on where we stand on that did anyone have anything extra that we did not discuss at our last board meeting Lori I know you weren't
there yeah and and originally I was in support until I heard some of their rationale and the and the positions against it so I changed mine to neutral okay all right the next one um
for that one I think we all support and I have no other thing to talk about anyone want to talk that's the one that's uh urging the general assembly to modify current law on the facilities of
uh that would service Colorado sex offenders nothing cool all right we're gonna move on to number five which is the mill Equity override or M Levy override equity and I kind of want your thoughts on
um uh why we're supporting it because we get messed over by the problems right so we are one of the districts that's punished because are we have far more residential property than we do commercial and because um per
pupil so if you take residential versus commercial per um property values and divide it for every school district as a per pupil amount that gives you the amount of money per pupil per Mill a district can actually raise when they
pass an AM we have to pass far more Mills because of our large residential population than for example District 11 has to they get way more money per pupil for MLL and so then we get chastised because we can't
get our voters to hike up our Mills and it's because you know in Denver County or in Colorado Springs when the taxpayers vote for a mill far less has to be paid per homeowner per student
than for the same amount actual dollar amount to raise for us so it puts it us at a fiscal disadvantage and that fiscal disadvantage also impacts our ability to participate in matching programs for example so if there's a hey you know so
of like for a best Grant I think I think it might be best but I'm not sure if it's that one or another where they will match some of your funds for um building expansions and things when you have um rapid uh facility needs we can't raise the funds for that as easily as a
district that has more commercial base and so that's yeah and our district that's something we thought Brett Ridgeway fought very hard to start to get the legislature to start
to understand and because it it will get even worse for District 49 given the amount of residential explosion we have because the level of residential explosion we are having will only have commercial retail it's not going to have
man manufacturing or or industrial much and so our tax base will we are we are tax base poor per student compared to those urban districts that have those things and what that argument is about and to add not only are uh is is that
new population coming online not bringing us a lot in property prop wealth it's also bringing us a lot as far as student demand uh so we're we're caught in a vice there but and these aren't official numbers but just to give an idea for illustration we might uh
have to raise seven Mills uh on our taxes to get the same effect that uh our neighboring districts uh of roughly equivalent size 11 and 20 might get with only three Mills and so a homeowner and a voter might look at that and say yeah
I can three Mills but seven is is a bridge too far and so it really makes things difficult for us and yeah anything we can do to equalize a playing field so y'all let me let me um provide a little analysis on this please because
what you're arguing for is what we've already R won so respectfully Marie and Mike we already got the mid Levy Equalization and we are um either the first or the second it it benefits us more than
almost any other District in the state and 80% of that fund is going into El Paso County so this has been really good for d49 these Ridgeway dollars Brett Bucks have been really good for us they have
not been great for Adams 12 they have not been great for Denver area schools so this resolution actually harms d49 oh because it re calibrates the mil Levy to take into account look in the middle of the resolution including
variations in assessed valuation per pupil and the local inequities of neighboring districts in the formula so this is taking a look at something like the comparison between say Sheridan Littleton um and and introducing that
variability as another factor I I'm certain that the M Levy Equalization fund is going to be under incredible pressure I predict it's not going to survive at all um because once they figured out that is I mean we have
a we have a fairly bright blue State political system and El Paso county is a pretty red County and so generally speaking people on the blue side of the spectrum don't want to spend extra money on red counties and communities and what this resolution does is it is it
moderates and it it it's a peanut butter effect it spreads the money out um rather than letting it concentrate and right now we've been a primary beneficiary of the concentration so while this might be
better for surface fairness across the state it's going to it's going to take a little bit of this found money or or maybe quite a bit of this found money out of D 49's budget so you say so that when you're recommending that we
consider not supporting resolution number five and I did not understand that when I first that is what I'm recommending and I didn't understand that until I went to the the daylong school um Colorado school Finance project seminar well it's a good thing
we're having this meeting right now yes it is thank you I wi like that you know thousand cost to go to that conference could save us a million dollars just with a little bit of additional understanding
okay so I think this would be one that um it sounds like we would want to fight for Peter against no I mean to fight against yeah so but I to be able to to talk to other boards and see where they're at on these things and um see if
I can sway yes yeah because the wording looks really good like funding inequities faced by low property wealth districts it sounds really good but if you could make the argument that we are a district that the equalization act
helped because we don't have a strong base of manufacturing or commercial so this would actually impact us in a negative manner this would harm us and and look at the very last sentence they don't like that it isolates the impacts
to a very few regions of the state they don't like that Harrison and 49 are getting the the bulk of this and Jamie L if you're looking for a persuasive argument we finally got some Equalization across the state and now
they want to take that money back to Denver okay yeah and if if we're getting the Lion Share of the benefit you got to look to it where else is growing like we are right and where else has such a huge
portion of uh residential commercial in its in its property profile Port profile I mean yeah yeah I don't want to take money from d49 and send it to Denver right so are we can I have everyone
voice on the mic if we're against so that I can change that on here okay against yes against against against yeah I know if you perfect um Peter if you have words
that you want to send me I will happily take them with me to the conference okay don't let Denver take back our money all right more perfect perfect Okay resolution six we had one
neutral and five of us four um this this is casby supports updating the Colorado Public School contracts act uh to include a provision requiring thirdparty vendors that contract with schools to
indemnify schools and districts for failing to comply with Colorado accessibility standards um although I might disagree with the accessibility standards because I think it does have some undue burden
on puts undue burden on businesses um if this is what the standards say and we're complying by that um then I think vendors should comply with it so that we are not getting sued for them not
following the standards I'm wondering how that affects to older schools but I don't know that this necessarily would because this is for any updates I would think that they do I I can I can illustrate I think what's
most the most common instance where this would be relevant would be um software platforms so um we are under quite a bit of scrutiny as a as a public entity to make sure that our website is accessible and to make sure that tools that we use
there are are accessible but let's imagine that um Power School failed to create uh accessible versions of their database so that individuals who are visually impaired could screen read it
or so that um you know they used low contrast versus high contrast Etc what this what this resolution is saying and what the the what the revision to CRS is saying is an individual could sue power school
but they couldn't sue us because of power school's uh failure to comply or if they did Sue us because of what power of school failed to do then then power school would have to cover it that's
what indemnify means in this context now that would also be true let's say that we rented a van and a person with with Mobility challenges couldn't access that van
um that one we we still might have some vulnerability but the vendor who is renting a non-accessible van to a school district would have to indemnify us from legal action did I further confuse the issue
or did those make sense no it it that's yeah that makes a lot of sense actually the the issue I have is with the actual accessibility standards because that's going to increase the price and
the cost of everything that vendors do for us so it's it's going to increase our costs I think the thing the issue is we already have that liability the question is who carries the cost of the liability the district or the
vendor the district isn't going to be responsible so right and ultimately fiduciary wise it's um the vendor should have to make sure if they're selling a product to people who have to meet those standards that they're meeting that
standard um or they can if we get nailed they can they can take the hit instead of us right right I think that's basically it I know this will shock you especially Mike but sometimes software vendors claim to have provided features that they don't actually
deliver I know I hate to be the truth teller but um that's also part of what this is about it really is mostly about software platforms okay so I was actually against
this one and the reason was just because it seems like that's not necessarily the vendor's responsibility to be complying with it it's more the districts in the States you know who are Contracting with the vendors our responsibility to ensure
that those requirements are in the contract and that they are in the plat forms that we purchase so I I I don't know how we could say you know have a district out there that's not doing its due diligence
uh purchase a a platform and then uh when there's a complaint they just say well you know this is this this is the vendor problem and the vendor is like you know how is this my problem so um
anyway I feel like the feel like the responsible party really is District instead of our vendors Mike I think the difference is that the law requires language in these contracts that that promise or affirm
the accessibility standards so the contract has it in there yeah so so if they violate that contract with us then we would already hold them in uh you know responsible so I don't know
that we need this in codified in statute um doesn't it then keeps it basically makes it so that we've got it in our contract yep but if they violate that contract the person using it can still sue us and the vendor and this says
uhuhuh you are now you also are indemnifying us you so you have to be Ironclad sure you're really giving us what's on this contract because if we get sued it's all on you and because it's then in statute it protects us from that lawsuit component that's my understanding is I'm coming around to
two of you on it then so what you're basically saying is we've got this language in the contract the the and then the vendor fails to to meet their contractual obligation we have essentially extracted ourselves from the problem because hey
we we put it in there it it it's not quite that neat I wish it were we can still be sued we can still lose the lawsuit and be fined but the last sentence of the rationale and frankly the the State Attorney General is gonna have to write
a lot of accompanying regulation around this um but the last line is if we incur penalties then the vendor has to pay them so it's it's really a transfer of fault but it's but it's lagging it's
post the judicial determination that we're at fault the function of this law y'all is going to be preemptive it's going to make it much less likely that a that a third-party vendor is going to lie to us
about accessibility all right I've come around I'm I'm for it yes all right anything else just just a couple of quick quick things um there um and Peter if you could also
speak to the December 12th conflict with wrestling but before we do that I don't know if that's something you want to just discuss right now or not hold on Lori because I think I know what you're about to say and yeah I think you're ing an email we just got and I'm just going
to ask that we not discuss it on on a recorded okay all right just check your email but but what I'm about to say will become knowledge I'll send it in an email in just a moment but um we actually have lost two students today so
in two separate incidences and so I don't want to I don't want to speak about that in any detail on a recorded call but I will send an email to you immediately with those details the um the conflict that Lor is referring to is we've we've pounded the table pretty
hard and asked our schools not to schedule things on the night of BOE um but we have a we have a conflict that is that is so difficult that we either allow a Boe night uh event or we don't
have the event and the event is our annual try meet for wrestling which has been a really cool tradition and because of where the league has scheduled there's like there's not 20 days that you can have this meet on there's three uh two of them are already taken the
only one that remains is our December 12th Board of Education meeting I'm inclined to allow this conflict um but I didn't want to do that without asking Lori and and then she's asking me to ask you all so it's not on our agenda for
this meeting if you have an objection to allowing our our major high schools to hold a a triple meet or a three-way meet the night of the December board meeting uh please email me privately if I don't hear from you within about 24 hours I'll just proceed um and let them know that
it's okay to schedule it hey Laura before we go um I remember last time we voted on the delegate and the alternate for the casby conference is that are we not doing that for this round um I don't well we can't take any
votes tonight but you're are are you saying the last time we voted for delegate is that up for vote again yeah delegate and the alternate the alternate yeah I can do you know we we did but um I
believe it was a consensus so I just took it as that I don't remember if it was consensus or a vote yeah um you guys voted oh go ahead Marie well we've didn't we made the
determination in January is there something casby requires um closer to the event right we agreed to we agreed to our assignments for this year in January at the planning
session I believe correct yes and then who was the alter the only reason to double check would be then it was you you Lori okay you were supposed to go but um Deb is going to go with Jamin so she can kind of I be
mentored I guess and um if anybody else wants to go who's a new board member they are welcome to go um just let me know um but we can do the vote if you want if you feel comfortable doing that
jam Lin uh since we already I think assigned in January I don't think that's required yeah um so since that was already done I I already had registered you as uh the delegate voting person
through casby so it's already been done on that end okay sounds good and and that's something too if we wanted to discuss it at all um that um you know if there needs to be
a change because to work in some newer members that would be good too and I'm really glad that Deb is going because I know that uh she had attended the one at the Broadmore to watch how the voting went and so Mike I don't know if you've ever attended any of those sessions but
it's worthwhile to listen to and to see I have not but I feel like I've bitten off enough for now okay all right cool all right anything else if not we could go ahead and wrap this up and Maria I hope you have a
wonderful night and a happy belated birthday yes happy birthday oh it's my daughter's it was this was a gift this was a gift for my daughter not me happy bir to your daughter and then Peter all right thank you final word I just sent you that
notific I just sent you all that notification on on email um I have served 12 years plus another 10 at TCA and in those 12 years I think I count 24 boards 23 or 24 boards and you all are
taking this role more seriously than any board I've ever met with I've never had this meeting or the the level of process and so I really appreciate that I just wanted you to know that I see that I see you taking this so seriously um finding
good reasons to you know take positions and weigh in and inform each other and and so um I just I have a lot of respect for that so thank you oh Peter you want I real quick before we leave H you want to talk about some recent vow reports with the
board oh yeah I will tell you um we have an annual strategic objective to First sustain and then and then uh or first first uh restore and then sustain trust in the board and so in two years trust in the board has gone from 48% to 69%
that's a tremendous uh achievement well done um I 100% attribute that to um your level of professionalism and civility you disagree but without being disagreeable and you've stayed so focused on academics that our our
Workforce sees that um there's a lot of other stuff as we as we really start to dig into the compensation and teacher repositioning um despite the fact that you guys will'll hear quite a bit of noise about all things compensation our score in that one has improved a full
point in two years and improved again this year so despite all the noise you're hearing our rating on compensation keeps getting better it's gotten every it's gotten better every year for the last five years so uh there's a lot of other detail coming
your way I don't want to spoil all of it but across the board um every Zone every every department but one on all the major measures um our Workforce our our rating with our Workforce improved
year-over-year so it keeps getting better but the board Improvement was the biggest one- year move fantastic it's a big deal deal thank you all I'm gonna jump off okay I think
we're done bye bye bye