Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Heat. [Music]
Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Applause]
[Music] Hey, hey, [Applause] hey.
[Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music]
Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]
[Music] Yeah. [Music] Oh yeah. [Music]
Back down. [Music] [Applause] [Music]
[Applause] [Music] Heat. [Applause]
[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Heat. Heat. N.
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Applause] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] Good evening. I'm calling this meeting to order. The time is 5:32 p.m. In
accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551, this meeting is officially open with the quorum present. At this time, we'll hear public comment addressing items on the agenda. Let me remind you that because of restrictions by the Texas Open Meetings Act, board members may not engage in a verbal exchange about a
subject that has not been posted, we will listen and take notes, but the board is prohibited from responding to any inquiries made during a board meeting on any topic not posted on the agenda. However, the board may reply with one, a statement of specific factual information given in response to the inquiry, or two, recitation of
existing policy in response to the inquiry, or three, direct the person to visit with staff about the issue. and no presentation may exceed three minutes unless a speaker has prior approval for additional time because of the use of a translator. Speakers who require the assistance of a translator are permitted double the allotted time of speakers who
do not require the assistance of a translator. Speakers, when your name is called, approach the podium by going to the back of the room down the stairs and coming up the sidewall on your right. As soon as the speaker begins speaking, the time clock will begin. We have only two
speakers slotted today and the first one is Scott Blanco Davis followed by Daniel Bennett. Are either here today? >> Yes. Go ahead. Um,
come on up, Mr. Bennett. I don't see And sorry, right before we um begin with our public comment, do want to acknowledge that trustee Dr. Ryan is joining us via Zoom this evening and so he's on virtual. Please go ahead, Mr. Bennett. >> You want to read anything about what I
can or cannot say or Okay, I'll just go ahead. >> Okay. Uh, my name is Daniel Bennett. Uh, President Martinez, board members. I probably met each and every one of you except for maybe a handful. Um, I went online to look for your packet
for Lonear Governance. I understand Houston's already being monitored or run by the state. Do they have that set of standards already within their documentation? And do you have a copy of that? I'm hoping your discussion tonight will at
least mirror what is already being instituted or implemented down in Houston, whether you agree with it or not. Uh I hope you have a healthy discussion. I'd like to talk with you about policy and procedures. I've been coming here since 2017. I
probably predate most of you uh back when Mr. Scriber uh had his contract January 1st, 2017. I was here for an entirely different reason. And I was a little confused by the policy procedures you had in place back then because your budget is so important. You
guys are in recapture now and to set your tax rate and giving a lot of um well taking away your safeguards from the boards of trustee is something I don't want to see happen. You need to be immersed in the process. You need to be
able to explain bonds, your tax rate that you set, how you derive those things, and be involved in the budget. I hope that you'll have that discussion tonight. But where does your budget come from? Well, it comes from
the taxpayer, but ultimately you set your tax rate based on the appraisal district. This body has no policy and procedure when it comes to oversight of your responsibilities when it comes to the TAT appointment process.
Never has. John Molino was your nominee in 2017. And I think it was just, hey, he used to be a police officer here. Off he goes. Well, you see, without having those policies in place of oversight, you saw what happened to the appraisal district
and where we are today struggling. So, I'm hoping when you review your policy and procedures tonight, take note that we are currently in an election. We currently are going to be putting these people who are going to be deciding things is going to materially affect your budget. That's like the
first baton in a four-way race, right? You want your starter to be great. So you must have procedures in place to qualify these people to quantify what you want done that they represent you. It's not because well somebody knows somebody and that's a good person. No in
Fort Worth we need to stop doing that. We need to call these people in and sit there right along that dis and you grill them with your questions until you're satisfied with their answers. to only pick somebody because the gentleman at the end may know somebody or gentleman
at that end may know somebody. That's not a procedure. That's not a policy. I know it's governed by the property tax code time. >> Thank you for so much for your time. Have a great meeting and uh I'm excited that Oh, there's your other speaker.
>> Thank you. Next up is Scott Blanco Davis. That's our final speaker. >> Hello, M. >> Sorry, Officer B. Oh, this is unusual. Three whole minutes. It's a pleasure to see y'all tonight. Um,
I came in Lonear Governancees. governance is all about student success. And I'd like to give an idea on how we can make our students more successful because it's something I've watched disappear since I started in 1991.
Um, first off, little history. Um, Fort Worth ISD in the last 20 years has done a really good job of teaching a couple of things. So, I'm going to go with what the teachers learn first.
when RTI response to intervention kicked in, uh, some of us got 30 to 40 folders. And during that time, what the teachers learned is you better accommodate before you fail a child because there's
just a ton of extra work after, even if it's a middle of the year benchmark that they could not have possibly passed, we got RTI folders. Taught us a good lesson. Don't fail a kid. Uh,
and even if we did all of our RTI folders, we did all the documentation, branching minds, 360, everywhere else we did our documentation. When we went on summer school, the kid went to 10 days of summer school. They had a committee and moved
them on whether we were there or not. That was frustrating because we saw students move on that we knew weren't ready and needed more help and we had set that out for them and they moved on.
Let's talk about the lessons the students learned. The students learned that there really was no consequence for failing. You could fail 180 days. You could fail the STAR test,
go to 10, 20 days of summer school, and you went on to the point that even my smart kids looked at me one year and went, "Mr. Davis, why would I put that much work into it? I don't like being at home anyway. I get to go to summer school, spend time with my friends, and then I
move on." So, even my high students started to not care as much. It it was strange because when I started it was what are the students not doing that's keeping them from being
successful and it turned into teachers what are you not doing for the students even though we were doing a lot. So I think if you really want them to be successful the accountability needs to move back to at least 5050 students and teachers there needs to be an
accountability. You don't go on unless you actually prove it. Hold some people back and get them the help they need before they move on because the lessons hurt. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And thank you. Thank you both
for sharing your thoughts this evening. Next, we'll move to item three, Lonear Governance. And I will turn it over to Dr. Mulliner. >> Thank you. I wanted to welcome back our Lonear Governor's governance coach, Ben Mackey, who's here with us this evening.
And we are going to start off or pick back up where we left during our training and last workshop with our board goals and guard rails and constraints. seem to be going off track or kind of in the weeds. I'm going to pull this back out a lot because we got a lot of things
to cover. But ultimately, it's still your meeting. So, if you make a decision, it's yours to do, but I wanted to kind of put that up front because we got a lot to talk about tonight and a lot of really good stuff. The first thing on the agenda, and I'm about to turn it back over to Dr. Molinar and her team in a second, is the goals and guard rails. But I want to frame this up and
kind of what we'll be doing in this conversation. Last time we spent a little over three and a half hours digging in to really what are the most important outcomes that we're seeking for our students. We came to a consensus on what those were at a high level. And then we also identified four guard
rails. What are those other very important things that we've got to make sure the case as we move forward? Things like uh sustainable budget tied to effective priorities, extracurricular activities, no DNF campuses, etc. With that, we turned it over to Dr.
Molenar and her team who have been tirelessly at work over the last month to try to frame those out both in terms of putting specific language to them and measurements. So I think you have in front of you the PowerPoint slide that we'll go through. You'll see them up here. Um we're going to have two things.
Number one, we're going to talk about the goals and the guardrails themselves, the language, the the targets of those overall and what we're going to know her and our team can explain the reasoning why they set the targets of what they did to make sure that they were attainable but very rigorous and meaningful as well. But ultimately, the
board has to make sure that those goals and those guardrails align with the discussion that we had last time and I'll facilitate that. They've also shared with you first thinking of some progress measures. Again, the board sets the goals and the guardrails. What does winning look like for our system? What's
non-negotiable? And then it's on top of the team of the superintendent to put together how will we know we're accomplishing those during the year, these things that are going to be monitoring. And so, while we have them here for the board to review to get a sense of, okay, if we said third grade
reading is what winning looks like in this one goal, what are the things that she and her team are going to look at over the course of the year to tell us if we're on or off track to that? The progress measures are owned by the superintendent because they're the ones that have to look at this every single day in and out and actually respond to
it. So what we won't do is dive in to say we think we should have other progress measures. The board has essentially two two decisions. Number one is to look at the progress measures in terms of are they a reasonable interpretation of our goal. That's number one. And if they are then we got
to trust the superintendent with those progress measures and hold her accountable to achieving the goal. And if they are a reasonable interpretation, but we realize that's not quite what we meant, then the way the board can influence those is to kind of be more clear with the goal or the guardrail language. So that's high level
how we're going to go about this. The way I'm going to ask us to do this is actually to split it up into goals and the progress measures. Then we'll stop and we'll have a conversation about those. And then we'll go back and do guardrails in the progress measures and a conversation about those. Before we begin and I turn it back over to Dr.
Molar to kind of overview the goals and progress measures. Are there any questions from the board or thoughts before we dive in? All right. Well, let's just get to it. Dr. Molinar, I'll ask you to kind of overview the goals, the language, why you wrote it as you and your team did,
and what progress measures you're thinking about, recognizing that the progress measures are still in progress, but we're just putting them forth to kind of make sure that it is matching what the board's vision was. Dr. Molinar. >> Sure. Thank you, Coach Mackey. We're going to start with our student outcome
goal one. Just a reminder is required by the state that are we um follow house bill three which has three goals that are required around early literacy math as well as CCMR. You'll see here for student outcome goal one and I don't
know Cindy if we can put that presentation. There we go. Make sure it's on the board for everyone to see it. There we So here is a our first goal one around early childhood literacy. Goal
one, the percent of third grade students that score meets grade level or above on STAR English language arts and reading ELR will increase from 38% to 50% by 2030. You'll see here that we meet the
requirements that are aligned by the state. And here are our annual targets that we will hit in due progress measures. And I'll show you what we're using for our GPMS. Of course, everything that all of our initiatives, our assessments, formative, summitative,
our new curriculum framework, or all of our inputs that we have placed for our goal one. We chose our targets that you'll see here to finish at 53%. We look at the state, the state goal is
at 52%. And Fort Worth ISD by 2030, we I'm sorry, 2025, the state goal is at 52%. When we're looking and we were deciding our targets, we look back at how well our state has done in third grade
reading. We looked at the percentage points and how they were able to meet their targets. And that's how we established our first round of draft targets. So you'll see here we have for 2026 at 41% and then ending by 2030 53%.
On this next slide, I think my clicker you'll find here how will we measure our outputs for our GPMS and that will be our six week assessments. Just a reminder that last
year our district or year before um the last two years we've implemented nineweek assessments that were not aligned with our grading period and not aligned as well with any type of a structure of a written curriculum. Our curriculum at this point that we have
implemented follows six week assessments as as well as six week grading periods. We also monitor our data through our campus improvement plans every six weeks for our campuses. So we find the alignment with our six weeks test at
looking at the percent of third grade students that meet grade level or above and those six week assessments will increase. Also we're looking at MAP in Fort Worth ISD. We utilize the MAP assessment for our K through three
students beginning of the year, middle of the year, and end of the year that has shown a strong correlation to meeting progress and projections on the final um outcome of STAR as a at a meet
or above grade level. And then also um this year we will be looking at benchmarks. We have looked at our our assessment calendar. Um and we'll be implementing and utilizing the state release benchmarks from TEA. When you
look at our first benchmark that will occur in the end of the first semester, we will only be looking at those standards that have already been covered and tested through our new instructional framework and our IPC's. And then of course this spring will be a different
benchmark. And then this year we have an anticipation of really looking at a English and Spanish resource for intervention. We have bought and implemented I Ready. I Ready is a diagnostic assessment that we're able to
um test our students. We finished our first round of diagnosting. It puts students at their individual le um level. And then you'll see later on where we have some GPMs and how we're monitoring that as well. It's very important that the percentage of our K
through three students pass at least 70% of their lessons because we know that when we look at the research that that means our students will increase a grade level or be projected to meet on their summitive assessment. Also, we're
utilizing I Ready for um another form of a resource because it is something our students can have access to not only during a tier three intervention, they can have access to Fort Worth after school as well as we're working to
utilize this resource in our community partnerships that work with our students out in the community. So, that is student outcome goal one with the progress measures listed at that point. Would you like me to stop for any questions or go into two?
>> Just go through each of them and then we'll have a whole bunch. >> Wonderful. Goal two is around early childhood math. Very similar. You'll see the percent of third grade students the score meets grade level or above on STAR. Math will increase 35% to 50% by
2030. You'll see our annual target set. Very similar to when we talked about literacy. We've looked back at the state as well as urban districts to see how far that they were tracking to close the gap to the state and that's our main goal to close or surpass that gap. So we
have identified early childhood math. If you go to that next slide, you'll see our GPMS. Um it's very aligned to our third grade in literacy, our six week assessments, our MAP growth, our benchmarks in addition to I Ready. I
ready gives us the availability to have it on literacy as well as in math. And just as a reminder for the literacy, it's in English and in Spanish. Student outcome goal three is another requirement by the state. This is
college career and military readiness or CCMR. Goal three is the percentage of graduates that meet the criteria for CCMR outcome bonuses will increase from 19% to 47% by 2030. We know this is a
very aggressive goal. However, we have put a lot of systems in place and a lot of inputs this year that were not in place um to be able to track to meet this goal for 2030. Um we when we're looking at outcome bonuses, this is a
different way of measuring. Um but we're very excited about this goal. What does this look like for GPMS? You'll see and we've shared this and actually on October 28th, our board will receive a very robust um superintendence report
around CC CCMR. Our first progress measure is TSIA. is the percent of 10th through 12th grade students that are scoring at or above college ready standard on TSIA2
via the assessment will increase. Also, you have IBC which are industrybased certifications. The percent of 10th through 12th grade students on track to complete a program of study and earn an associated IBC will increase. And then
of course our college applications, the percent of 12th grade students completing three or more college applications will also increase. So those are our GPMS for goal three. Now we're getting into goal four. Um
goal four is our first goal that was um one of the ones selected um by our board of trustees during our last workshop. goal for is by the end of 9th grade, the percent of students that that score meets grade level or above on a star
English one EOC will increase from 40% to 50%. Just as a reminder, um our EOCC's as well as our other grade levels around our EL ER has impact with our short um
answer responses and our open-ended responses as well. Our progress measures are very similar than what you saw as you saw with our third grade assessments, six-w week assessments, benchmarks, as well as here's the difference, our extended constructed
responses. The percent of sixth through 9th grade students that score a zero on the extended constructed responses on their relevant grade level assessment will decrease. This is very important as we dug into our data from the last
school year um as well as um the year before that of how many of our students did not even attempt the ECR as well as the lack of a writing curriculum embedded into our framework. Goal five. By the end of ninth grade,
the percent of students of that score meets grade level or above on a star algebra 1 EOC will increase from 27% to 46% by 2030. We know algebra 1 EOC
passing that is a requirement not only for graduation but is also a predictor for college readiness. Here are your progress measures for our six week assessment. The percent of 9th grade students that score meets grade level or above on a math six week assessments
will increase. The percentage of 7 through 9th grade students that score meets grade level or above on a algebra 1 benchmark will increase. And then we're looking specifically at grade 8 algebra. the percent of our sixth
through 8th grade students enrolled in algebra 1 and are on track to meet grade level or above on the algebra 1 EOC will increase. And this is very important to us that we give access to all of our
students in Fort Worth ISD to be enrolled with the possibility of algebra in our middle schools. And that's the end of our goals for this evening. We have um identified five goals, Mr. Mackey. >> Yep. And just to remind the board, I know we've all slept since last month.
Um, and I'm gonna ask one more question of you, Dr. Molinar, um, when we last left. So, the five goals that this board came to at a high level were third grade reading and third grade math. And then we also knew that reading and math were critical to look at at the upper grade levels as well. So, we went with EOCC,
English one, and algebra 1. And then there is HB3 requires CCMR. But this board had about four different types and ways to measure CCMR and recommended to the superintendent and her team to come up with the most meaningful measure which what they did was identified CCMR
outcomes bonus funding. So my two questions before we just turn it over to the board for discussion. Dr. Molina, will you first explain just make sure everyone knows what CCMR outcomes bonus funding? What is the actual measure? Like what is it measuring? >> Sure. Let me go back to that goal three. So when we talk about outcome goals
bonus um we do receive funding for the um percentage of students that are what we call CCMR ready that meet the criteria. What's important about that is we do get a funding if they meet that criteria. For us, this is not about the money. However, when you're looking at
the additional resources that you need to put into our students to make sure they are CCMR ready and they're identified and they're able to um graduate CCMR, the outcome bonuses matter when they the criteria is met. Um
how they meet that CCMR readiness. Um also this is um including our special educ education students in this measure as well. And then of course the funding will drive us to be able to put additional resources in place for our
high school students. But this keeps them on track from our 9th grade all the way into our 12th grade to make sure they are college and career ready and that when you see those GPMS that we chose and let me go back here. when we
look at not only being um college ready through the standard of an assessment but we want to increase how many of our students have an industrybased certification that is very important to us whether our students decide to go to college or not attend college a two-year
or or a four-year we want them to graduate as many as they can with a certification to make sure they're ready to go into the workforce and then of course it's very important that we expose our students to the ability to go maybe to a two-year college or straight
to a four-year college by completing those college applications of three or more. We do not want to just measure one college application A1 or done. We want more for our students to give them more options as well. The outcome bonuses
that we would receive through funding would also help us with our support staff. Those of you know, we have a lot of our T3 counselors on our um on our high school campuses. And then how are we utilizing our college and career
readiness um support staff and how can we help fund them to make sure our students are ready? >> Thank you. And just um to be very specific, what outcomes bonus funding means, it's the percentage of students who graduate having passed both English
and math in TSI, meaning they can now enroll in college courses without remediation and either enroll in college or earn an IBC. >> So, it's a higher bar than the accountability system. And I will say just separately being involved in paying
attention to what's happening in the state accountability CCMR is one that they have talked about changing a lot is likely to undergo a lot of changes but in every iteration that I have seen from the state while they might change all of which credentials and this matters and they might change all of this essentially what we've seen in every
single draft that the state has put out is that if students are meeting this they will count you for your credit in no matter what system the state moves forward. So, it is definitely a more rigorous one, but I just wanted to make sure people understood exactly how that was calculated. It's not just a bonus. It is percentage of students who test so
they can go to college without remediation and either go to college or have an IBC. The last area that I want you to kind of dive into a little bit more is I know where we last left at the board had a conversation around specifically focusing on economically disadvantaged students in third grade
math and English. um because that is the highest need population and the largest population in Fort Worth ISD. I know you and your team, Dr. Molinar, went back and forth a lot about this and kind of and you brought back a recommendation to change that to all. Can you talk about why and how that will still show up if the board
chooses to move in that direction? >> Yes. when we pulled the data around, we actually will be utilizing um all of our subgroups and adding in econ economically disadvantaged um students into that subgroup to pull that information separately. So, what we have
identified for our subgroups that all of our data will be shown to you is African-American, Hispanic, white, special education, economically disadvantaged as well as our emergent bilingual and our e students. So, we'll be adding that into our data. What we
did see is that um when you look at the students and you're pulling them out or economically disadvantaged, they're hitting more than one subgroup. It's definitely an area of need. If we concentrate on all of students, then we will be rising um all of those students
and increasing them to at meets grade level. But we will be sharing that data out on those trackers and adding that into an actual subgroup so you can see that identification. >> And that's a great point. Once the board is off and running monitoring these
monthly, essentially no matter what these goals are, whether it's this is third grade students or if it's CCMR, you should expect to see disagregations in all of these different ways. Whether it's by race, socioeconomic status, etc. Grade level. There's a couple of those that are like sixth through 8th grade. So you would expect to see the
differences between each of those grade levels etc. So under each one of these would be those disagregations that you would see. But with that I'm going to open up to the board and the two questions for the board to consider are do you have any questions or feedback about the goals themselves the targets the language of the goals or do those
match what the discussion was? And then if you have questions about the progress measures feel free. the question and lens at which we're looking at progress measures are are they a reasonable interpretation of the goal or do we see something missing? Um so with that I'll turn it over to the board and I'll call
on people have questions and we'll have a conversation here. Uh Dr. Rodriguez and then Doc or Mr. Lynch after that. Yeah, on all of the GPMs it says they will increase or
decrease, but do we need to know a percentage because uh you can meet all the GPMs if just a few students increase but you missed a goal because it's not by the 3% 4% 5%.
So I was just wondering if we need to be more specific on increase by a certain percentage. you want me to answer? Okay. Um, so just as a reminder, our GPMs, um, we're, um, looking at our baseline targets this
year. When we look at our six week assessments, this is a new one for us. We know our MAP growth and we're looking at our percent of our K through three. We will set targets for all of these as well. Um but GPMs um just that we went through through our training, they are
supposed to be where we're able to look and be able to adapt and move as well. But of course, if we don't set those rigorous targets to make sure what we're measuring is tracking us to those outcomes, that's what we really are looking at. There is alignment. We know
there's alignment to map. We've shown that um in various reports through the superintendent report um over the years past. Um benchmarks, we are committed to not writing our own benchmarks. We're using those that are state um state
released. Um so those were um also approved by the state. I is also has been used in districts like Dallas and other districts who are who are not using map. They're using I Ready to look at their norm reference testing um and
their projections. This is just a new year for us for I Ready and until we're able to implement it, it's really would um not for us it was like an add it and to make sure that we're also being able to use a tool and a resource and
implement it to see if we see the projections as well as other districts have. >> In short, yes, you will. for all of these progress measures, they will be just as specific. They will go from 28% to 43% and here's our five-year targets. Um, but there's no sense in doing that
until the board is like, "Okay, these seem to make sense and align with our goal." But yes, you will absolutely have those specific targets. >> Uh, Trusty Lynch, followed by Trusty Phillips. >> Um, yes, thank you. I just had a question kind of where we set the
targets for goal four and five. um can you kind of speak to how we decided the the growth targets and the ending targets for um English one EOC and then also algebra 1 EOC. >> Sure. So that was um done as similar as
we did with looking at the state. Um we not only looked at the state but other urban districts who um have like demographics and how many um percentage points they were able to close the gap with the state. Um it's what our goal is
to close the gap and surpass the state. Um when we looked at 2023 um Fort Worth ISD with our English one was at 40% the state was at 52. So that was a 12 percentage point. Um 41% last year 52 so
we only grew one percentage point and then the state actually dropped this year to 49% and our district dropped to 40%. We have not had a um a writing curriculum in place. We have not had a
standard of what is our curriculum framework expectations around EOC as something that we're implementing this year. And then actually our teachers who participate in professional de development on Friday um got our first taste of our new writing curriculum. And
then we also have trainings scheduled and that's where um Mr. Chowder is right now meeting with them with our for our principles on on this Thursday. So we know this is our implementation year um of really putting writing in place for our students. And then when you look at
that one GPM of even making sure our students in grades 6 through nine to prepare them because this isn't a English one freshman issue. This is an issue that starts from K through five in reality and then goes through six
through eight of not having structured writing in place and having that writing process. So we know that's something we have to put in place in our district and put it in there uh systemically and that's why we added in 6 through nine in that GPM where we're looking how are
students scoring on those extended constructed response. That's another way for us to monitor how are they attempting to respond to that state um constructed response question. >> Okay. >> And then very similar to the algebra 1
as well um when you look at and I have our state scores here. Um our at this state they were at 43% last year. We were only at 24% in Fort Worth ISD. So
when you look at a um 19% difference um closing that gap percentage points you know when you clo when you meet a you start chipping away at 2% 3% those are big gains for a system and even the state went from a 43 to a 45 that was
only 2%. So for a system our large to be able to say we're going to grow 19 points to close that gap um would not be a reasonable target until we put those structures in place. But we did adopt blue bonnet math this year which is in
our um elementary as well as our middle school. And then of course how we're looking at we're pushing our students our high achieving students as well as our ongrade level students into more rigorous math instruction. One of our middle and we've talked about middle
school campuses a lot for literacy as well as in math. We have a math crisis in middle school. Um we also of course are double blocking from 45 minutes to 90 minutes. So putting all of these inputs in place will definitely impact our outputs and then our outcomes of our
goal. Um but we know those things do not happen in one year. >> Okay. And I had one other question if that's um so for the progress measure that says map growth grade three the percent of K through three students that meet or
exceed I assume that the kids in K one and two are not taking the grade three. Correct. >> So for they do take MAP growth in K through three. So that's why we have them. The six week assessments we are looking at um the just the third grade
students at meets and grade level. And then of course I ready is where we add it back in the K through three but benchmarks are not taken by our K through2 students. That is correct. If I may, I think what you were asking is around the kindergarten students are not
taking third grade assessments. Is that correct? >> Just the way it's written here, it says map growth grade three. I guess that's my question. If we've got the percent of K through three students, >> so we can map we um I think we talked
about that the other day. Um, we can put in map growth grades K through three, but because we're going to be looking at the percent of all K through three students that are at meets or exceeds a grade level norm on our math assessment. >> So that and that would just say K
through three. I guess >> we the verbiage. Yes, >> that Yeah, that makes sense. >> Okay. All right. That's it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I want to go back on some unsolicited maybe solicited advice. Um, one thing I appreciated your first
question asking about the targets and if you go to goal four, I think goal four has a growth from 40% to 50%. So 10 percentage point growth. Goal five, if you go to goal five
is 27 to 46, so a 19% growth. And my first reaction as a trustee might be, well, why are we only growing 10 points there but 19 points over here? And I would say, and I think what you might have heard in Dr. Molar's answer is, you know, we have a bigger crisis over here
to focus on as opposed to English. We still know that's a priority. And I would be personally very skeptical of a superintendent that said we're going to grow 10% in every single goal. And so to see the kind of nuance as to why and that you were able to tease out in that question, I think gives you a better
ability to have a discussion around those. Some some might be smaller growth, some might be larger growth, and that's because we're focusing on areas where we have higher needs. So, thank you for illustrating that with that question. Trusty Phillips followed by Trusty Dar. >> Thank you. Um,
yeah, lots lots of questions um in the in the sense of just wanting to understand and I don't fully understand all of not any of y'all. Great job, Dr. Molinar like and boy because these are the goals that we
constructed together as a board as we were doing everything. So, I'm understanding the origin and everything and in agreement with pretty much all five. I mean, definitely all five, but again, I'll kind of get into that. I guess the first question aspect of it is um
what what holds us back from being even more aggressive, right? I know that there are things, but I guess I just want to parse that out more because again, just on a surface level, we're talking about in by
2030 that we have half of our students reaching, you know, like I said, depends on the goal, but pretty much half of our students on all the things will be where they need to be four or five years from now. That like so on a on a surface level,
that doesn't sound very fun. um stand there's nuance kind of to your point a moment ago as far as how those things work out. So if you could just parse out a little bit more about what would make us what would make us not say that we can't have 95% by this or 100% by this by this time period.
>> Yeah sure. So I I'll go back to our discussion um last weekend, weekend before last of um smart goals and you have to have a reason of how do you formulate your goal and their statist statistics be um behind it and really
looking at even the state. Um, so if the state is not reaching or surpassing and other urbans aren't, um, when you're looking at how how long and how fast it can take to move the amount of your denominator, the amount of our students,
um, percentage points uh, makes a difference. And when you look at our accountability system, you're looking at the three domains that we are held responsible to. Um, and that is of course the student achievement. So, this is really looking at the student
achievement um just or students at meeting grade level or above. Um and I'm using goal five because it's still up here um goal five. So, we're really looking at that student achievement level for just and it's also how are the
students progressing through the system by rebuilding in a foundation that has been missing in a system for that. I mean, it's definitely not and I've been here for years and we've had this discussion before. You always want to say 100% and we had a goal of 100 by 25
every student be on grade level. Um, you know, and we didn't meet that goal or come close to that goal, but I think it goes back to the two days that we talked about putting your resources. If we want to say algebra over 90% of our students,
then we have to say every resource, all of our financial resources, our staffing and everything has to go into that one thing. Um, so it's also this balancing um what can you put in the input for a system and what resources do we also
have um to be able to balance to get those outcomes. I would add for a high level and then feel free to because ultimately that number 46% that's the boards to own. So if the board wants to make it 60 70 80 that's on the board to determine to do.
I just give you a couple parameters to think about there. The first one is that systems matter especially in large systems. It takes time to build capacity to really achieve that. If it was as easy to do in a year um you'd see a lot more districts doing it. So it does take time to build that capacity and the
systems in place to do that. The second thing is whatever this board sets expect it to cascade through the system and expect every single teacher to be held accountable to that. If we say 95% the 95% is effective and proficient on your teacher scale and if it's happens that we kind of move in that direction. If
the board's okay with making that determination that we're going to really drive that expect it to cascade through the system because it doesn't just stop at Dr. Molinar. The third is that as we know well from our state is resources are finite and finances. We don't have unlimited money and it does cost money
to educate students really well. Um and I know a lot of school systems are dealing with budget shortfalls and trying to determine um how to spend their funds most effectively. So, the real answer to why I think this at my personal heart, the real reason why this aren't 95% in any district that I've
seen is because we don't have all the resources we need to do that on a short turnaround. But ultimately, it's the board's decision. And so, if the board wants to to move these up, it should do so. I think the next conversation that would happen would be then what are we willing to sacrifice to get this? I've
never met a superintendent that doesn't want their numbers to be higher, but they balance where our actual targets are that are rigorous and attainable with what we think we can feasibly do. Um, if a board wants to move them up, there must be a commensurate amount of
sacrifice. So, which extracurriculars are we willing to sacrifice? Which core classes can I have larger class size ratios in so I can focus them over here? At the end of the day, everything comes down to the resources we can put to that. And so the higher we raise these
targets, expect sacrifice commensurate with raising those targets. It's um just a balanced game in that. And unfortunately, no school system I know of has unlimited funds to be able to do that as a way that would be perfect. So I think those are just some of the things that your superintendent is going to have to
struggle with. And I think that'll be a conversation, but it's a viable conversation to say, well, you know, maybe one of these is not maybe we do want to place a bigger emphasis on reading, so we do want to notch these up a little bit. That's a viable conversation to say, all right, superintendent, then what's that going to take? What's that sacrifice going to look like that we might have to come
back on the other side? So, just some things to consider, but ultimately, this is the board's choice. >> No, and I appreciate that. Um, and I do feel I feel like so there so there's waring concepts within that for me though, right? Because when we talk
about just I as a person, like I would absolutely want to ratchet those numbers up out of a belief that I do feel like we can do better for students and we can get more students to the place they need to be, right? As a a personal philosophy, right, and
expectation versus a board member with a board in tow holding a superintendent accountable to numbers. I agree. I can agree with these numbers in a sense of if this is going to be the eval evaluative measure that we're using for you. This is basically saying that year
over year we're getting percentage points raised and we're and we're on a proper trajectory and our students are growing and we are cascading toward that number. So that is so if you're hitting these targets as a superintendent, I mean we're doing outstanding. So it
makes sense in that so but but those are two completely different things, right? because I do think these numbers can be ratcheted up. I think that most people in the community would think so as well. Um, but in the realistic aspect of things, much like you talk about in comparison to the state, in comparison
to other districts, if we're doing these numbers and actually hitting these targets along the way, we're rocking and rolling. I mean, we are in in almost in some ways revolutionizing education as sad as that is too just to even get >> to half at that point. So that can be a different conversation but that is a
warning that like again it's it's it's two different things going on there simultaneously I would think right um so with that though um how will our goals translate as far as so right now we're talking about star we're talking about
those thing like we're about to get a new iteration of what testing looks like moving forward in the next year so what does the translation look like if we setting these goals now and say okay five years we're going to hit these according to this, but then it's a different model that we have altogether
that we're looking at. How do we how are we able to stay consistent to the goals that we're setting out this time with new measurement tools that we haven't even got to partake in as of yet? >> So, they have not written the rules for the new assessment. Um however you for
us it's believe in the um systems we are putting in place and the structure and the foundations and knowing that um it the measurements and the outcomes are based on star um but that's why you see the GPMS we put in the I ready and we
put in the map which looks like will be part of the new assessment that maybe not utilizing those assessments but those formats are looking at growth. Um, so we're actually preparing ourselves by doing MAP as well as I Ready as our DPMS
to really test if there's alignment to those projections to it. And then when we're once we know what the written rules are and what the new assessment looks like, then if we need to go back um and look at different GPMs to see if we're going to hit those goals, then
that's what we need to do. But, you know, for us, it's not slowing down and waiting to see what a new assessment looks like. And you know that's um something historically you see around the state is when a new assessment's put in place it there is usually a drop um
with the state. Um however we want to believe that hearing what legislation put out that we are trying to already align our system in Fort Worth ISD to meet the new assessment. No, I like that. And and and that's what I believe
we have to do as a board as far as our accountability as that new information presents itself that we are able to pivot well transparently, right? And be like, okay, now that we have this new information, let's set forward what that
needs to look like for us. Um so we don't look two, three years down the road and be like, oh yeah, but we were talking about this, not that. And now we're jumbled on numbers, things of that nature. So, um, what are the what are the chances that a young person and this is even with the
current model we have or even as we move forward with goals cuz we talking about the correlation and we've kind of had these conversations before about like you know what are we really looking at to be able to say are we really getting the results we really want to get how we making these things translate so so with it what are the chances that a young
person is hitting our benchmarks that are set out and yet still not do good when it comes to the state exams like what does that look like? >> Well, we always have to remind ourselves that our stateam exams are one day. Um
so when we looking at our GPMS that's you know where we have to commit ourselves that we believe that um on that one day they're giving us the best that they have in them. Um and that we have chosen the GPMs that are most aligned to the STAR test. Um, and that's
where we not only chose what GPMs we have in our district, but we looked beforehand of what other um, successful urban districts are doing as well as suburban districts and some of the GPMs that they have chosen. And that's why
you see the addition to the I Ready. We knew last year when we had Luxia in place and some other resources, we were monitoring compliance >> and not necessarily um working with a student on level at
their own pace and seeing how they part how they've um they changed on their diagnostic. We know, we know just recently when you use I Ready, you have to do a refresh where you have a student take the diagnostic again early on that
second semester to really make it meaningful for them to continue on with that support. So we really believe that we have identified the GPMs that are online to what you're what you're even saying is that one day on star
>> um which is very difficult for our students and there's other things that aren't listed on here because we are you know limited how many DPMs but that's when I've showed you other reports of monitoring accountability how are we looking at um our our walkthroughs of
our administrators our do when we look at attendance chronic absenteeism when we look at mobility rate when we look at grades that's why we're looking and piloting standardbased uh report cards for our lower grade levels you know it's really a combination of looking at all
those things just because it's not listed here that's the whole child >> I love that absolutely and that so that be another question from that and because I do love that how how Can we
get how formulaic can we get on that? And that's big ass and we talking about like you said it's a whole lot of inputs. >> But how do we really do that assessment of a whole child to see where we're starting to get those common denominators as to why one may not be successful in those, you know what I
mean? cuz we have the things that we think about um anecdotally, we have some research behind it, but we think about, you know, if a child's not eating, >> Mhm. >> Uh if they're not getting to school on time, if they're, you know, if they're not getting enough rest at night, like there's a lot of things that we can know that, hey, we need children need these
particular types of environments. Students need these environments in order to be successful in the classroom. But how can we really take a holistic look like you're talking about with some of the measures you're talking about? cuz yes, we can fill out a whole book at that point and we can't measure all of that per se, but is there a way to get
that holistic picture to where we can begin to pinpoint those things that are keeping any particular child from reaching those goals? >> Well, our special education students have that holistic picture through their IEP, their individual educational plan. um and how we're tracking that. There's that second level that is required by
the state, hospital 4545, when the student who is not meeting grade level um have to have document interventions outside that tier one instruction. Um you saw our public comment speaker that was one of the topics about having to monitor used to be called response
intervention. It's now called MTSS. It is looking at that whole child. It's documenting those interventions. It's looking at um you'll see on the superintendent constraint guard rails that you have focused and identified on making sure that the teachers in front
of that child are also performing and have shown um data that they can grow students and they're effective teachers. In addition to that um how you know we go back to not only attendance we look at also um you know discipline rates we
look at the leader on that campus in addition to that and so there is looking at it as a whole picture and those are the all of the other things that we monitor. Um but that does take documentation. That's that push and pull of um the compliance piece, the
documentation that we get a lot of push back on how much we're asking of the document. But when you want to look at a whole child and all of us go into a doctor's office and we spend the first 15 minutes updating our own personal charts and then we spend the next 15
minutes answering the questions from the chart we just documented, you know, from from our physicians. but they're trying to look at us as a whole patient as well. And that takes time and that takes also partnership with our parents. Um, and that's what we're really trying to
increase with our parent student conferences of taking that time when they come into the school and saying what are we missing here? >> And it really is a science and um we have a physician on on our our uh our dis here. They can probably tell you it
is a science. It is looking at the child as a whole and it changes all the time. One single thing can change a parent two parent household splitting up to one. A grandparent passing away that there was their stakeholder. You know, all of that
can um a new change of address that's out of their control. >> Um but those are things we we work towards. You know, we have food pantries now. We're doing everything we can to treat them to be ready as a whole child to receive instruction. >> Indeed. No, I appreciate that. Few more
and then I I'll pass the ball here and because some of these are some of those are philosophical conversations we have outside of the go. I got you Ben. So, um I guess quickly the raw number. So, we we see the percentages of
what this looks like from time to time. Can we also get the actual number of students that is >> definitely that is something um we can definitely add into our monitoring reports and that's something um actually conversation um we had today actually
Miss Tenant and I had today when we're even even starting to do communication um sound bites and pieces. Um I'm tired of talking about A through F. I want to talk about the number of students. You know, we have 10,000 less students sitting on F-rated campus this year.
10,000. >> Yes. >> That's huge. >> That is huge. >> But I still have campus. I still have students sitting on 11 a.m. >> Absolutely. >> So that's too many. Yes. >> So it's how do we transition and putting numbers to it and we're happy to add those into all of our monitoring reports
as well. >> Yeah. And and in no way meaning that as a gotcha at all, but I think that again the board accountability piece allowing us to be able to see that. I think it's motivational for us to see how many students that is that are moving or not moving for us to really know what we're working for and with, right? Um
>> you'll hear principles tell us in their um we call them radar meetings that our our low performing campuses come and um present with us and to us that the one big game changer for them is putting a
student name to the data and a student face and asking why not him. >> I do. >> Why not her? >> Yeah. And so on the on the math target on the
um goal to in the percentages from 26 to 27 we have a 2% jump then we go to four um and then it's three and then four and I kind of get the three we're trying to leverage out at 50. So that's why it's not four four I guess.
Can we talk about what it what is that what makes the leap there? Um of I would think of course consistency right implementation at that point in time but yeah how do we get to that point and how do we keep that growth consistent because as we talking about aggression
4% of anything is aggressive when we talking about the numbers we talk about so yeah how do what's that jump and then how do we get consistent from that point forward. >> So in 23 we went from a 29% to 30%. we only went one percentage point from 23
to 24 and the state actually went down three percentage points and we we grew la um this past year we went from a 30 to a 35 so we grew that 5 percentage points and the state grew four so definitely some some movement there and
you know we're we're a high denominator for the state we're a large urban district so we help move move that and um so when we look at those we look at once again a new curriculum um that we have put in place as well as a new curriculum framework and IPC. Um but we
do believe that we can push those percentage points and you'll see we get more aggressive as we go from 29 to 30 where we're looking at that three that four percentage um gains. So you'll see our targets where we start to get aggressive towards the end because
that's where we know the foundations in place. Those are the students for that third grade when you're looking at 29 that have had a solid K through2 experience with a new math curriculum as well as a new expectations
um and just a monitoring tools. So we know that's where the foundation really starts to be able to accelerate that. And you know, it's always our hope and that we have to move these targets and increase them because we've already met them. And we've already done that with
our strategic our priority one our strategic plan this year. Um when we go back and we're we review those targets, some of those we've already met and surpassed. >> Okay. And then I guess a final section
here that I have is the CCMR aspect. And Ben, you kind of began trying to add some clarity to that, but it's still somewhat confusing there in the sense of as far as our CM as far as our CCMR
numbers now. >> Mhm. >> I guess per last conversations or recent conversations seem like we're actually doing good in that area as far as >> or is that is that is that a bad assessment to say we have >> No, we were doing okay.
>> Okay. in a part of that area. But our students were still they were dependent on we we were dependent I don't want to say I on this but we were dependent on one portion of domain 3 for CCMR for our
high schools >> and that was to take that TSI test and pass it and that means that kids have the ability to take it take it take it to be able to be considered college ready they're not college ready they took the test, they still go into
remediation. >> This goal that we have here is to percent of graduates that have to meet the outcome bonuses. This means they have to double hit it to meet it. >> Okay, >> that means that they don't have to go in
needing re uh remediation classes. that one, it's hard for a student who's graduated to go sit in a class and have to go back and take a algebra or take a English one, you know, because we're saying they were CCMR. That was how the
how it was designed. Um, it's changing for CCMR. Um, when you look at the outcome bonuses, it makes it very um also competitive for us. We had students going through programs, our programs
in our high schools the entire four years and never given the opportunity to test for that certification because adults chose that for them. >> Yeah, >> that is not allowed anymore. And that's why you see a very aggressive goal and
target from 19 to 47. This is one that people are going to look at us like we are crazy. But this has to be done to make sure they are can graduate and that they are ready to go out in that workforce and because adults chose not to give them
these pathways. >> Indeed. >> So I appreciate that. I will say so this is the one where I will have just a tweak of push back on because it says the increase of college applications. That's that is one that is measured with
um all of our urban districts across the state. That is uh you know one of the measurements is college applications and that is also our lagging data of how our students how many of them actually get into college. >> Yeah. >> Um that's just a GPM. >> Okay. Cuz I would much rather see that
be admissions like that you actually got. >> And let me pause for a second. the where we're at on the progress measures. Progress measures superintendent's got to be looking at data in real time. >> Yeah. >> Fully owned by her and the team to understand what's happening in real time. >> Now, you're right to understand the
purpose of college applications >> is because it's a leading indicator on kids getting admitted and then ideally enrolling is really what you're targeting. >> Yeah. >> Because your goal is that >> and it's fine to understand that, but at the end of the day, it's going to be superintendent is going to need to look
at data real time. Yeah. >> And college applica if if college applications are a true leading indicator of that which you'll know after the first year you should be able to see okay did our college applications go up and was it a good benchmark for uh
like admissions or otherwise there's so many other data variability etc. But again the purpose tonight is not to say we would rather see different progress measures but it is to understand if how college applications does correlate with outcomes bonus funding. That is what part of what we should be doing is
>> yeah and the application part I can understand and I and the more applications filled out the more acceptance opportunities we have. But I will say so in the example of young women's leadership academy one of the things that are so beautiful there is the percentage of college admissions these young ladies get. Not just did they fill out applications, but they
actually get accepted to two-year, four-year universities. Um, and again, whether they enroll or not, which they do, but I'm saying if they did or not, again, that's a choice at that point. But we have prepared you and we have gotten you to the point to where you have the opportunity for college. >> Now, you will choose whatever path it looks like for you. You see what I mean?
>> Well, because of our partnership with TCC, we can say our students have the can be definitely accepted into a community college. But I don't want my students to be accepted in community college and then
have to take remedial courses for their first year. >> Gotcha. But I guess I also don't want our students to fill out an application to UTA, ENT, and TCU and go for three, but we made them fill out more applications. You see what I mean? Like that we didn't get them there still, right? You don't That's the part I guess
>> the tweak there. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Um, all right. We'll move on to Trusty Dar followed by Trusty Lubanos and Dr. Ron I didn't forget about you. Um if you do have a question I'll come to you after Trusty Lubanos but if you are good then we can carry on. Trusty Dar.
>> Thank you. Um on slide two you mentioned that the state's goal for early childhood literacy is 52%. I missed the year. What by what year was that? Um the state's goal let me get I think that was
2025. Yes. So the state's goal by 2025 was 52%. >> Okay. So that would have been this the test scores from this past year, correct? >> Correct. Yes. We took the last through three years historical data. So their
goal was um at 52 we came in at 38%. >> Okay. >> Mhm. And same same question. >> We went up six percentage points. >> Okay. with um staying with state with goal one knowing that our primary focus
is improving student outcomes. Um one of the initiatives that the state has in place in order to ensure that the best teachers are in front of our students is TIA. Are these uh four progress measure measures is that connected to or is that
how TIA is being evaluated as well? TIA one of their measurements for a teacher to be designated for TIA is um growth and we utilize MAP for that. >> So only the MAP is utiliz >> it's not it's one of the criteria.
>> Okay. And then the benchmark here I inferred that that is that's what's being released by TEA for the 26 27 school year. Correct. The >> um the MAP testing is a norm reference. No, not the map. The the benchmark the
>> the benchmark are released by the state and we utilize those that are released. >> They they release them. It's usually a year or two behind. It's they don't they do the field questions and they release it. So, >> we're not using a 2020
release star. It's their most recent ones. Yes. But beginning in the 2026 27 school year, there will be the beginning of the year, the middle of the year, and the end of the year evaluations. Correct? >> No, the um the new assessment does not
go into effect into 2728. >> Okay. Thank you. I was a year ahead of me of the game. Thank you. um with the CCMR. Um this question actually
is a result of a comment that you just made um in response to one of Trusty Phillips questions and that was that adults chose for kids to not take the tests. >> Is there a why for that? What would be the motivation for adults to choose that
for students? So, I would say the why is very dependent on um narrative and um we had some that did not believe our students would be able to pass them and did not believe that that was something they
would be interested in actually pursuing afterwards. Those are some of the comments we got. Um and it was not being monitored or enforced and now it is. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, and then on the algebra goal five, um, so we're looking at the way the goal is written, it says by the end of 9th grade. So that would be any student
regardless of whether or not they took algebra in ninth grade or in eighth grade or in seventh grade. >> Correct? >> So any student by the end of nth grade. So when we look at the sorry so many papers when we look at that percentage by 2030
of 46% that is of in I just want to make sure I understand how it's being measured is that looking at all of the ninth graders >> one time first time testers >> whether they took it in seventh or
eighth grade or nth grade they only count one time one time testers. >> Okay. So, so this score of 46% is from any student in Fort ISD that takes the algebra 1 EOCC that year. >> That year. And so next year would be any
student enrolled and takes a algebra 1 EOC in 2026 would be counted in that 30%. >> Okay. So if they took it in seventh grade then they >> because it counts for them as a completion for EOC. Yes. >> All right. Thank you. I just wanted to
make sure I knew that. >> That's a great question. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I I don't Just for clarity. So if a kid takes it in seventh grade this year, 2026, will they count with the class of 2026
data or will they wait until they are nth grade and they're finishing nth grade and then they count with their class as they go? they'll count for the 26 when they take their test. >> Okay. So, this is the percentage one um tweak to be if we go back would be
um the percentage of first time algebra 1 test takers as opposed to by the end of nth grade because it might be the end of seventh grade. So, we might be able to we can do that instead. We didn't want to include retesters where we were looking at 10th, 11th, 12th graders who retest it multiple times. We're looking
at first time um algebra one as well as and this is same thing for English. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. >> Thank you, Trusty Luvanos. >> Thank you. Uh she has my questions.
But on that goal five, so do we have any students right now taking the sixth grade algebra one? So on grade 8 algebra at the bottom it says the percent of six through 8 grade students enrolled in algebra 1
and track to meet grade level. So do you have any students right now taking? >> I don't have I don't have individual numbers for that right now. I would have to get you those. >> So we have some numbers. So we have some where we are have some pilots that we are um doing accelerate math where we
are um doing acceleration for some campuses. Yes. >> So is right now the goal of the state at 46%. The goal is for algebra. Um 2030 is at 46%.
>> Oh, no, no, no wait, wait, wait. That's my wrong. I'm looking at my goals here. Sorry. I have lots of papers as well. The state for algebra right now is at 45%. And we were at 27
>> for algebra and we were at 24 last year. So we only went up 3%. >> So we are doing all these things to get a big increase of 19% from now until 2030. >> Yes.
>> Great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Dr. Ryan, I want to give you the opportunity if you have any questions. If not, you can feel free to wave and we'll carry on. >> Well, let's try this. Uh the I guess the the question I've got uh everybody's
asked some really good questions in here. I want to go back to CCMR. Uh do we have indicators for the kids that are going directly out of school into the military? Is there a way maybe to uh uh
through the kids, especially that are in JOTC, for the uh instructors to sit there and and do a follow-up to see which one of those kids went straight from school into a military uh pos uh job.
>> I mean, we do have that data that we usually share. You know, we're looking at the clearing house for the lagging data that doesn't come out. believe it's sometime this month, late this month. So, we did not want to use that for GPM. It's also a one-time and it's lagging data that wouldn't be able to show if we
were progressing to meet and align to our outcome. But we um actually you'll see some of that data on October the 28th, but it would not u meet the criteria for a GPM to show that alignment.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dr. Ryan. Uh Dr. or let's go with Trusty Martinez. Uh and then Trusty Jackson. >> Dr. Molinar, at our last workshop, um I heard several board members um say that
they would like to focus on African-American literacy rates. And I know that we will get the information disagregated. Um we get that data, but how do these GPMs address our focus on African-American students? So, all of
our GPMs will um also have targets that we will show with all our subgroups. And just um as a reminder, we'll show the the data broken down by African-American, Hispanic, white, special education, economically disadvantaged, emergent, bilingual, and
EEL. So, the GPMS that have targets will also show those by each of those subgroups as well. >> And they'll have targets. Don't have to. Sorry. Thank you. >> All right, Jesse Jackson. >> Thank you, Coach Mackey. Um, everybody's
had great questions. Dr. Molinar, great presentation. Um, this all brings me to the people that deliver instruction. And first, I know that you started hiring talent earlier
and there's a plan in place to continue that. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Actually, we will um be sharing with you our timeline for our resource campus reapply where we will be going out and already have identified um
and recruitment strategies for those identified resource campuses. >> So then that that brings me to hiring proven performers and how are we going to attract really good talent, proven performers to our to our district.
So I believe that's under one of the guard rails and constraints um of how we will retain and recruit um that we will have to deliver and do that. Um I think everyone wants to be part of a winning team and I think Fort Worth ISD is on
the tra trajectory of being a winning school district not only in um urban setting but then also around this metroplex. I think the initiatives we're putting in place, the support we're putting in place is getting a lot of attention. Um we the celebrations, the
emails we get, we still have a long way to go. We have a long we're listening to the concerns and we we're hearing the feedback, but um it's also compensation. Those are things that we've got to look at as a district. How do we maintain
that competitive compensation rate? But we are uh recently through REV part partnership um we had a meeting um with all the other um Tarant County superintendent and there the amount of TIA teachers are
in the single digits compared to where we're at. Um so we can recruit the talent but it's also having the supports in place um for those teachers. People also follow leaders. People work for good leadership. So when we can recruit
and we put the best leaders on our campuses, teachers want to come and work for those best leaders as well. >> I agree and thank you. And I just want to brag a bit. We kept 95% of our TI year over year. So thank you.
>> Anyway, thank you. >> Thank you, Trusty Jackson. Trusty Bridges >> and thank you for all the great questions that everyone asks. I just have one very quick question. It was goal one in reference the goals that we
had made. How do we avoid the the bumps and bruises with a new curriculum that we we're taking on and still achieve some of our goals? Please. >> So that is really around a couple things. Um I'll go back to the GPMS. It's not just about one curriculum. Um
because if it was just a curriculum that we put in place then across the across the state everyone would be adopting that same curriculum. It's really putting of those structures in place. One of the things um and I was going to share this with our principles on
Thursday. One of the best uh you know testaments to our new curriculum framework um was when a high school in high school teachers are hard to get any type of positivity out of change. And one of the best things we had a teacher
um actually at Arlington Heights say from and came to us from a different district said how this curriculum is like a game changer. the structure of it and just having um just knowing what to do, having the resources all together,
but then shared the story how a student from OD Wyatt transferred into heights and did not miss a beat. Oh, we were doing that at OD Wyatt. We were reading that same story. The structure was the same. We are not a
suburban district. Our mobility rate is very high. When students move, just having the comfort of walking to a classroom and be able to see those same structures in place is a gamecher for them. Their confidence level, their comfort level, and their ability to go
ahead and immerse themselves in the engagement. Um, I know that's a long answer to say it's really not just the curriculum. It's also when we're adopting this new curriculum next year, the blue bonnet, the structures that we're currently writing and trying to
put in place and we we have a lot of push back about that because we're doing it and sometimes it is not at the pace that the teachers want it two three weeks behind. That's because we're having to do it because Amplify doesn't have it in place. So, we're having to
also take resources and money and now hire external writers to help us keep up with this. But you know what? Teachers are asking for it because they want it and they need it and they're relying on it now. And that is fantastic for us.
So, it's more than one thing. So, are we going to have bumps? We're always going to have bumps because they're changed. But the worst thing we could have done is not do anything differently. If I would not have done anything differently or asked the staff to come up with something differently or listened to what the teachers were telling us how
hard it was to plan a lesson and just kept it the same, then we would never even have these type of targets in front of us right now. >> Thank you. Trusty Bridges, you good? >> Trusty Phillips,
>> thank you. um you spoke to it a little bit when you were answering Trusty Lynch's question, but I guess I just want to further clarify or reiterate um the middle school component because right now none of our goals incorporate
the middle school aspects of things. And of course, we'll get other reports when it comes to things that you know, transportation or nutritional. I mean, there'll be it's not that because these are our goals, we won't hear about anything else. I definitely get that. But I guess I want to know, you know, how how will we continue to prioritize?
I know the measures we're putting in place for middle school, but how will we continue to prioritize middle school with them not being a part of the five goals? And how will we and the community continue to hear about the progress that's happening? Because if we're doing our jobs correctly, they're going to
hear about these goals and these goals probably measure all the time like clockwork. How do we make sure that middle school's not lost in the sauce when we come when it comes to us knowing about how that's progressing? >> So, when you look at our student goal four, that's why you see where we have
6th through 9th as our progress measures in there. That's really important because we have to report out on those as well as in goal five. So, they will be reported out. Also, um you this board has been very gracious to allow us to identify adsy campuses as well as
resource campuses um that have middle schools identified in those mixes. um as part of a a big initiatives um I'm required to report out on these goals and GPMs but I am going to bring you more than that for data because we also
that is where the alignment of our budget is also going and middle schools are a part of that in addition to it and when we're bookending our EOCC's to our um K and our third grade you know the
middle schools are going to start to be impacted on both sides there because I'm responsible for growing my EOCC's starting next year. So that means my eighth graders right now in middle schools and some of my seventh graders are going to impact my targets for next
year. So I have to keep my eye on my middle schools this year. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Trusty Lynch. >> Um yeah, just one clarifying question for goal three. I imagine there's not
state data around this goal currently >> for outcome bonuses. There is um definitely where other districts what um money they have come and on October 28th you're going to see some comparison of
what some other districts have received in outcome bonuses. So there is some state um you know just as an example what what do we leave on the we I don't even know if I want to say it out loud until Tuesday.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So there there is some data driving that where the numbers came from. >> Oh yeah. Muhammad, if you if you wouldn't mind coming to the mic. We want to be able to hear that. Well, please. >> Sorry. Probably the thing I'm most
excited about this year, but basically um uh all of the graduates in the state of Texas generate outcomes bonus if they hit those metrics. And so we're part of something called the Urban Council, Tuck. You may have heard us throw that out. So that's Dallas, Houston, Austin.
And for the first time, the class of 2025 graduates as a collective generated more outcomes bonus than all of the state. So that was like a big milestone that we just celebrated. And so yeah, we have that comparison data uh from
district to district as well as our graduates compared to the state. And I can bring that this month during that presentation. >> Yeah. I And I guess my question is more just trying to understand those targets where where that number came from. The other ones are better to understand
I think I guess because this is a different way of looking at it. >> Well, and that is really because we we took the two different criteria to meet and to be able to be aggressive um for our kids in both of those areas. Um, you
know, for us it was just not trying to meet the CCMR measurement for a domain 3. It was going beyond that and making sure that we were getting the outcome bonus, which is a more rigorous one. >> Okay. >> Um, and I don't know if you want to say
how we picked that target. >> People are telling us we went too high, but we're just a little competitive. >> Yeah. So, the state it's not very high. like the state's nowhere near the states in the 20s too right now. So this is a
very bold and aggressive goal but it is very much within doable and reach and 5 years to get there is is a stretch goal and stretch we can make happen. Um it's not an impossible goal but the state
right now is in the 20%age range. So we're basically benchmarking there and like all of our goals, we want to exceed the state. So that's how we set that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. >> And I'm tired of Muhammad texting me all
night long asking me for a more aggressive goal. >> All right. So what will happen next is >> I have one more question. Sorry. >> Go ahead. Yep. Sorry. >> Um just looking at goal one and goal two for that those early grades. um what do
we plan or how do we plan to address the test fatigue not only for students but for teachers as well? Yeah. So, I mean there's test fatigue, so we know map growth um is something we need to do because that's going to be a reality 2728.
Um and then also it's looking at the national the norm reference. Just a reminder that now we are norm referencing against Texas um as we're going into this norm reference which we're very excited about. um where we're using a different norming. Um also this
is a new norm going into the school year that is postco. Um so you know that changes the game as well. Um and then you know we get challenged all the time like how do we know how do they know they're going to make it? Um what's our projections? Um when we look at the six
weeks test we also are looking at stuff they've already covered. um the benchmarks, like I said, the first benchmark, we're only testing them on things they have covered. It's also fatigue, but then we hear, how are you exposing them to the format? Um so they
and then, you know, how are they knowing what the test looks like? Um and that was a question we were asked when we looked at our writing and we saw some of our students not attempt those short responses and you know, do are we exposing them to it? And then the I
Ready is not an assessment. The I Ready is a tool and a resource for students to meet at their level. These are lessons at their level um after they take the diagnostic in the first um couple weeks. Then they're working on their level and
it does accelerate and get harder as they get better. Um and like I said, this is something they can use at home. Um they can use in their Fort Worth after school program, in their community centers. this is something they can do in the car on a road trip for Thanksgiving. So, it's also a tool of
ongrade level um ability to a resource that these other ones are considered more assessments. >> Any other questions on goals and the progress measures? All right, seeing none, we will move on
to guard rails. Um I'm going to ask Dr. Mullen to do the same thing here. A brief overview of the language of the guard rails. You have a couple with a couple different options that we're going to ask the board to give some thoughts on and then a highlevel overview very quickly of the progress
measures. The two questions that the board is thinking about here is what's the language of the constraint or guard rail that is most aligned to our discussion and what we believe and we want to pay attention to. So there's going to be a couple like this first one. Um, there's a couple different
options. Well, I think option Well, I'll let you explain them, but there's different options. We're going to get your feedback on them. >> So, we do we have identified um there were six um some of them don't have the progress measures um yet, the GPMS um
since there are um there were six that we were asked to explore. >> Okay. >> So, option one um >> let me pause before we go into option one. Um the so you're going to look at those. We're going to ask you for feedback on the actual options and which ones you prefer that most align with
your vision or your values here. The second thing is about the progress measures. The question is does the progress measures for the ones that we have progress measures right now. Are they reasonable interpretation? So are these two instance of TIA designated teachers and strategic compensation is that a reasonable interpretation of
employee effectiveness and retention? So that's the question that we're going to look at. Um, this is going to be really hard and you guys are not going to like me for this. You're going to get annoyed with me. I'm telling you now. If you I'm going to stop us whenever we get into how. Well, how are we retaining teachers? Um, well, how do we know that
the DNF campuses are if we get into the how? You're going to have lots of reports on this stuff all the time. This is just about getting the language to match what we want and have an idea of the progress measures, not to understand why um this is going to lead to higher
retention or whatnot. that comes later as we monitor them. So I'll be playing referee on that. Go ahead, Dr. Molinar. >> So option one was around the superintendent will now allow the percentage of multi-year unacceptable campuses to increase. Um so when we look
at somehow other districts are measuring, this is a did you meet it or not meet it? Did you um not allow the percentage of multi-year unacceptable campuses to increase? Option two will not the superintendent will now allow the percentage of D and F campuses to
increase. Um the elimination when you look at an F campus it's a natural progression that many F campuses progress to a D and then maybe to a C or a B. Um so when we look at the percentages um did we meet it or not
meet it? Um, some districts are saying do not allow any D or F campuses, but we even saw in our own data this year that we saw an increase of C campuses because of our D's that moved to a C. And then our F campuses that some went straight
to a C or B and some had to go to an F as well. So those are um ones that we also feel like when we u meet or um actually surpass where we don't have f campuses we can come back and change
that constraint. In addition to that the superintendent will not allow an increase in turnover of highly effective and qualified staff. Um some progress measures we have identified would be TIA designated teachers. The percent of TIA
designated teachers will remain above our current average. Our strategic compensation, the percentage of campus administration who are under a strategic compensation plan will increase and we know those are two things that we've
seen other urban districts put in place um because effective it's employee employee effectiveness and retention um of qualified staff. So we're looking at administration as well as we stated before um teachers come to work for
highly effective leaders. In addition to that option four for constraints um you asked us to look at the superintendent will not allow the district to operate without a system design to recruit employee employee and
develop and retain highly effective and qualified staff. Um so that is around um strictly recruitment and employee um retention which is also one of the priorities we set for in our strategic plan. And then option five, the superintendent will now allow the
district to operate without implementing strategies to mitigate barriers to student engagement and extracurricular activities. And one progress measure we're looking at is the percentage of schools that offer extracurricular
activities will not decrease. When we say do not decrease, of course, that means like how are we prioritizing funding? Um and then we know um at our um 6 through 12 campuses have more extracurricular offerings than our
elementary campuses, but being able to establish a baseline of extracurricular offered on our elementary campuses um and what formats those look like and then of course what would be the impact of um budget alignment to those to that
constraint. And then option six, the superintendent will not allow the district to operate without a budget process that allocates resources in alignment with the district's strategic priorities. And the progress measure measure could be the number of deficiencies and audit findings will not
increase as well as our first ratings. Um and that of course is the budget process of allocate resources. Um so a lot of the the budget allocations will be around um the goals and as well as the constraints of how many things we're
concentrating on to meet to meet these. >> All right. So the questions are we have six different options for constraints. The first two seem to be two different ways to slightly say roughly the same value that came out about no DNF campuses etc. Um so Dr. Mullen and the
team need a little direction on which of these are yes, those those are the right direction um and which ones maybe we don't need to focus on as much or are these looking right here and then the next iteration you'll see will actually have the progress measures linked to them. So
with that I'll open it up to the board. >> Trusty Dar. >> Thank you. Um can you define multi-year? How many years? What is multi-year? Is it three or more? Is it two or more? Is it? >> So we don't have that to be determined.
Yeah, we do not have it defined. Um, of course when we hit on acceptable through campus um those trigger definitely um different interventions. >> Yeah. >> Um so we do not hit a four or five. >> Okay. C can I ask trusty Dar, do you
have because the language will be ultimately the boards. Do you have a preferred definition of >> multi-year? >> Three comes to mind for me. >> Great. >> Because it's before four. Obviously, three has always
been before four. >> Um, but it's at it's at four that I it really makes me start to sweat. Um, because we don't want to see a campus in a position that is teetering on five.
>> Great. and um but I don't want to wait until it's at four and it doesn't seem like two would be enough. So that's my rationale there. Good question. Thank you. My my my definition of multi-year would be three.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Um what exactly under option three is a strategic compensation plan? So a strategic compensation plan can of course TIA is considered a strategic
compensation plan. Um our stipens are considered strategic compensation plan. In addition to that um when we're looking at our resource campuses, we're looking at a different pay schedule for and that it falls under the criteria for a resource campus. How we are
compensating our um leaders as well as our teachers above the TIA designation. >> Okay. Um, and then on option five, it says the percentage of schools that offer extracurricular
activities. The way that I read that is that a school that offers one extracurricular activity gets the same number of points as a school that offers 22 extracurricular activities. Does that
make sense? It could be because um >> I mean I understand like what's our vision and our goal is that every camper campus offers the same is it every campus offers these core extracurricular
um we know there's UIL versus non UIL and there are some that are very community- based you know through partnerships like Optimus Club and so forth. So we did not want to put um parameters around it that impeded those
partnerships. >> Okay. Yeah. There's a definite difference between what a tabs because of the nature of the school and the number of students can offer compared to a Pascal high school with the nature of the school and the number of students on that campus. So um
>> and elementary is really dependent on volunteers versus um paid stipens. >> It's true. Okay. Um, I guess I hear what you're saying. I want it to um I just I don't I don't want to adopt
a constraint that the community interprets with ambiguity or um maybe I don't know the word I'm looking for, but perhaps it's overgeneralizations. I'm not sure. Um and and I but I totally hear what you're
saying, too. You're right. I also don't want to penalize a school for not having 35 electives because that isn't a feasible >> for that. I think that's where our definitions like electives versus extracurricular um for us is more of um offerings
outside of the school day, not necessarily um inside the school day. We know our middle schools and high schools, it's elective. Um, but some of our students also can participate if they're not signed up through that elective. But really, but then we have
some elementary schools who have chess club, sewing club, this, this, and then others who don't because that's not affiliated with a stipenbased compensation. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Trusty Dar, if I may, what I'm hearing
here is And tell me if I'm hearing this incorrectly, is yes, I believe that we should make sure to make sure kids have access to extracurricular activities. I'm also hearing, yeah, it doesn't make sense in my mind as a trustee to say we
should have mandate the exact same amount of extracurricular activities, but I'm worried about it not I'm worried about just one thing checking. So what I'm hearing is actually like what is the minimum like how do we define a set of extracurricular activities
where there is some choice and that would be on the district to do to make sure that students have choice of extracurricular activities but not defining it the same for everybody but you're what I'm hearing is I don't want it just to be they offer one extracurricular so that's check and it's done as opposed to some minimum set of
offerings. Is that more or less accurate? Yeah. And I think also what constitutes an extracurricular activity because is it is it kids staying after school to watch a movie? >> Gotcha. >> Or is it kids playing in a UIL sport or a UIL fine arts activity or thing? You
know, I mean, which which I don't know that that we want to put that strict par. It's just there's it's nebulous and and so um because you should never be a comprehensive high school and all you offer is a movie club.
>> Yeah. Um this makes sense. This is I see this a lot with boards. So what I think administration can do with that feedback is define what is the minimum set of extracurriculars, how we would look at that and what would qualify and what not to bring back. >> Can I ask for clarification? >> Sure. >> Are um we measuring differently um or
reporting out um because this is has a major impact on facility um ramifications. Good point. If we're not thinking um elementary versus middle school versus high school, I mean, this could u when we get to operational
alignment and efficiency seriously impact our budget. >> That's a very good point. >> I got nothing. >> What I'm hearing is the concern from Trusty Dar that we don't want it just to be one
extracurricular etc. But we do want to understand and be clear about what what are we adopting here if we're saying campuses offer extracurricular activities to make sure that it's clear what we're talking about there. So it sounds like that's going to be on administration to kind of do some
thinking about what your best recommendation would be on that. >> Dr. Merlin, are you comfortable with that? >> I will bring a recommendation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Comfortable with it, but I will bring a recommendation. >> Okay. Well, I I I appreciate that
response. I really do. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> I think it really opens the door for um things that are very difficult to staff um maintain quality, age level, appropriateness, transportation, um after school,
um accessibility. >> All good points and I appreciate those. Thank you. >> And this is naturally part of it. So this was this was one identified by the board as a collective value that we value extracurricular activities. Um there's obviously going to be constraints. I think this was you know with some a little bit more clarity
bring back all right if we were to do it at this level this is what it would cost. Is the board willing to do that at the cost of these other things. That's a decision the board's going to have to make or say you know what we're okay with either lowering what that bar is or removing this one entirely because it's not how we prioritize it. So that's
exactly the purpose of this conversation. Thank you Trusty Jackson. Thank you. Um, I was just looking at option two, student academic excellence. The superintendent will not allow the percentage of DNF campuses to increase.
However, as we decrease the number of campuses this district operates, the number two at 100 campuses is 2%. The number two at 80 campuses is 2 and a.5%. So, should we change that to
number instead of percent? >> You could do it either way. It's six of one, half dozen of the other. I ask the administration, is there a reason you had percent versus a number of campuses? Well, due to the example I
gave, you could decrease your number of campuses, maintain the same number of DNF campuses, and you've increased the percentage. >> Maybe I'm not understanding. >> So, if you have 100 campuses and and two
of them are DNF, then you have 2%. If you go to 80 campuses Oh, I got you. >> Yeah. And so then it would go to 2 and a half%. And I understand it's only a half percent, but it it still could be an accountability measure that
we want to look at. Just something I noticed. >> Yeah. >> So that would be up to you. >> All right. >> It's your constraint. I can bring you recommendations. >> It'll be up to you whether you're comfortable with it or not to me.
>> So what I hear is a question on whether it's number or percentage. Is there a reason we chose one or the other? >> Yes. I'd just be I would leave it to what staff is comfortable with. However, I would be more comfortable with the number myself. >> Great. That's exactly what we're looking
for here. Trusty Lynch. >> Um, Dr. Molar, can you give me some clarity around the progress measure for option six? Yes. the number of deficiency in audit findings and I'm just trying to
understand how that aligns with potentially a budget process. >> Well, the the constraint says operate within a budget process allocates the resources in alignment. Um that number when we look at our audits and our AOIS,
audit findings or any discrepancies of the budget. Um you we really struggle with this one until we know what our goals were and just going back to even um you know option five. Um you know
when we talk about the normal one is a balanced budget is bringing the balanced budget but knowing the you know what um resources we need to put in and how to pivot. would that be a good progress measure um at that point not knowing if
we can um deliver a balanced budget with six constraints and five goals um that we're monitoring for accountability and then looking at of course where we're at when you add in um employee
effectiveness, retention, recruitment which usually is tied to enhanced compensation as as well. >> Okay. Um I I guess a question I have would it be helpful if we wrote something that said that through the budget allocation process you have to
present the money allocated to our strategic priorities first. >> I mean if we had a constraint like that and that way we're you know you're showing how we're allocating resources to our priorities first and then and then everything else is after would would that be more helpful
>> from a constraint process? Definitely we can definitely bring some that recommended verbiage definitely to see to show the alignment um of the budget to each of those priorities. >> Okay. >> The goals. >> Mhm. >> And thank you for that opening here. And
so just to kind of elevate this and I think this is where it's really helpful and obviously we didn't get into the language last time but budget ones generally become broad because they're about a budget process in general and so inevitably progress measures are generally more broad first rating etc.
What your suggestion elevates there trusty Lynch is actually a very specific action that this board is not okay with. Don't bring us a budget without telling us how it connects to priorities first. that is a lot more clear and gives a superintendent a lot more clarity on okay when we do budget workshops like we
can make sure to align this and show this and so that's what happens when you go from broad to specific so thank you for raising that >> all right um Trusty Phillips followed by trusty Lubanos >> yeah thank you um
yeah my colleagues did a good job on a lot of these um to to Trusties Jack to Trusty Jackson's point a moment ago which I absolutely agree with in the sense of just understanding why we're using percent
versus number. It's kind of like we talking about a moment ago a moment ago. We're talking about actually seeing the number of kids we're talking about when we're talking about these increases or decreases because it helps. It's the same here. Like it always it for me it feels like sometime percentages are just playing
with numbers a lot of times instead of just saying we got four campuses. We're not gonna have four Hampton campus next time. If we had three, we did good. If we got five, we did bad. Like, it don't have to be what percentage of all those things, you know what I mean? So, and I know you wrote that down, Ben, and we're going to But I think that's the heart of
what I know I'm thinking when it comes to that is I just Yeah, >> cuz you did a good job, Ben, when you talked about these constraints being about the value. The value is is that we just don't want >> more. Yes. We don't want to stay where we are, but we definitely don't want more,
right? And so how do we not get more? >> So yeah, verbiage that can help that helps, right? And I and real numbers always cleaner in my opinion than just a percentage per se. Um so that aspect. Um
>> and then to Trusty Dar's point a moment ago as well. Um cuz we're talking about that value. I think in value with with option five when you're talking about the student family engagement because I definitely hear you when you start talking about operational budget
and things of that things of that nature cuz I I don't want this to become a an undue hindrance just because so again back to that value aspect of it like what is our value we talking about here is that we want opportunities for our
young people regardless of campus >> and so yes there will some special circumstances of certain things like we understand right so for instance like I talk about young men's leadership academy had football at one point in time then now they no longer have football not necessarily forwards ISD thing UIL's other stuff things that
came in that but again in I guess to the best of my knowledge about it that's not a superintendent's fault that we don't have football that campus at the moment um so I wouldn't want you to be oh she's not operating within the constraints because of something that happened that had really nothing to do with you know
what we what was really within our control during that time period. So if a young person is going to go to a campus that doesn't have that then then they should have some things that maybe still they still feel like they have plenty of opportunity at their campus that maybe yeah we don't have a debate
club but we do have journalism you know whatever I'm just you know what I mean like but there's these things there to where there's still on every campus a young person can point to and say I can be heavily involved in my school in a club organization athletics fine arts whatever it is to where we don't look
directly a deficit to say, "Oh, you go to Pasco. Yay." "Oh, you go to South Hills, poor, baby." Right? Because because not apples to apples in comparison of what those things may look like. So, I think that's the heart of it. Not and that doesn't help with the language big, but hopefully it does in some way
>> school and the high school. Those are um you know, you have title n protections on top of that. >> And then we have options in place and parameters around our choice campuses that don't have traditional sports. they can go to their home school. I think
what um we struggle with as a internal team is the 80 elementary campuses and you know how do you you do you count Fort Worth after school as that you know would you count that as extracurricular activity but not there's not spaces for
every student to participate in does this mean there's access from prek to five um you know that that is where um you know we're right now we're collecting the baseline what does each
campus have but those are very campus dependent on leadership >> um PTA volunteers or community partners who lean in >> if I may I think because this is what I'm hearing and this is actually just a question that we can get to and this is a question for the board because this
might clarify it for you very quickly does the board feel strongly when you were talking about extracurricular activities for students that that needs to be every prek student needs to have extracurriculars every kindergarten or was it the value really around making sure that middle and high schoolers have a robust set of offerings because those
are the ones that get engaged with it and if that's the case then you can have a lot more specific constraint around middle and high school that's a little bit cleaner as opposed to trying to define it for prek and K as well so I think that's an open question trusty Phillips you have the floor so I'm curious if you had thoughts on that is when you were talking about this
individually did you were you thinking more about middle and high schoolers having a robust set of offerings or were you thinking about everyone prek12 equally >> yeah so I I say thinking about everyone but thinking about everyone in the sense of understanding that there I guess in my estimation there'll be a scale up
process right in the sense of I don't expect Sunrise McMillan to have a football team I do expect Dumbar to have you mean you see what I'm saying like so there's going to be a vast there's going to be much more option the higher up you go as far as things because a lot of
these can be student club studentled u clubs and organizations things of that nature UIL versus these other But I wouldn't also wouldn't want to say that we don't offer anything at our elementary campuses, which that's not the position we're in. We have we offer lots of at our elementary campuses. But I absolutely would think that yeah, the
offering is a little less at 80 elementary campuses and way that participation is going to look, right, versus how it's going to look in middle school versus how it's going to look um in high school. So even just from an athletic standpoint, our young people are going to start playing real
organized athletic UIL sports at seventh grade. as far as basketball and soccer and football and all these things, right? So, I wouldn't say let's hey, you need to have them ready in elementary school for soccer seventh grade when they can't play soccer. I mean, they can, you know, but you know what I mean? Like there's a different expectation
there, I guess. And I guess the scale up is what I'm really thinking about when it comes to opportunity for young folks. And because they're in elementary shouldn't mean they don't have offerings, but when they get to high school, they should have more vast offerings. Right. >> Thank you.
So, and I don't know if anybody else want to chime in on that one before I go to my next one because I know it's an open question. I didn't want to >> We'll continue going around in circles. >> Okay. So, um and then I believe it was said it might have been trusty daughter even said about the def definitions. Um I'm
thinking that same thing when it comes to when it comes to the employee ones cuz we're using verbiage. um highly effective, qualified, like those can be subjective. Um and again, I don't want it to be an undue hindrance. I don't
want to I don't want to hold you to an unreasonable standard of what we might feel like is highly effective or I also don't want it to be just yeah, everybody let go. I let them go cuz they weren't highly effective. It's like, well, somebody was right. You know what I mean? So, how do we really get to truly define if we're going to use that? And
not saying we even have to use that verbiage, but if we're going to use that verbiage for the sake of everyone and fairness, we need to be able to know what is highly effective, what is qualified. So everyone has a same playbook on what that looks like, whether you the employee, a board
member, the superintendent is in HR, what I mean, you know, talent management, whatever it is. So I don't even know if there is a real answer to that yet, but I we definitely need to that language is for me a little too subjective. we should hone in on definitions of what that would look like
if we're going to utilize constraints in that manner. >> Great. >> Um and then the final one I have and then yeah um well final two option six much to Trusty Lynch's point I agree with I think it is
more of a so for me I would say it's just it's just more showing it. I don't even know if that even necessarily has to be some big constraint and again I'm one person on the board we can come to that conclusion as a board. Um but yeah as we're as we're making out the budget I think if you can showcase hey these
things are this is how these things align with our budget. These things don't um that helps us make decisions on what needs to what needs to what we approve when it comes to that budget. And then there will be things that maybe it just really doesn't align with any of the things whatsoever, but we do still
hold value to it and we feel like that's money still well spent or invested in. So, we can make that decision um even within that budget or to go over whatever the case. But I think I think my expectation there is just simply you being able to showcase, hey, these are the things I'm saying we need as a district. These are how these things
align with the budget. If you're doing that, I think that is transparent, that's accountable, that helps us all. I don't know how big of a constraint that aspect needs to be, but I think that's the heart of it for me when I'm looking at that particular one. And then finally, I think that option one and two
um can be grouped together and I think that options three and four can be grouped together in some kind of cohesive language. And so that way we don't have right now if we said yes to everything, we have six. Six is not what we want. We want three to five. Um, I think that we can in some way be able to
offer language that could combine. >> Do you have a preference on one or two and then a preference on three or four? >> We can come back to you. That's an open question. >> If I was picking between one and two, I would pick two. If I was picking between three and four, I would pick four. >> Okay. But I do think that those others
are important and can be incorporated if we do the language appropriately in some way to still encompass those. >> Great. >> And then that will be it for me. >> Thank you, sir. Trusty Lubanos. >> Thank you. Yeah, that was my question.
And if we can uh combine one and two and then combine three and four uh and if I have to choose I'll pick uh four over three and then um two over one. >> All right. Perfect. Thank you, Trusty
Lynch. And then Dr. Ryan, we'll check in and see if you have anything after Trusty Lynch. >> Um Dr. Molar, this goes to really option five. Um, and I'd be curious to get your feedback. I think, and I'm I'm speaking for myself, I think it's it's two things
around this. It's increasing participation for kids, and when I think about it, I do think middle school and high school. Um, and so a constraint around that. Are we doing what we can to continue? Because I I think based on everything I know, that's a indicator
around, you know, kids and student outcomes. And then I think the other piece in public education, it's it's a competitive advantage we have. And so that's kind of really I think the goal around it. Um and maybe some feedback from you on what that might look like. >> Okay,
>> great. >> Thank you, sir. Uh Dr. Ryan, want to check in with you, see if you have any thoughts or um considerations or questions. One would be when we were talking about the uh uh elementary school uh
activities uh that we offered. I just like to go in and go. Uh to me the easiest thing to do especially K through two is have uh a number of 15minute uh just unorganized basically PE times
for the kids to get out there and burn up energy. uh seen it work with Trinity Valley where the kids come back in and they can be more focused in class because they've expended all that energy and they're little kids and they do that and they do it well. Uh the other part goes to
our uh upper level schools. Uh there's some where club sports pick up uh a lot of the work that kids do. We don't have softball in middle schools. we don't do some of those other sports that a lot of times they pick up in clubs or
unfortunately not all of our kids have the ability to go to uh to do some of the club stuff. So, we need to be sure we're looking at that and providing everything that they need. Uh that would be I guess the issues that I had had looked at more than anything else on uh
the for the questions that came up tonight all of which were incredibly good to try to get us on track where we need to be. Thank you, sir. Trusty Martinez. >> Yeah, I'm just want to um echo a little bit what um Trusty Lynch said about the
number five. I will say that was not one of my top priorities, but um if I am looking at it, I am also looking at some of the feedback we got from the strategic plan. Um, and it specifically, you know, states around increasing student participation rates for
athletics, fine arts, and JOTC, which I think that speaks more to the middle schools and high schools. But then it also says increase student participation rates for after school and community partnership programs. So, I guess when I'm looking at that one, I'm
I'm considering what kind of feedback we got from the community and around what they had hoped to see. And so those were very specific um items. And so for me, I think athletics, fine arts, and JRTC kind of speaks to those older grades,
but then after school and community programs might speak to the younger students. Um and then again, I I agree. I think we can combine probably one and two and three and four. >> And if you had to choose between the
language in one and two and the language in three and four, do you have a personal preference? Um I would say um probably number two option number two and then three and four
probably number four. >> All right. >> Yeah. Two and four. >> Thank you. All right. Any anyone else trustees? Trusty Bridges. >> Yeah. Real quick. Uh, with option one, I'm kind of what everyone else of
combining those together. Um, if I had to pick one, I would probably chip pick option um, uh, one more than the other one. And emphasizing on that because in community
conversations, what I hear more people are talking about the grades of the schools that tends to come out more. So, us emphasizing on that, I kind of go back. I think it was uh Trusty Jackson who mentioned the number numbering
instead of the percentages that sticks out sticks out a a little bit more to me. And the last point I is when it comes to the number of years that that sweet spot for me is three again that we
address that. >> Thank you, sir. Trusty Dar. >> Um, just a couple comments. Um, if I had to choose between one and two, I'd pick one. Um, if I had to choose between three and
four, I'd pick four. And my reasoning for that is because the superintendent, we should, in my opinion, we should not be putting I I should not be advocating for um a constraint that the superintendent cannot control.
And um when you create a a constraint or guard rail that says the superintendent will not allow an increase in turnover of highly effective and qualified staff, there are a lot of reasons for turnover that the superintendent doesn't have any control over. Um I left a district when I had a
baby. I'm still really glad I had that baby. Um but that was not something that the superintendent could control. yet the superintendent can control ensuring that there are systems in place to recruit, employ, develop, and retain
highly effective and qualified staff. And then finally, um, as we're talking about, I appreciate the robust robust conversation around extracurricular activities, but I, um, I agree that I,
in my mind, it was, um, primarily middle and high school that we were referring to when we had that conversation. However, that was not specified. So, that was an assumption on my part. >> Yeah, that's exactly why we come back and have this conversation to get a little bit more clarity. Precisely. Yes. >> Superintendent can only operate with the
clarity you provide her. If you don't provide her clarity, you can't expect her to know and read the minds. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments, trustees? All right. What will come next is superintendent and team will take these back, make some uh adjustments based on
the feedback received here. Um clarify some of the progress measures a little bit more based on this. Um, and then I think what you will expect is you'll probably receive that, my guess would be in a written form next time individually to provide feedback on through your normal conversations and then us to talk
about it likely one more time at the November workshop and then you'll be ready for adoption pretty soon thereafter. So again, this is ultimately the board's process. That's just generally the process I see. Um, but of course things may change and that'll be a conversation between superintendent
and the board. So with that, that was by far our longest item. I think now if people would like to take a break might be a good place and then we'll come back and finish up our last three which are two of them are very short and one of them will take us as long as people want to talk about it. [Music]
Hey, [Music] hey, hey.
[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Dancing [Music] bouncy fancy bouncy bouncy bouncy bouncy bunny.
[Music]
Hey, hey, hey.
[Music]
Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music]
The board recess at 6:49 and reconvene with corum present at 7:51 p.m. And we'll turn this over to back to Ben. >> We have two very short items. The first one we are posted for is superintendent
evaluation review process. Um by law school boards must evaluate their superintendents annually. I believe that's also in your contract. We are not here to talk about um Dr. Molinar's evaluation etc. Um what we are here to determine is I know this board now that
you're going to set priorities and work on this. a good idea for the board to relook at how it evaluates the superintendency regardless of who is in that position. What do we how do we go through that process and define that? Um
it's always very hard to do because you always have a superintendent in the seat and you're trying to figure that out. That's we're not even talk about that. We're going to talk about what high level does the board want the superintendent evaluation to look like going forward. The question tonight is how do we want to do that work? Boards
have two options. they can say, "We would like to spend some time digging into that at a future workshop." Then cool, that's all we need to know. Or would the board prefer to have that um have a smaller group work through that as a committee and then bring a recommendation to the board. So when I
talked to President Martinez about that, she said, "Let's ask the board that question." So that is the question to the board. Do we feel like this is something that everyone wants to spend some time on and do it together or would you all like a smaller committee to do it and make a recommendation for the board to discuss? the board will still
own this as a collective. That's an open question. Trusty Lynch, >> I would recommend that we form a smaller committee to come up with a process and then present it to the board for discussion. >> All right. Thank you, Trusty Lynch. Trusty Phillips,
>> I adise the exact opposite. >> All right. This is why >> No. And there's no I don't think there is a bad answer. I'm not opposed to a small group at all. Um, I do like that in this in this iteration that we're in right now, we are doing some really good total board work with one another,
hearing each other out and being able to get rationale and things like that. I would love to see that process continue towards us having a um a measurement point that we all can buy into, be proud of, and stamp together. So, >> sounds great. And this exactly what we're doing. We're looking for all this.
Ultimately, we're not even going to make a decision. President Martinez will make the decision based on what she hears tonight, but we're just having this conversation. So, thank you for that, Trusty Dar. >> Um, I concur with Trusty Lynch that I would like to see a small group, >> okay? >> Work on that, but then bring it to the group for a larger discussion.
>> Yeah. And to be clear, no matter what, committees have to bring it to the board. The board has a full discussion. It's just a question about who wants to do all the work first. Is it everyone together or the small committee? So, thank you for that. >> Thank you for that clarification, >> Trusty Lumos. >> I agree with I agree with Trusty Dar and
Trusty Lynch on forming a small committee. Okay, thank you. Anyone else have any thoughts or feedback? Trusty Burgess >> and how would that work in the small committee first? >> So, usually what happens and you all can
decide how to do this is usually what I see if a board determines we're going to do it to a small committee then usually president identifies who is going to be on that committee. Usually they say who wants to be on that committee and people raise their hand. There's no um minimum size. You could have more than a quorum
on that committee if people are interested. You just have to post it as a public meeting in that instance and that group shows up. Um, but that committee would then I would work with that group. It would just be a smaller group as opposed to all nine of us up here talking through it and going back and forth. I'd work with that group. They put together a recommendation and
then they would come back to this workshop and present their recommendation to the workshop at which point the board would take ownership of it and decide what adjustments they wanted to make, what things they wanted to keep, what things they wanted to change. I I'd personally rather see the whole
group kind of have the discussion. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else have any strong feelings? All right. Seeing none, um, President Martinez will think on it and then you can make a determination based on how you move
forward there. We will now move on to the Lonear Governance self assessment. Um, thank you to everybody for engaging and putting together your self assessments um, for where Fort Worth ISD is currently. And so we have this up. This is just a culmination of everything
that you all did individually um, to kind of put together where we're at. Uh, I took the everyone is essentially in the same places on your self assessments. So when we looked at it, mainly because we don't have goals and priorities, we're at a zero on most of
these, but we can very quickly move forward. And so where folks landed on was moving actually from a zero. If you scroll down just slightly on the screen so we can see just one lower level. Oh, one more. Sorry. Here we go. From a
a little bit more uh from a zero to a 57, I believe total next quarter. So what will happen I mean that's a lot of growth but it's actually very feasible especially as you all crystallize your goals and guardrails
and land on that. Um so what's going to happen is this will be placed on your night meeting agenda because the board should adopt this each time say that's where we are that's where we're going. Um and then we will redo this process. This process will go in public in the future. You all will send it to me. I
will put this out here and then we will have a discussion about it collectively as before the board adopts it going forward. But given that um everyone was in agreeance with where we're at currently um I wanted to have an open conversation if folks wanted to share any feedback etc. Again this came from
the Lonear governance manual and all of those different um integrity instruments. So with that let me pause and see if anyone has questions or thoughts or feedback. Trusty Dar. >> Yes. Please remind me when the quarter began. Is it did it start in September?
Does it start tonight? >> Uh it is October, November, December. It goes with the quarters of the year. So this one was based on what the board did. July, August, September. So the next quarter is September, October, November. >> September, October, November.
>> October, November, December. My apologies. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. So we will do this in January. All right. Oh, Trusty Phillips. Yes. >> Yes, sir. And so, um, you spoke a little
bit about it a little bit, but the the road mapping towards hitting this like how do we how do we deliberately outline those? I know they are deliberately outlined, but I'm saying as far as solidify for us in front of us, having the conversation
about we literally have to do this to this in order to be able to achieve >> that number. How do we have that conversation? Keep that at the forefront. What does that look like for us to be able to do that? >> So, two things. So, that's the entire purpose of the self-evaluation. While we already did a lot of work because you
all sent me your individual and we had this conversation um individually and this is kind of the summary. We're at zero. So, there's not a lot of discussion to be had. What will happen going forward is in January there's the rubric that kind of shows in Telegraph what the steps are to move at each one. Anyone can see it online at
the LSG instrument if you Google that. Um, so what it will look like next time is each individual trustee will do their own assessment in advance, send it to me. I will summarize it and we will show back up at the meeting or the workshop, whenever it happens to be, and we will actually talk about, all right, here's
where the trustees all agreed or didn't agree. Let's have a conversation about why we agreed, why we're there, and what are we deciding to do next. And so that will be a public conversation that we will have, and it will telegraph what happens next. I can tell you based on the implementation plan that this board already adopted which I think that was
last month doing those things are leading it to there monitoring progress towards our goals. Um looking at our operating procedures which we will do next uh thinking about how we do ongoing community engagement which we'll talk about tonight as part of the operating procedures. All of those ladder up into
this document but essentially there will be time and space every quarter for the board to look at that reflect and plan out what it's going to focus on in the next quarter. Got you. And no, absolutely. And that makes perfect sense. So for and so for that January process to be able to just hey, either we were able to hit these marks or we're
not based on what we did. I guess I'm talking about that interim. There's a there's an intentionality we have to have between trusty doll's point now and December >> uh of things that we have to get done in order to be able to in January be able
to say, "Hey, look, have we hit all of our measures? How do we do >> you're saying what are the next things?" >> Yeah. like how do and how do we keep those at the forefront? How do we check the boxes? Not just for checking the box sake, but for the accountability sake that we don't come in B. I don't want us to come in January
>> and have a conversation like, oh yeah, we didn't hit that that that but it was because we didn't >> Yep. >> actively look at those things that would have helped us hit those markers. >> So the specific things that you all identified were we got to adopt our goals and guard rails. >> Y >> number two is we got to monitor them.
Once we adopt them, we're going to start spending time looking at our third graders reading, our extracurricular activities at where we want them to be, etc. So, spending time monitoring them and then reviewing both the superintendent evaluation and the board operating procedures, both of which we just started the process on tonight. So,
those are the four big steps in this next quarter that the board will focus on. And I will say, I think the board has been pretty intently focused over the last quarter with these workshops, moving the needle, talking about goals and guardrails. you can already this is
um for this quarter you've already spent a good I think we spent two hours talking about goals and guardrails >> that's going to go a long way in this next evaluation so I think it's just that continued intentionality that you all have already brought >> appreciate that thank you man
>> all right any other comments here we will move on to our last item of the night which is board operating procedures um I think we will pull up the general board oper operating procedures. I believe you all have a printed copy.
Everybody was sent this in advance. Uh thank you to folks who read it, responded, flagged some things. The way we will again this is just the beginning. Let me show telegraph the whole process. I made comments on your board operating procedures which
candidly from when I look at board operating procedures around the state are actually some of the more advanced board operating procedures. So kudos to you all for actually developing some pretty thoughtful board operating procedures here. I made comments on areas that I personally based on what I have seen. Uh the board I think the board should
consider as a way that I have seen work out more for focusing on keeping the main thing the main thing. Um and I'll what we'll do is we'll kind of go through I will at a high level I'll tell you which page we're on. I'll run through my comments briefly and then we
will have a conversation and I would love to hear you know I don't believe in that. I think we should do this instead or that makes sense to me. We should carry on with that. I'm going to be taking notes. This is just a conversation for me to kind of get a sense of where the board is at. What I will do with this, there's three big
conversations we'll have. One around committees, one around community engagement, and one around board preparation and agenda setting. So, those we'll have a little bit deeper conversation on, but they're also already flagged in here. I'm going to be taking a bunch of notes, kind of hearing where people are at and trying to do my best to understand where I think the
general sentiment of the board is. We're not trying to get to everyone agree that this is exactly the language you should write you next. What I will then do is take this and actually redline this document with those changes and then turn it back to the board as a starting
place for your policy. At which point now you will own those changes. And so you could say, "Nah, I you know, I really didn't like this one that Ben put in here because he thought he heard a general consensus in this direction." Great. That's on you alls to own at that point. Uh, and then this will move through your regular policy adoption
process. But this is even pre to when you receive the policy to what you do. So that's kind of high level and how we'll go from this. So I'm just going to be asking questions, trying to get clarity. I love all the feedback that you all have on these things as we go forward. Any questions before we begin?
All right. Um, and then periodically, Dr. Ryan, I will turn to you and see if you have any thoughts that you want to chime in at. uh if not you can just shake your head because I can see you or you can come off mute at that time. We will start the first comments uh that
actually there's a lot of intro pages etc. We're going to start on page 10. So on page 10 is one of our big conversations which is around how agendas are created um agenda inquiry and response process and the strategic framework.
The three comments I made here and the questions that I will open up for is currently um the first one is around how to make sure that where the board spends time the board as a collective intends to spend that time. Uh currently your
board operating procedures allow for anyone to determine something to come off consent and become an action item that we talk about um however we choose to. with a nine-member board uh that not for any bad reasons, but oftentimes that
if I'm personally very passionate about something that I want to bring off and discuss at a public forum, it gives me the ability to monopolize the board's time individually when the board might already be understanding what it wants to do with this. It's not to say that I shouldn't
be able to get information about this or have this conversation. It is just simply saying that if something is important enough to take the board's time that it is my recommendation that you add a higher threshold in which to bring something from consent to action
item to talk about. Uh two or three I think is meaningful for a nine member board and my general thinking about this and how I've seen boards operate is if I can't get one out of the other eight people on this board to want to talk about something the board probably doesn't need to spend a lot of time
talking about it. So, that would be my recommendation is to consider raising that threshold uh to two or three um to allow it to when those conversations happen, they're going to be much more in-depth because two or three board members are are saying that versus one board member. So, that's one
consideration. The second big consideration for this board to consider is the timeline for which to receive information, to share questions, to get responses, etc. You have this noted in here that essentially
board members access board book um and then they have uh they can trustees can submit 4-day period to submit questions and then they'll receive answers but it is generally pretty vague. My recommendation would be to make this as
specific as possible on a couple fronts. The first is when should board members receive all the information and materials? This requires change. It won't happen overnight. Um, but this is an open question. How long does it usually I mean, if your board books are
anything like the board books I see, they're long. There's a lot of stuff in there. And so sometimes it's not feasible to get information and have responses within a day on a thousand pages of documents that you're having to sort through. So what what makes sense to have those materials? Is it 7 days? Is it 10 days in advance? Specify that
whatever this length should be, knowing that it might take some time to build to that. And then the commensurate if we're asking the administration to do this work in advance about getting this information to us then we also must be diligent in reviewing that in a timeline and submitting questions in advance to
get answers in advance. So what does this timeline look like? When should we receive the materials? When should we ask questions by? Should we get those answers in advance? should they be posted to the website to the to our agenda to people know that you know oftentimes what I see is the only avenue
to ask questions and people understand what we're asking is a public meeting and so we spend a lot of time asking questions that I already know the answer to or putting the administration on the spot instead of actually showing we did a lot of this work already we asked questions we got responses for the administration it's there and available I have what I need to make a vote and
it's not an abdication of duty so I would have an open question around this around what timeline makes the most sense and try to be as specific as possible. The last feedback here was a short one which is you have a board adopted strategic framework that talks about these core beliefs. My
recommendation is once you adopt your priorities, you should replace these with your priorities because that's what you're saying is most important. So, uh the two big questions on the table is what's the limit or how many trustees should it take to remove
something to consent? It's currently one. Should it be more? and two, what is the timeline by which board members should receive information about the agenda, ask questions, get responses, etc. So, with that, I will open the floor for questions for any thoughts and trusty Lynch, we'll start with you.
>> Um, I guess just comments for the first one. I think I think three is a reasonable number. Um, and then on the second one, I guess Dr. Monarch, I guess first and foremost, I know there's some state law requirements around things now that have changed and then what's a
reasonable amount of time um to have materials ready that we then can be better. In my mind, I'm thinking if we do have materials 10 days prior, which is I guess the Friday, you know, two Fridays prior, it gives everybody two
weekends and a full week to review that. I think that's a reasonable amount of time for everybody to have questions to you all ahead of time, but I I' I'd like your feedback. >> Uh just for clarification, are we talking board book or board reports or
both? >> So, um to me, a lot of the material doesn't always come, you know, ahead of time for us to ask questions. So the board book we like example is u
on Thursday we have final agenda review um if there's anything that has to be added um it's usually like a final contract that hasn't been passed through legal or data sharing agreement but everything else is you know ready to
post. So that would put us within that requested 10day um period. um board reports. Um you're going to get a draft for October 28th for um our CCMR and fine arts. So I've already asked them to
expedite those. Um you know, sometimes it's just because the data, we're still pulling the data and now as we when we do the board monitoring calendar and we look at which goals will be presented, we'll have to align those with the assessment calendar as well. Um, so
sometimes those are a little bit more difficult because we're making those updates. Um, but I mean we can we can go for the the 10 days, but it really is going to be dependent on when the board or when the assessment calendar window
closes and we can pull that data because I hate to wait another >> 6 weeks for a board meeting just because we weren't within a 10day period if that makes sense. But um I I actually um read
through the board book today um in anticipation of Thursday and like right now we should be ready to go. Um but we don't really get many questions ahead of time with the board book. >> Yeah. >> And Okay. >> And what I would note is there will
always be some things that happen late that have to be on or emergency or whatnot. What I think usually I see boards do is say this is our standard process. if something has to be added late for whatever reason, it doesn't go on consent. Like it's just an action item that we talk about because people didn't get a chance to ask questions,
etc. Um, and then what I would say is if a board wants to lengthen the time that it has to review it, it should also be equally written that the board it is incumbent on the board to ask questions in advance as opposed to waiting for the meeting. Um, it's not fair to hold your superintendent to getting things early
if I am not going to hold myself accountable to getting questions in advance. That's the purpose of it. So that's just a general coaching thought I would have here. >> All right. Thank you, Trusty Lynch. Um I saw Trusty Dar next.
>> Um thank you. So for the um the first comment on page 10, um I think there's two different things that at play here. One is two to three board members to remove something from the consent agenda to the action agenda. The other one
that's specifically mentioned in this paragraph is um actually adding something to the agenda initially um to request that a subject be included on the agenda for a meeting. Um I concur with Trusty Lynch that three
is a a good number especially on a board made up of nine members. Um, and then while we're being specific, if if we're being specific with the staff to get us the agenda by
the Friday. So, what would that be? 10 day is that 10 days in advance? 11 days in advance. >> Um, 10 days in advance. Then we will in writing put in writing that we will submit questions by
a certain time as well to ensure that the staff has time to answer those um and and get the because now the agenda has to be posted by Wednesday not Thursday anymore. And so, um, per the
new law. And so, we that that really, um, that's a pretty short turnaround for the staff. >> Usually what I see happen, and again, this is the board to determine, is something like, okay, if it's going to be posted on a Friday, then the board commits to reading and asking questions
by Wednesday afternoon, even though you'll still post the agenda. And then the superintendent has time either through usually Friday. I hear I see a lot of board reports go out on Friday. So, superintendent commits to any questions that are asked about agenda items. We'll have a written response
that'll go out to all trustees in the board report on Friday and then we will add it as an amendment attachment to our board book so people can see that trustes were asking a lot of questions and here's here's our responses. That's usually what I see around this but boards can choose. Sometimes they say
it's before the meeting it gets sent out or superintendent when they introduce an item or talk about it they kind of overview it. So, I see different things like that. >> Okay. Well, and I know that uh many of us have full-time jobs on this board. So, receiving information on Monday or
Tuesday afternoon before a board meeting is not real conducive to me being able to review it and think about it since I am at my job at that time and unable to review it. So, just some of those parameters um are helpful. I agree with you. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Trusty D. Trusty Phillips. Uh thank you for the first one. Um concur with Trusty L Trusty Lynch as well as Trusty Dar about the three um for consent to action and like Trusty
Dar said as well um as far as additions to the agenda. Um and then on that next one I guess Ben I guess what I'm hearing you say as far as I know you didn't suggest you saying what you've seen. Um, so we're looking at getting the agenda
on f on a Friday, having until the following Wednesday in order to be able to submit questions and then being able to receive answers to those questions by that by that Friday and then the
meeting being that Tuesday. that the time I'm kind of hearing as far as what that could look like. >> That is what I'm hearing. Yes. >> Yeah. And um Dr. Molinar, when you hear that, pros, cons, thoughts, questions,
>> um I just want to make sure legally that we can add the questions to the posted agenda after the um within after that window. um that legally we would not be considered messing with a posted agenda even though we're adding a addendum.
>> Yep. For sure. >> I'm not legal counsel so >> Okay. >> Go back to your seat. >> Back to your originally assigned seat, please. >> Glad she's going over to do that. I would say the other the other aspect is
I think that is different for for the I guess like the superintendent report and things like that then because you're going to present that the board mean we're going to have dialogue about know if there's any questions that's different than thing than voting items uh cuz those that's moreformational that's more update that's more getting
to be able to be more cognitive about what's going on have dialogue and that's different than something we got to legitimately vote in action of some sort. So anyway, >> yes, >> I think that we're always cautious about making any changes to the posted agenda. Um mainly because the of the
transparency for the public. um we wouldn't want now this is not a legal implication but it is an implication of concern that we have seen in the past
where things may have been revised and changed even within the window of time um and the public asks questions about the changes or make comments in social media about changes so Our
advice is always conservative in the sense of once your agenda is posted, it's probably best to leave it as is. Um, and certainly you can always um add information separately, but not I
wouldn't recommend that be in the posted agenda. I know at times that we've seen that there was maybe an error, whether it was a um a typographical error. Sometimes the wrong information is provided but there's a sufficient
information on the posted agenda to overcome that concern. Um but even with those situations there's always explanation that has to come with it. So certainly up to the board if that's what they want. Just comes with conversations
that have to happen and sometimes the public will question not only the item that was changed but other items because of that. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Well and that had to make sense to you too. But I think it's when we're talking about questions from the agenda.
I mean that's just more like any questions they ask is just about clarification. is not necessarily going to change the agenda items or in there unless we just unless the question is pointing out typo or error or wording I guess or >> Well, are you talking about actually posting those questions?
Yes, but I don't know if there's a different way to do so other than >> that's why I'm saying perhaps if it's not part it would have to >> my recommendation would be that it not be part of the actual posted agenda if you're past the window especially now with the window
>> being >> um a little more challenging at times. So something something along the lines of like premeating board questions being kind of its own document that can be publicized in that way. And I'm kind of looking at you being angry. I'm
looking at a bunch of people. But anyway, I don't know if that's kind of the thing we're talking about there. >> I think that's a conversation with uh Dr. Molor. >> Mhm. >> Okay. You better not. >> I'll just say I've seen again, you all have to make the decision that makes the
most sense for you. I'm just a coach. Um I've seen boards do this a lot of different ways. I've seen them just post YouTube videos explaining all the questions. That might be a lot of work if that's what you want to do, but I've seen that. Um I've seen them post it on their like you have a board meeting website that tells you all the information about this. It has a
calendar your board meetings. You could have a link that says for the October meeting here was all the questions that were asked in the responses. it's not actually amended to the agenda. Though I have seen boards and I see um it's actually the most common that I see is
generally if they say a report about some sort of student achievement outcome. I don't I don't see every district have all of the reports that are going to be presented a like added to the agenda until the day before. Like I see them add amendments and
attachments to things. So, you know, it's an option and it's a choice that this board will make. >> Yeah. So, I mean, I guess kind of back to that value question, it's about how do how do we
how do we legitimately have the opportunity beforehand to be able to get the information that's needed. um curtailing something, curtailing grandstanding or looking important or whatever that may be that we we just want to ask a whole bunch of questions at the board meeting. So that we're asking questions and like when we really
could find that information out earlier if we're if we're doing the homework well, right? And then how but in order to be able to do that, we do have to have the information in a timely manner. And what does that look like in a reasonable manner for you all? Because it's also not fair to be like we want
all this information, get it to us by tomorrow. like that's you know what I mean? So it's like it really is trying to strike that balance of what is what is reasonable in this sense for both things, right? And so yeah, all ears. >> I think my my only concern from the
legal aspect is the way that the the agenda is built right now with the questions embedded in the agenda. That's the change that I think could be concerning if then questions are added. If there if there's another way that uh
Dr. Molinar and her team could work with the board, but in the current state of the agenda, I would not recommend that anything be added >> after the posting. >> Okay. So, I'm saying so you're you're saying that the >> the way the way they're currently in is
good or not? >> No, the the way that they're currently in is good as long as when it's posted it doesn't change. >> Right. Right. >> Right. And are we not? So with that being the case, do we already have the sufficient time for that mechanism? So I
and that's maybe Trusty Dar, you do a really good job of asking a questions beforehand in that manner. >> Is that a is that strenuous for you to be able to do it the manner you do or is that a good time that we have it in order to be able to pull and I only ask you because I say you really do a good
job of that. So >> thank you. Um, you know, I I've what help if I can't get to it on Sunday afternoon, it often doesn't happen. >> Yeah. >> And sometimes life gets in the way. But,
um, I've tried to make it a habit that on the weekends that I know that that we're going to get an agenda that I spend Sunday afternoon reviewing the board book and asking questions. Um, and if if I don't do it that way, then then work gets in the way and all the
things because I got to do that job, too. So, >> right. And so, right now, that's what receiving it on Friday and doing that by Sunday. Basically, that's kind of the >> Well, but we all have different schedules and different lives and different ways of doing that. So,
>> it sounds like there's some opportunities here. Rather than try to dive in, we can make this general about the timeline and you all can discuss what you believe is the best way. This will be the first of many times that you will see this policy before you make a determination so they can get back to
you with other specific thoughts the next time around. >> Anything else, Jesse Phillips? >> No. >> Thank you. We will go to Dr. Ryan followed by Dr. Rodriguez.
>> Go ahead, Dr. Ryan >> for me. Okay, we've gone through the number of votes it would take to get things on from consent agenda to action item. Uh I've got one concern and that's
I trust all of the nine people that I have to work with on this board. They're great people that have great ideas. They have to talk to their constituency. they might come back and as long as any one of them wants to add something to the agenda
uh before the agenda review because it's important to uh what they think needs to happen. I value their opinion and I want to if it's something that Q wants on the agenda, then I'm going to be for it and I shouldn't have to go to anybody else
to get those ideas put on the agenda. Uh I think we can do it with just one person. Now if you want to sit there and change it from uh consent to action item agenda, I'm going to do it with two or three. But uh if people have asked me, I
what are we doing about so- and so? I want this on the agenda. Can we look at soand so? Uh if any one of my colleagues brought it up, I want to look at this. that I'm going to sit there and be with them and they shouldn't have to be going out to farm out to try to get consensus
from two or three other people. I trust them enough to make the right judgments because they were elected to do this and they've always done the right thing on this board. >> Thank you, Sarah. >> Um, Dr. Rodriguez.
Yeah, I like the idea of having three people. This was brought up from the policy committee a couple of years ago and it was uh voted down. So, I liked uh having three people to request something added to the agenda,
but having needing three people to move something from consent to action, I disagree with cuz there are some items that I want to vote against and it doesn't necessarily mean need a conversation,
but I just want to vote against it. So, >> Gotcha. and and I don't want to vote against the entire consent agenda just for one item. >> Yeah, that makes total sense. Um, and I've seen boards do that where they might have if you want to have a
discussion about it, you need one or two other people to join you to have a discussion, but that individual trustees can pull anything for just the sole reason to vote against it. So, you don't have to vote against the consent. One one consideration um that I have
seen other boards do is uh when someone wants to take something from consent to action that they actually make a motion to take an item off because then if it's not seconded and voted to move to
action. That's where you can have other members consider whether or not they want that to happen and you can take the action to move move it to action and then if it's second and it gets voted to pass then it happens. If it doesn't then
it stays on consent. >> And that's a excellent point. My my recommendation, I neglected to write this in here, would be that the board sets the timeline to do this before the meeting, a night before you and another
or a second or a third have to ask something off. So, you're not responding in the moment. Um, but actually have done the reading, have looked at it, asked your questions, you got responses, you still weren't settled, you pulled, now you find another person to bring it off the agenda item with you. It would
be my recommendation actually set that before the meeting so you're not at the last minute putting people on the spot to try to if you don't pull this autumn off of me with me then I'm going to make a big deal about etc. Not to say that would happen but I've seen it happen at a lot of boards. So that would be my
recommendation is actually you pull these before the meeting gets posted even or you set a timeline in which it must be received by Friday night and then those items get pulled off etc. So with that, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to the heart of what you're saying, even with that
process, if there's still if you so I don't get the requisite people in order to allow me to move it, but I don't want to vote for that particular item now. Like this that item is still there on consent. I don't want to vote for it. Um, but it didn't get
enough support to be able to do so. What does one do in that scenario now >> with what uh Dr. Rodriguez just shared what it would look like based on what I've heard would be, okay, there's this item that I'm concerned about and I either want to talk about it at the meeting or I just want to vote against it. If I want to talk about I need to go
get two other people to say yes, that's let's talk about it. Let's pull something off and then it becomes an action item and now there's a full discussion about it before there's a vote. But if I've decided I just want to vote against it or I can't get the other people to talk about it, I can
individually still say this one needs to be separate for a vote and there won't be a discussion about it. But I can it this one is going to be voted on separately and people can vote for or against it so it doesn't get wrapped up in the rest of the consent agenda. >> If one wants to vote against they because the discussion part is already
embedded because even the consent agenda says there any questions or discussion so we can discuss anything on the consent agenda as well already. So that the discussion part is not a problem. But if we don't get to the number per se and yet still want to vote against that item, then it can be pulled for the sake
of voting against that item. Like it has to be an actual thing that we're saying in order for that action to occur because without that then it stays on, I guess. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you, Trusty Phillips. Any other
questions, thoughts here? And again, this is just the beginning. I'm going to put this into a redline document and then it will be yours to change, edit, change, delete, do whatever you want with. All right, that was one of our three big topics. Now, we'll move on to a couple shorter ones. Uh we're next on page 12.
This one talks about board self-evaluation and the superintendent evaluation. So, you actually do have language in here that you do quarterly lonear governance uh progress review, which we just talked about. My recommendation here now that you know we've talked about restarting this
process would be simply to trusty Darf's point earlier is to note which quarters are what. We'll do this in October, January, April and July so you know exactly when it'll be on the agenda. So that would be one recommendation is just to specify that so there's no question
about it. It's known. It can go on the agenda. And then the superintendent's evaluation. My um only note here actually doesn't really need much discussion because as we talked about you all are setting we'll decide whether to do a committee or do a full board to talk about what the superintendent's
evaluation is. Once you do that I would recommend of course aligning this language. So if anyone does have a comment or question there be happy to open it up but those are both TBD. All right seeing none we will move on.
Just a quick note on number 13. This is your current um board monitoring calendar. So the only note here was to once you adopt your new goals and guard rails and those progress measures is to actually update
this calendar at that time. And I know I think a couple trustes reached out to me individually about this and noted it would also be helpful to have some of those other things that come back. If we have budget adoption at the same time every year, let's put that on what month it is. If we have trainings we have to do, add those things. What are those
things that come up every year so people can know in advance? So, I don't know if anyone had any other thoughts about monitoring calendar, but that was the other note here. Trusty Dar, I really liked the sample that's in the Lonear governance manual
on page 37. It doesn't mean we need to do exactly that, but I um it it really for one, we had a lot of different a lot of pieces of information all in one place. And that makes it easier for the board to
keep up with. It makes it easier for the community to participate um and to follow or to to comment to share information with us so that we can represent them. Um, but I would like to see that calendar expanded
or the calendar we have now expanded. >> Great. All right. Thank you for that. We'll move on to item 14, page 14, sorry. All right. So, this is kind of continuing the conversations uh we just had around uh
consent and board member conduct etc. So the three notes here was number one is to minimize for subjectivity as opposed to consent agenda. So right now what this is it kind of leaves it open to the board president to determine any that
should qualify for consent versus qualify for action. Um and so typically when that happens is people can interpret things different ways and be like well I don't think that should have been on consent president I think that should have been on action and vice versa. So, it's my recommendation, especially if the board receives the
materials 10 days in advance that we're talking about. It's my recommendation that you should just start everything on consent and then through your process pull off items that you want to spend time talking about. It takes the subjectivity out of the board president's hand to
determine what that is. people get it in 10 days in advance and then they will have these conversations, decide what they need to pull just to vote against or they want to have a larger conversation about it, they will pull them off in advance. Um, the one caveat I would add to that that I see is if something has to get added as an
emergency that materials are not ready 10 days in advance, that's okay. That might have to happen in which case it doesn't go on consent. It automatically goes to action item and we'll discuss it because we did not have materials in advance. So that is um
the first and second consideration dots that I made. The third one is around um you know you all have conversation and are able to talk about these items. Uh you're the only board that I am aware of that doesn't place any sort of time constraints on discussion for either
board members individually or the board as a collective. So considering placing some amount of time limits to at least ensure that a conversation is had across the entire board. So what I see is something like each trustee will have three, five or 10 minutes to talk and then we'll start the second round. But
you can't go on for 30 minutes before we go to somebody else. Like setting some time so everyone has to go through once and then we start it again the second time. It allows for a different type of discussion. Uh I also see some boards say we're only going to do one round of that or we'll do two rounds of that or three or something like that just so you
have a parameters around that to make sure that people are actually having a discussion back and forth as opposed to all saying their piece and then somebody else says their piece. So those are the two options to talk about there. With that I will open it up for conversation on either of those or anything else here.
>> Jesse Lynch. Um, I I I like the idea around time limits um for people to kind of get their point across and then move on and allow people to participate. >> Do you have a thought on what's a reasonable time limit? >> I think I think two minutes is
reasonable, but it doesn't have to just be one round, but I think two two minutes is reasonable. >> All right. Thank you, >> Jesse Dar. >> Just a question around this. Um, often the the comments or the the the
time involved also involves a response. So, how does that how does that work? >> I've seen boards do it many different ways. I think you all can decide. I've seen some that says it's 2 minutes, but if I ask a question and it pauses and superintendent responds, it doesn't count against two minutes. That requires
a lot of timekeeping. um if that's something you wish to do. I've also seen some lengthen it and include answers and responses in which case you might say five or 7 minutes includes answers and responses. In that case you instance you see trustes saying okay you've answered my question or like clarifying their
question to speed it up but I think board can decide how they want to go with that. >> Well I'm open I'm certainly open to considering this as an option. Um, I'm I'm not exactly sure. I'm percolating on
on on what that should look like and it certainly isn't up to me, but um it I think there's a variety of ways to do this to maintain focus in a meeting. Um, so I would love to see some some options possibly. Sure. For that.
>> Yeah, I can write it so it has a couple different air like a blanks with a couple different options and you all can think about it. Jesse Phillips. >> Uh yeah. Um yeah, I'm not sure about this one in the sense of time limit. Um I definitely
understand I can understand that being the case. Um I will say in my experience with this board, um I don't feel like I wanted to limit a colleague in their questioning or their response at that
time. Um I because I think mine is more about are you at least on topic. Are we talking about the thing we're supposed to be talking about? Now if you Yeah. If you filibustering about something that has nothing to do with the actual thing we're talking about is a whole different thing. But I haven't really experienced that here. Usually the questions are pointed toward what the item actually is
and we're getting further information and clarification and um really seeking something out there. So I wouldn't want to limit a colleague. um it's almost was like this is um a solution in search of a problem when I don't know if there's a problem with that in this particular iteration but I also understand the
aspect of I'm not thinking about it in the sense of just solely this board I mean because when we talking about these things I mean these things will and again other boards will be able to come and do more you know I mean to update and all that kind of stuff but yeah I don't know if I want yeah I don't know
if I want that limit place timewise on being when it's topical and is actually on the subject. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Uh and I think it that's a great segue. Let me just share why because I I know a lot of this feels and then we'll go to you Dr. Ryan, you'll be
next. Um the recommendation here is so often what I see is boards spending a lot of time sometimes it is truly because we're trying to understand one another's perspective and make a decision on which way we're going to vote. That's a I would say one of the
better reasons I've seen for longer discussions. Um, but oftentimes what I also see is boards asking questions to make a point for the public. In which case I actually say there are far better ways to communicate with your public than talking about it in this room with
our community that is here. Um, and I think everybody while we all and I'm guilty of it as my own as a board member saying like I'm asking this question for the community, the reality I would be much better off actually just going and communicating that to my community instead of asking it here and assuming they will hear it. And so I really push
boards and we will actually talk about community engagement as part of this is like how do we actively communicate with our community because board meetings are not the best way and venue to do that very often. So I think that's part of the reasoning for placing these restrictions so we can focus the time
that we need here and actually make a decision as a board rather than spend time spinning our wheels if that's the case. Um, and then how do we also create some of these other things where how do we create more question and answer beforehand so we don't have to spend as much time trying to understand it here? Because inevitably what will happen on
your superintendent and team is superintendents want to be responsive. But often times when the conversations only happen here and we haven't done the pre-work to ask questions in advance, they get put on the spot, have to spend a whole lot of time trying to get not as great answers because they haven't been able to prepare for it. If they get your
questions in advance, they can answer them in advance and then this conversation can happen is way more advanced than it is asking for the first time here. So the goal is to kind of frontload individual trustees getting the information they need. And I personally believe trustees should get all the information they need. And don't mis don't miscommunicate the fact that
I'm saying that board members shouldn't get information at a board meeting. I'm just saying board meeting isn't the best time to get that. it's actually well in advance to show up prepared and ready to go and make your point and then determine where your board is at and then see where the board lands. So that's part of the reasoning for why I'm
explaining that because when it comes here, there's a whole lot of other question marks that administration they there's no way they could have prepared a million different ways. And I think the more clear they are about what the board's questions are in advance, the less time they have to spend away from classrooms and away from students trying
to figure that out in advance because they know what the board, you know, okay, I know the board has two different thoughts on this. We're going to be prepared to share both sides. We can be ready for that as opposed to showing up things get pulled off the agenda. Now I'm trying to find what answers are, etc. So that's some of the reasoning
behind the recommendation um in that. So >> completely on board with that reasoning. Yeah, thank you very much for that. Yeah, I can sign up for that. Absolutely. >> Um Dr. Ryan >> understand where we're trying to go with conversations,
but I I'd rather go in rounds and uh have some time and let each board member have to say what they need to say. Uh, I've learned an incredible amount just sitting next to to Q and his passion for what he believes in. Uh, and if you've
never had to sit there and and listen to what uh, Trusty Dat say, she's the most arerodite person that I know on this board and can carry on incredible conversations that help me understand. Uh, it would be nice to do it outside of that, but like I said, she's got jobs
that she's doing. I'm doing jobs. Uh there's time that we have to be involved in things other than that and this is a good time to get some of that information. So I again it's valuing everybody's opinion that's on this board. >> Thank you. So what I'm noting for that
is uh an idea of having the rounds so we can hear multiple people go um but making sure we can have enough time sufficient time to be able to hear those opinions truly. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts here? All right, moving on to 16.
Uh, two comments here. Um, one is you have a general, uh, bucket of ethics and expectations of board member standards of behavior. These seem pretty broad. My recommendation here would be to actually
take what's in your BBFA local um, regarding conflicts of interest and actually bullet point them out cleanly. So anyone that gets this, you actually have a lot of good stuff in there already. Um, knows that here's when trustees recruits themselves, if they have, you know, if they receive funding
from this vendor, etc. All the conflict of interest, like actually bullet point those things out in here just to be super clear. The one item that I did not note is uh around there's definitely conflict of interest around if you receive compensation as an individual.
Uh, one thing you might want to consider is also recusing yourselves if you received a campaign donation by a someone with business before the board. So, for instance, if you received a a vendor donated to your campaign, that's great. Um, but also probably should
recuse in the same way. So, that's one consideration for the ethics there. And then in terms of communications, my general feedback here is this seems broad some of these bullet points. I'll read you the first one. superintendent will update the board on board related
matters. That is exceptionally broad and doesn't really change specificity here. My recommendation would be just actually defining the specifics around and I don't know what happens if Dr. Mull like how you communicate. Do you give a Friday update to board members? Does that happen? I don't like like just say
here is when we expect to receive communication. Here are the general themes. um all things that come from like the superintendent will communicate any information to all trustees like that like things like that to specify what makes sense for how we communicate
as opposed to try to list out everything that gets communicated because it gets too broad. So those would be my two thoughts there. But open that up for any kind of conversation that you'll have and it is okay if you don't have a lot. I will kind of put my recommendation into the red line and then you will have
a lot more specific conversation and change it as you see fit. All right, seeing none, we'll move to page 17. We're almost there, y'all. Um, one note here is so this kind of goes to
this is around board member requests for information and communications with staff. Um, so you have a relatively strong policy in here and I'm reading specifically from that paragraph about no individual board member shall direct or require
district employees to prepare reports derived from analysis yada yada yada. Um, directives to the superintendent or other custodians shall be by board action. My recommendation here is just to be a little bit more specific here.
The reason for this is again superintendent by nature want to be responsive to the boards and if individuals are reaching out and asking a whole lot of questions that is taking a lot of time from the superintendent and from the team who is diverting time
and attention away from schools or doing those things that we have set out as priorities to get those responses. Again, overall, I believe board members should get all the information they need, but they shouldn't be able to monopolize superintendent or administrative time as an individual.
So, what that looks like would be a recommendation would be to specify this a little bit more that if like for sure if board members ask questions and the information is available, they should receive it. I would recommend putting some information around what's a reasonable amount of time to get that
back. We don't want superintendent just dropping everything and going back to the office to send updates if they're having a conversation with a principal or something. So board members can send questions or requests for information to superintendent's office or however you do that. There should be some amount of
weeks that's reasonable to get a response. You wouldn't want to expect it every single moment. And that forces administrators to try to just jump to that. Whether it's your intention or not, they're trying to make sure that you have what you need. So set some parameters around what's a reasonable
time frame and then actually noting is if something is going to require significant staff time to build then that should be a decision that the board makes collectively to say yes that's is that's important enough to all of us at superintendent we want you to actually spend time effort and energy to build that report or no that's taking too much
and so the conversation here might be around on individual requests depending on how you want to do that um I've seen it really change behavior if you actually have the superintendent ballpark how much time it took to get the answer that was requested. Sometimes that's 2 minutes, sometimes that's an hour and a half of staff time. So you
could consider something like that as a way to really start to um be more cognizant of what the asks are on superintendent and staff. So I will pause there and see what kind of thoughts, questions or responses are
there. I think there's a delineation between what information is available and what's not. >> Um I don't think it's unreasonable if the information is there to provide, but if it's something that requires an amount of time investment to do it,
maybe that's the delineation that we decide as a board if it's worth the time to pull the information together. Got it. >> Or the analysis for that matter. Thank you, Jesse Dar. >> Um,
[Music] I don't really have an answer to your question, but a thought on the question is there is um there's a real level of trust that has to exist between the superintendent and the board in this arena. And um
um if that trust doesn't exist, if the trust isn't there, and I do and I do believe in this in the situation we're in right now with Dr. Dr. Molinar is our superintendent that the trust is there. So I'm not this is not a reflection on you Dr. Molinar any in any way but um if
we're we're putting together things that if if Dr. Molinar decides to leave uh next week because she wins the lottery then we need this needs to be in place so that we can welcome the next
superintendent into the fold. And um if if the level of trust is not there that the superintendent is giving us all of the necessary information that we need then the answer is different than if we are in a situation where we are working with the superintendent that we
trust. And so um again this is this is a non-answer. It's just a thought I had while I was listening to Trusty Lynch speak um that there's some variables in this situation that um factor into how
the board proceeds and operates. >> Thank you. Uh, I would say you want to build your procedures that would withstand and be put you in the best position possible regardless of who your superintendent was and
regardless of how divided a board was. You really want them and the time when a board is actually like working strongly together like I see happening at Fort Worth ISD now is the best time to put these procedures in place knowing that it won't always be the the case. So
yeah, that doesn't answer your comment, but I think that's just a way to think about this as you see this and actually start to actually piece apart language sounds a little too strong or we want to build in this guardrail for something. So all right. Oh, Jesse Lynch,
>> I just uh this is an eye statement. I think weeks is probably a a good time frame for most of the information that we're asking for, but I'm guilty of wanting it sooner than that. So, I think that is a a a reasonable thing to
consider. >> And what I would say is inevitably, again, superintendents want to give their board members the information they need. This is just setting a baseline. Every district that I know that has some time frame out there, it provides the
limit, not when it is the case. Like oftentimes I've seen I I don't know board a superintendent that's ever said, "Wait those two weeks." Like, "Is it available? Get it to them ASAP." I've seen board members say, "I just got asked to speak at this event. I need some information because I want to shout out the great things happening in the district." People will work with you.
That would be my guess for every superintendent that I've ever seen work. So again, setting the limit just kind of sets the guard rail on where we should expect a response by, not necessarily you won't get a response until then. Dr. Mullen, your light is on. I don't know if you have anything to add to the conversation.
>> Sorry. >> Okay. All right. Um, final stretch, y'all. Um, page 18. We're going to pause on the committee ones. We'll do the other ones first and we'll come back to committees, which will be a longer discussion.
So the first note on how the board uh should handle the media overall it is pretty much aligned with what I see most places. Board president designated spokesperson for the board. Um superintendent is usually the designated spokesperson for the district. And then
the one note I it it mentions all um trustees. I would recommend putting in some language about how a trustee should respond if approached by the media. it doesn't kind of talk about that at all.
So what I generally see here is you know board members are not procluded from speaking to the media. Um but if they do they should either if you want the full board statement let me connect you to President Martinez or if they are going to respond they need to make it clear
that they are speaking as an individual board member and not behalf of the board. So that is the most common and is in most aligned with legal policy. Um, but I would recommend being clear about that and what your expectations are for that one.
Any thoughts? I see nods. Okay. Campus visits. Um, generally this is pretty broad. There's not a lot of I mean there's some things about shouldn't disturb uh
district operations, etc., which is definitely a strong thing to do. Inevitably, I'll speak from experience as a board member. There's not a time in which I could visit a campus in which it doesn't cause some kind of disturbance. People again know I'm a board member. And so, my recommendation here would be to be a little bit more specific around
campus visits. And Dr. Muller, you might have ideas. I've seen things like we want to know at least because you know what also happens as a former principal. Soon as a board member shows up on my campus, I'm texting it up the chain to try to make sure Dr. Molinar knows the board member is there. I don't know if there's anything else going on. So, there's definitely things happening
outside of this. It's helpful to not have superintendents blindsided. So, I would recommend at least putting in some things about notifying the superintendent's office generally a little bit in advance. Uh maybe strengthening some of the thing that you know you shouldn't be kind of
like running like changing any behavior of people on the campuses. I think your policy right now just talks about it interferes with the delivery of instruction or district operations. That's very broad. So, you know, I think I think you could benefit from a little bit more specificity here and a little
bit of advanced notice so Dr. Mullenar and her team are aware. Um, but I will open that up to the board to see what your thoughts are on campus visits and maybe it's not an issue at all, but want to open it up. Trusty Dar, >> I concur. I agree with you on that. Um,
it has become very very obvious to me that every anytime I'm on a campus, um, I I like to think that I am never on a campus as a gotcha, but it can always be perceived that way because I serve on
this board and that is incredibly disruptive to student learning. And if our primary goal is to improve student outcomes, then we must behave in ways that
contribute to that. And um showing up on campuses or visiting campuses without um making appointments. Um, I'd also like to see something about how we when we're on campus, we have um an
administrator that's with us as we walk through the campus. So, we have somebody to ask questions of that we're not just there walking a campus on our own. Um, but I I agree that some additional parameters need to be put in place and I
appreciate you bringing that up. >> Thank you, Trusty Dar. Uh, Trusty Lynch followed by Trusty Phillips. >> Oh, sorry. Um, Trusty Lynch followed by Dr. Ryan. >> Yeah, I don't I don't know that I have an answer. I'm just thinking out loud as
a >> board member when I show up to a sporting event or a school for my own children. I don't I don't know how we delineate some of those things, but I I I know there's an effect, but just something to think about as we think through this. >> Yeah, that's a great point. Um what I
have also seen which might you want to consider is when a parent shows up as a parent or grandparent shows up as a grandparent not in their official capacity then may you could consider language maybe that doesn't go through the same procedures
but in that instance the board member doesn't use their board member ID badge they sign in through the regular process they're just there as a parent and go through the normal process that a parent would as opposed to I'm a trustee can I get in this way and let me talk to the like they they should go through you could put some language in that kind of
differentiates that that if you show up as a parent or a grandparent or in an unofficial capacity you must go through the procedures as the unofficial capacity as opposed to as a trustee. >> Thank you Dr. Ryan. >> I would concur having been a principal
and having board members walk in it can be a very scary time. Uh, but going through this, I've never in Fort Worth never gone to a school where I haven't called the principal and asked when's good day or time to come by and
let them know what I was coming by for. >> And so, it's one of those where you just want to draw that happy medium to make things work. And I would hope that everybody would do that. I need to come by. uh let's talk about so and so and uh
what's a good day and time because sometimes the principles have a lot of things on their plates uh and they can't do it all at once. Um now if you want to come by and bring the teachers breakfast I think you ought to be able to get in there anytime you want to go.
>> Thank you for that. We can uh make those notes. I think this is a ultimately these are operating procedures. They are not ironclad. They are not laws. They are only as good as you enforce them anyways. So I think to spell out some of the things that you mentioned Dr. Ryan about you know making sure what the
purpose is and how you how you can do that in a meaningful way um again I think will help to clarify this and then the board ultimately still is responsible for enforcing its own procedures. Uh, Trusty Dar, >> in response to Trusty Lynch's comments,
it might be prudent to include something about there's a difference between visiting a campus outside of the instructional hours, and those instructional hours just really need to be sacred. Um and and I recognize the need to on occasion visit during instructional hours and to have some
protocols in place, but um but but what I want to protect are the instrual time more so than the football game, the the choir concert, the band concert, things like that. >> Great. Yep. that makes sense to
distinguish campus visits during the instructional day versus sporting events, which I would I've never seen a anyone try to control for a board member showing up at a sporting event. So, all right. Um, the last thing I flagged on this
page, and this might not require any discussion at all, was just uh travel is relatively broad, leaves a lot to be determined by being approved by board president, etc. If this is not an issue, I don't know if there's any reason to change anything here, but if there are ways to clarify that that would be beneficial, this would be a place to do
so, but I think that's just a board choice. Um, go ahead. Yes, go ahead, President Martinez. >> Sorry. I'm just I just wanted to add one more thing to like the campus visits. I think distinguishing the difference um is very helpful. Um cuz even like during
award ceremonies, like if I'm attending my child's awards ceremony, I don't feel like I need to tell them in advance. But sometimes I have told them in advance, like I don't want to I don't want to be recognized. I just want to be able to attend my child's event and not be called out.
>> Yep. Okay. So, I'm hearing a clear preference to distinguish between official visit in your official capacity versus as a parent or guardian or friend. All right. All right. Let's talk about committees. This was one area that came up quite a
bit. Um I will preface my general thoughts and coaching around committees with the administrative perspective as a former central office administrator and principal etc. is for however long a committee meets,
you should assume that the administration is spending at least five times that amount of time preparing for the committee, showing up at the committee, and then doing any follow-up from the committee afterwards. So a committee um committees can be a valuable use of time but they should be
very thoughtfully done because they can become the single largest time suck of administration away from priorities. And so it is my general recommendation that boards should have committees that
the board owns. I'm only talking about board created committees. Superintendent have committees and they should continue to be able to have committees as they see are helpful. They might say I actually do need a couple people to I need community members, I need board members, I need whatnot to give me feedback on this. This is not talking
about a superintendent created committee. This is talking about board committees that the board creates and the board calls and sets the agenda for. It is my recommendation that boards should have board committees only about board work. And my general smell test on
that is if the committee can function without the superintendent or administration administration there, then it is probably a board committee. For instance, doing board operating procedures probably can happen without the superintendent here and the board can have a really meaningful discussion. Probably a board committee and a
worthwhile board committee. What I see oftentimes is a board finance committee that just reviews monthly finances or the board instruction committee that's going to look at instruction. What generally happens in those instances, I'm not talking about Fort Worth in specific. What happens generally is now
the administration feels like, okay, I've got this committee that the board has, but I need to spend a lot of time preparing a lot of stuff about the curriculum we're doing and all of the inputs we're doing and bringing it to a small subset of board members. And then the board members are now they would almost be abdicating their duty if they don't engage with me and give me their
advice on their inputs. And now I'm taking that into account. And then those board members have different information than everybody does. And so that's the danger about board committees that focus on superintendent work. If it is truly that important to get board member feedback on, it is my recommendation
that that should be an agenda item for the board and the board considers it as a whole as opposed to a smaller subset of individuals. And so it is my recommendation that the board should have board committees focus on board work. There should be very limited standing committees in general unless
there is new work to do every single year because what happens oftentimes is committees are created for a very meaningful and specific purpose but then they stay and that purpose goes away because we have solved it. So boards should set clear um
tasks for the committee to accomplish and a time frame by which to accomplish it by. And if you're going to keep it for more than a year, you should just restart the committee every year. So, and I am not I'm not going to talk specifically about any of your committees. Only you all can ultimately decide. I don't even know which one of
your committees are superintendent committees versus board committees. But that would be my recommendation in terms of how to think about committees separate from a superintendent. Superintendent might say, "Hey, I need some board members to give me feedback on this. Can I get a small set of board members and whatnot to make a recommendation to the board?" Great.
That's a superintendent committee. they can set the agenda. But what too often happens is we start a board committee with a very meaningful problem but we don't control for actually when that problem is solved and then they keep growing and growing and growing and take more and more staff time. So that is my
recommendation. I will open up the floor for conversations or questions about generally board committees and my recommendation we should talk about this at a high level before you ever go back and make determinations about your current committees. So with that, Trusty Dar,
>> are there any board committees required by law? >> There is a safety committee that is required by law. I wouldn't even call that a board committee. I think there's more people than that than just a board member. That's just a required committee. >> There might be another one, but that's
the one that's top of mind for me. >> Is audit one? Um, I well, you're definitely not required to have an auditor and you're not required to have an audit committee. Everyone that I know that has an auditor has an audit committee, but I would note
that that is very squarely board work because usually the auditor reports to the board and so the board is doing board work. Administration rarely shows up at audit committees that I've seen also. So, but it's not required by law to have an auditor or an audit committee. >> Okay.
policy. >> Um I have seen that um and that usually is board what happens often times is boards delegate policy changes to superintendent to recommend because they know the days the dayto-day of that.
I've seen some boards have a policy committee that do that. That's definitely falls in that. Um I've seen some say if it's a policy recommendation should just come to the full board and we discuss it. Especially if there's again the question is is what's the purpose of the committee? Oftentimes if it's just to review the recommended
policy that's maybe not a committee unless you're getting some value out of that committee specifically. So that's but again this is ultimately your choice. So >> thank you.
>> Thank you Trusty Dar. Uh Dr. Rodriguez. >> Yes. U Dr. Molinar, is there any committee that you find absolutely necessary? Cuz he is correct about it's more time that you and the staff put in
and if it's just repetitious or something that eventually comes to the board. I mean, we can get rid of a lot of these committees if it's just busy work in my opinion. >> And I would say and I I'll answer first
and then Dr. you can think about the answer and then decide at this time like even if there is a useful one my recommendation would be it just shifts to being a superintendent committee and she can call the meetings and have those as she sees fit and ask president or however you all decide who's going to be
appointed to this committee at a time but Dr. if you want to share any thoughts you have or >> No, I do think that having the ability to be able to call a meeting, discuss an issue and having a recommendation to
move forward or bring to the whole board um versus having committees that we feel like we have to meet on a monthly basis and um present out takes a lot of staff time on top of um additional you know
requests. So I do think having that flexibility I we are going through a lot of changes um especially when we look at facility and budget there's a lot of changes that would be helpful but I think it's should be something that we
could um I love the suggestion that we call but also those are always topics we bring back to the whole committee anyway because they need a board vote to move forward >> and what I might recommend in this instance is sometimes what I think could
be a really good solution here would be you know if you're presenting a superintendent report about something we're making a lot of changes with regard to our facilities to share that with the whole board and then say like and I've got to ask for the board like I need some feedback on these two particular elements and I would like to
just make it known here that this is a committee that I'm going to host and if you're interested let President Martinez know or send an email to me and then you can pull them in as you see fit following all open meetings acts Of course. So, Dr. Rodriguez, anything else there? All
right. Anything else, Dr. Ryan? >> So, I have a question. >> All right. Trusty Lanos, >> if we have a finance committee meeting, I guess that's the board meets on that committee. But if we have questions on that committee, who how should we
proceed? So I think it would be who's we have questions. >> I mean if the board has questions got >> that are sitting on that committee um in you know if was only the board and we
all go over the report then we like do you know about this you know about this I don't know. >> Yeah what usually happens I'm not going to speak specifically to your committee only you can answer that. What I would say is usually if you are let's say your a finance committee is reviewing the reports the month before they come to
the board. Then some subset of trustees are there. They ask a bunch of questions about the reports. They get answers from the CFO. The CFO has prepared in advance. They've been at the committee. They've probably got some follow-up questions, etc. And then we repeat that whole process again at the night meeting. Now everybody sees it and a lot of the
questions are being asked, etc. and it's like you're doing double work with a smaller group and then a larger group. I'm not saying there's no value in that. Sometimes you might get, okay, this is a question I need to be prepared for, but I think also when you set up a system where we're all going to get this in advance and we're all going to ask
questions in advance, well then you you got all the questions asked in advance anyways. So, you're kind of doing the duplicate work. I think trustees should get answers to all of the items that they have questions on before they take votes and go on that. I just think there's generally more efficient ways that take less time from staff if you
receive the information 10 days in advance and you ask your question to administration and get responses from administration in advance as opposed to a smaller subset of trustees asking those questions in person and then everybody getting the materials and everybody asking the same questions again. So it often ends up as duplicate
work. But regardless, no matter what situation you set up, you should have a venue to ask all the questions you have about the items that you're receiving and voting on. >> Was that responsive to your question? All right. Anything else here? And
again, you will see all of this. I'll put some language together based on what we have talked about and you guys will then own it from that point and make all the changes that you want on it. All right. And now we are on page 19 and I promise we are almost done. We've done a lot of work, y'all. Um, my
only note here, and I don't know if there's a lot of information to discuss here, is just on your new board member training, is just to be a little bit more specific about what new board members are being trained on, specifically as it relates to
governance. Um, so what's the role of the trustee, what superintendent work, what are your goals, what are your guardrails, how you go through those items. So, just being a little bit more specific about what that training looks like. Um and then if you will go to page
20 for our last larger discussion which is around community engagement. Right now you have a point here. Your third bullet point under advocacy talks about ensures multiple forms of two-way communication will be used to engage, empower and connect students, family, staff, media and community with the
district. So the question that I would pose to the board is what kind of responsibility the board wants to put into this. I've heard from essentially all of you about saying the value of our community and really getting feedback and thoughtfulness here. So I think there's a lot of opportunity to really
dive into this and we don't have to solve it all tonight. I'm just curious what this looks like. I would just be specific about what the board's responsibility is in community engagement. Are we committing to doing some sort of board listening session regularly? Is it annually? Is it every
other year? Is it half a year? Um, do we want to have any other types of communications? Do we want to have a board committee to put together a newsletter that the board will send out to its wider constituencies? There's just a lot of other ways to communicate with community members. Uh, and it's
different in my opinion from an individual board member communicating with the community that elected you, which happens a lot. Godspeed. Continue to do that as you see fit. That's your role. But there's a difference when it is a board communication. And actually, now myself and Trusty Phillips are
actually going to go and we're going to be in different parts of the neighborhood seeing places that aren't the district I represent and sharing a message about Fort Worth ISD and what we're accomplishing. So, you've got a lot of opportunities here. Um, I think it's really powerful when a board can come together and say, and usually it
centers around, hey, here's our progress to date on our goals and we also want your feedback and here's our big issue that we're working with. Let's have a conversation about it. So, there's ways to structure conversations so it's not it's usually you you want to put some structure around it so it is not um
whoever is the loudest talks the most, but you actually can make sure you get meaningful information and have a conversation with your community. there are ways to set protocols and structures for that. So just my overall question here is how does the board currently do this if at all? Um what's working, what's not working and what would you
want it to be? >> Trusty Phillips. >> Yes sir. Yeah. So um yeah much much like many of the recommendations that you had there particularly around at one point in time in our first iteration of with along governance we were
having those meetings or at least scheduled them where we're going to have trustees go out in pairs or threes to be able to have those conversations. I absolutely want to see us employ that um moving forward. Uh the more communic community contact we have in that type
of arena I think would just have great dividends for us. Um so I think definitely that's you know implementing anything I want to see us implement that um into our normal calendaring schedule as far as how we're going to go out in the community with one another to have
those conversations. All right, Trusty Dar. >> Um, this kind of goes back to the calendar on page 13. I would love to see some more um community engagement opportunities actually added to the calendar um to not only inform the
community, but also to hold us accountable to making sure that that happens. Um, and I really welcome um I I find that engaging with the community is one of the best parts of serving on this board. Um, but it is it
is often difficult to to find ways to do that sometimes um in productive ways. And so um I welcome any any ways that you've seen work with other boards. I would really love to know what other boards are doing
because I think we can we can learn from that and I I can learn from that and I want to learn from that. So, um those are my comments. >> Thank you. >> All right, y'all. We accomplished a lot tonight. Uh next steps here is thank you
for engaging that. Again, I don't pretend to be able to know exactly all of how you all will want to land here, but I can be a good starting point. So, I will take that back. I will redline this based on what I have heard and then turn it back over to the board to go through your regular policy adoption
process and decide what you want to keep, what you want to change, and what you want to delete. Um, and then from here, we can start to once you all get clear about this, you can make determinations about how you want to do your existing committees or moving forward on the community engagement work. um how what's the time frame to
actually set up our agenda review and all of that work. So, thank you all so much for engaging on a lot of meaningful topics tonight. It was my absolute pleasure. Um and before we turn it back over, I think Trusty Dar has one more note. >> I'm sorry. Just two questions, neither with answers in this moment. The first
one is I guess as we're doing this work with the board operating procedures is just making sure we're asking ourselves if any if any board policy needs to be changed or updated as we're doing this. Um, again, rhetorical in this moment. Um, the second one is I'm wondering if
we need to add any information in our board operating procedures regarding how trustees interact with vendors. Um, since generally that is superintendent work, not board work. But that is again for the for a
conversation for the board. Um, not for this moment, but possibly as we're as we're doing this work. Yeah, great great point on the first one. Let me I I do have an answer on that one. I find it most helpful to get clear on how we want to operate first and then at that same
time that once we get clear about the language here, you don't adopt this without with having like different local policies, you would see the same local change that you have in your board operating procedures. This is helpful to kind of go through all of this first rather than try to peacemeal all those. But yes, I do recommend that at the same time you adopt new board operating
procedures, you make sure that your local policies align to those areas. For the second one, that's a great point. What I will do is I'll put a placeholder in that in the first red line. We will discuss that next time. And I it's an open invitation to the entire board. If there's an area we did not talk about, if there's something you think is
missing or you change your mind on something, please reach out to me individually and I will make sure to make those notes so that we can have that conversation the next time board looks at all this. With that, President Martinez, back to you. >> Thank you, Ben, for guiding us through
this um process. And um right now, I want to open up for any of the trustes. Do you have any just general comments or questions regarding today's workshop? Dr. Miller, do you have any All right. Well, I also want to thank you um trustees for um engaging in this
process and conversation as well. And the time is 9:19 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned. [Music]