WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=SXKeDatHxAY

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:16.240
I'd like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to open public meetings act chapter 231, public laws of 1975, this meeting has been duly advertised in the South Jersey Times and Sentinel. The municipal clerk for the township has been duly notified and the requirements of posting of notices have been met. Please stand for the pledge of

2
00:00:16.240 --> 00:00:33.800
allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

3
00:00:36.719 --> 00:00:52.079
Please call the role. >> Changini >> here. >> Cunningham >> here. >> Doyle >> here. >> Brown >> here. >> Lloyd here. >> Wilson >> here. >> Smith >> here. Store >> Progresso >> here.

4
00:00:52.079 --> 00:01:07.680
>> We have four. >> All right. Um, there is a need for executive session. So, I make a motion to go into executive for the purpose of negotiations and personnel. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.

5
00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:28.240
>> Executive at 601. How long do you think will be? >> Okay. 20 to 30 minutes. Everybody looks lovely. I'll only give you a couple hours for tonight. >> So, uh, tonight you're taking a look at our 2526 student growth presentation.

6
00:01:28.240 --> 00:01:44.960
Uh, really in terms of structure, uh, I do want to take a few moments to make sure we're on the same page. That's that first component. Then I would like to take a look at the 2526 district goal results as well as the projected suggestions for our 2627 district growth uh, percentages. And then finally, I'll

7
00:01:44.960 --> 00:02:00.399
review all of our ready data, then our dibbles, and then our MRI universal screeners. So, we are a bit of a transitional component concerning MR universal screener. So, I'll address that once we get to that point. Uh so, you know, we have to establish the why.

8
00:02:00.399 --> 00:02:15.840
Why are we here? One, obviously, our students started at a certain point in the beginning of the year. Instruction occurred. We have to identify where they are now at the end of the year and how that performance changed over time. Uh in terms of the way that this is organized, I'm primarily giving you uh

9
00:02:15.840 --> 00:02:33.040
descriptive data, numerical values and percentages organized by performance band so you can see what that change over time looks like. Uh a few items just for you because I I know this is the first time I'm doing this for you. And I'm doing this more for me necessarily than all of you. I have to mention the idea of objectivity. Uh none

10
00:02:33.040 --> 00:02:48.720
of this information is my opinion. I'm not trying to sit here and say to you it's good or bad. I'm not even trying to influence you through my tonality. I practice this trying to be as monotone as possible. Uh so I want to make sure that you can consume this and ask the

11
00:02:48.720 --> 00:03:04.400
questions that you would like and so that we can adjust to that as best as possible. Uh part of that you know is transparency sake. Uh we have to remember that the students that we initially had enrolled in the beginning of the year compared to the students we had at the end of the year are completely different. So one of the

12
00:03:04.400 --> 00:03:20.400
things that pops up there is sample size. We have to be a concern about that. our total number of students and do we have enough information from those students to actually make sense of what we're talking about. So I was able to determine our beginning of the year that's the boy participation rate was at 98% we were 98.1% and the end of the

13
00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:36.239
year was at 99.4 I was able to take a look at those numbers to make sure that all of our information was appropriate and that we would actually get something from it. Again going back to the idea this is the first time doing this for you. I put together a cheat sheet for you just in case if you're like what's that b guy talking about? Those are the words. So you can always back and

14
00:03:36.239 --> 00:03:53.760
reference those as you see fit. Uh so first up is our district goal results. Uh this is the worksheet that I use each year. We've been running this district goal for the last 5 years. This is the worksheet that I use each year to try to figure everything out. I'm going to ask that you follow the blue. All right. So

15
00:03:53.760 --> 00:04:10.720
over here to our left top we have reading. Bottom we have math. We jump three columns. We have our 2526 target goal. That was what we were trying to achieve. We go all the way to the end. The last column were the actual results. So if I'm reading this like a page in a book reading group A, our target goal is

16
00:04:10.720 --> 00:04:27.840
48%. We achieved an actual result of 45%. So I'll tell you right from the get-go, we did not meet any of our stretch growth goal targets for either reading or math through either groups A, B, or C. So the next actual question that from an analytical standpoint is well, how far away are we from those

17
00:04:27.840 --> 00:04:42.639
particular goals? So looking at those, you can take a look at the first one. Uh we added group A was at 48%. I have to catch up to my own notes. Uh we were at 48%. We missed that particular target goal by 3% for group A. For reading

18
00:04:42.639 --> 00:04:58.160
group B we're at 42% and we hit a target goal of 36 meaning we missed it by six percentage points. Uh group C we're at 38% and the actual result was 26% meaning that we missed it by 12 percentage points. For mathematics group

19
00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:13.919
A, our total was 65% we had 38% meaning that we missed it by 27 percentage points. Uh for group B for mathematics 47 we hit 33% meaning that we missed it by 14 percentage points. Now group C was

20
00:05:13.919 --> 00:05:29.520
at 34% and we hit 19 meaning that we missed it by 15 percentage points. So a few things about this obviously when we're taking a look at it. Uh of course we can find data from anything right? One of the things that we can notice right from the get-go is that our reading tended to do a little bit better

21
00:05:29.520 --> 00:05:46.400
in terms of its overall performance. Meaning that we were generally between three and 12 percentage points from target in all those particular areas. That would generally indicate that we were more we were closer to our district goals in those particular areas than we were in mathematics because mathematics of course is 14 to 27 district points or

22
00:05:46.400 --> 00:06:02.800
percentage points away. So the other component that we want to make concerned as we're looking at is the varying degrees between the percentages. So we're looking at group A, for example, for reading. We're only three percentage points here. But then we go to mathematics and we're a vastly larger percentage point away. So that becomes part of the conversation when we're

23
00:06:02.800 --> 00:06:19.039
looking at what to do with it overall. Now, collectively, of course, this does lead us to a couple decisions as far as what do we do moving forward as far as this particular stretch goal. Now, I was trying to think of the best example to try to explain this out. The

24
00:06:19.039 --> 00:06:34.479
best thing I could come up with was stocks. All right, I don't know if this is going to be hit hit exactly the way that I want it to, but this is what I'm going to go with. Over the last five years, we had uh these particular stretch road goals. And as a result of that, we were able to collect performance data over that period of

25
00:06:34.479 --> 00:06:50.560
time. And any one of these things, you have to kind of consider it almost like a level of volatility. Every year it goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down. And overall, we're eventually trying to hope that we hit a positive net gain. In every single one of these, we actually hit a positive net gain over the last five years. It's just what our

26
00:06:50.560 --> 00:07:06.000
rate of return happens to be. And that's the big rate of return component. And I was able to figure that out. Again, doing it for the last five years, I was able to figure that out for you. So for ELA, I'm going to start at the top. Our group A, our average rate of return is about 3% a year. Group B is 3% per year.

27
00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:21.039
And then group C is 2% per year. All I did then is I took our actual results. In this case, 45%, our rate of return was 3%. I just added the 3% onto that. So that that would be our next goal moving forward. For mathematics, it's slightly different. Group A is a 5%

28
00:07:21.039 --> 00:07:37.840
return. Group B is a 3% return, and a group C is 1% return. There are a couple items that I do think are pretty important that we identify right from the get-go. Uh, our percentage point average each year seems to be getting very, very tight. Meaning that over time,

29
00:07:37.840 --> 00:07:54.960
as our percentages are getting smaller, our rate of return is also getting smaller. meaning that we're getting to a point with this particular goal, we're going to be reaching a max value. Now, if we go back in time, like ignore the baseline for a moment, but we go back to 2122. We were a

30
00:07:54.960 --> 00:08:12.479
perfect six for six for that year. We hit all those particular goals. In 22 23, we were 3 for six. 23 for 24, we were 3 for six. 24-2, we were one for six. And then 25 26, we were zero for six. Over the last two years, we only hit one of the subgroups, the six

31
00:08:12.479 --> 00:08:29.280
portions. All right. So, what that tells us in terms of interpretation is that we're getting closer and closer to a finite value of what we're actually going to get out of this particular goal over time. Now, what to do? Uh since we're getting an average rate of return,

32
00:08:29.280 --> 00:08:45.839
we can hold off on it at the moment, but it's really down to value what the rate of return is and how long we want to keep that particular rate of return. Uh there are other a number of things that we can do with this moving forward and I've already talked to Dr. Kellogg about a couple different options and frankly I prefer not to talk about that tonight because I didn't actually work all the math out on that. Let me know if they

33
00:08:45.839 --> 00:09:00.880
provide one or not. But there are options that we can do moving forward in terms of increasing or decreasing any of this. I would suggest there's really two different paths. If you want to go the statistic route, keep the percentages

34
00:09:00.880 --> 00:09:17.279
the way they are. If you want to go more of a a strategic movement, meaning that you're looking more for an aspirational goal or a goal that you're trying to aspire to, that's when you would jack up your price or your prices, excuse me, your percentages. >> All right? You're going to increase your

35
00:09:17.279 --> 00:09:34.240
your percentages totally. The issue of doing that though is that you're basically going to ask and give us a pass fail scenario. We're not going to be able to go back and say if what anything that we have here, was there any value change there? This allows us to ask like in total like did anything

36
00:09:34.240 --> 00:09:50.240
that we made changes actually adjust our bottom line over the past five years and rate of return. If we do anything by increasing it any further, we can't necessarily answer that for you. So moving forward as far as I I know I think in the latter part or if you already did it, I'm not quite sure if you're going to be accepting this or

37
00:09:50.240 --> 00:10:06.200
moving forward with it. There's the two sides. There's value in both of them. It's just ultimately what you want to answer. So that's something that you want to consider moving forward with that. I'm gonna move into I'm ready now. Do you have any questions before I move forward here?

38
00:10:06.240 --> 00:10:22.440
>> Really? >> Great job. >> I think it's pretty self-explanatory. >> Yeah. >> So, that's the other thing talking about statistical stuff. I don't want to get too nerdy on you here, but the part about this that actually works well. >> What's that? Too late.

39
00:10:24.480 --> 00:10:40.560
>> I need to go anyway. Keep >> going. very sense. Yeah. No. Um >> just kind of part >> the the issue the the nice part about this is it's something that's reproducible and it's something that we able to continue moving forward with.

40
00:10:40.560 --> 00:10:55.200
>> Uh if if there's any ranges and change that are uh aspirational in nature, you're going to have a difficult time actually making sure that you're able to keep that. So it's it's kind of a it's moving forward the appropriate way. If I was running like statistical tests, this is the way I would go. Just just my

41
00:10:55.200 --> 00:11:11.600
opinion on that. Okay. Uh now moving forward for our I already growth results. I'm going to use kindergarten as my explanatory slide and then I'm going to move much faster from that because if I did this for every single slide, I do believe we'd be here until

42
00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:27.600
tomorrow. All right. So, uh starting with the first in terms of organization, the first image on the left is an uncoupled bar chart broken up by performance levels. See the real dark green color? Dark green is always going to be mid or above grade level. Light

43
00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:45.040
green is early on and yellow is one grade level below. You can identify the actual test underneath of it as it's labeled by either the beginning of the year or the end of the year. In this case, this is uh I ready reading. So if I'm reading this, beginning of the year, fourth grade students, they rolled in

44
00:11:45.040 --> 00:12:00.079
the class, they took their I Ready assessment, 2.3% of the entire grade of kindergarten scored mid or above grade level. 2.3%. At the end of the school year, 56.1% scored an or above grade level by the sp

45
00:12:00.079 --> 00:12:16.320
by the spring, the end of the year. We can do the same thing for early on grade level, 14.3 to 28.3, one grade level below. We do want to see a decline there, 83.4 down to 15.6. The next image I have for you is the same exact setup, except it's just

46
00:12:16.320 --> 00:12:31.120
mathematics. And the only difference, of course, are the percentages. 5.1 to 56.7, 5.1 to 18, and 89.8 down to 25.3. Now, uh I would not personally be okay with just percentages, so I offered this

47
00:12:31.120 --> 00:12:46.560
to you as well. Uh this chart's going to take a little bit of explaining. Again, I'm going to ask that you follow the color coding. Uh we'll start here for the ELA uh read, excuse me, reading for I Ready, the dark green. I'm going to read this much like I would a page in a

48
00:12:46.560 --> 00:13:03.279
book. Our grade is kindergarten. Were I ready reading? That's the test we're taking. What's our performance band? Mid or above grade level? And there's our 2.3. I wanted to know what the 2.3 meant as actual people, students. That represented four students out of the entire grade level. Those four students

49
00:13:03.279 --> 00:13:20.560
met or mid or above grade level. At the end of the year percentage, we were at 56.1. That represented 98 students. Now, the next column uh is a percentage and that's a delta sign. It's mathematic means change. And yes, I put it there

50
00:13:20.560 --> 00:13:37.120
because I didn't want to write change and it's much shorter. Uh so the percentage there at the end, it's 56.1 minus 2.3, you get a 53.8% increase overall. The change number of students went from 90 or 94 students to 98 students. We went up to up to a total

51
00:13:37.120 --> 00:13:53.920
of 94 students. So you can see the movement what's happening with the students in that performance band. The next item I gave to you is the cohort analysis. We should be asking if we had four students at the end of the year and they were mid or above grade level, what happened to those four students at the end of the year as well. So I'm trying to my best to provide you that these

52
00:13:53.920 --> 00:14:10.079
four student students ended up still staying in mid or above grade level. The 25 students at the beginning of the year they ended up breaking moving that 19 of them moved up to mid or above grade level performance band. Four of them remained in the uh early on grade level

53
00:14:10.079 --> 00:14:25.360
performance band and then two of them moved down to one grade level below. Our largest group that was the 83.46 students. The movement for those particular students 75 of them went not up to early on but up to mid-grade level or above. 46 stayed or moved up to early

54
00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:41.199
on and then 22 of them stayed at one grade level below. Again I am not going to read every single one of those slides to you that right. I'm just giving you an example of what that looks like and as we move forward you can understand what's going on. Really the way I set this up from this point forward is kind of like a sandwich method. tried and

55
00:14:41.199 --> 00:14:56.320
trueue statistical approach giving you something that happened really really well generally what's happening in the middle and something we need to focus in on as we move forward so I'm going to move forward from that perspective does that work for everybody any questions did the color coding work for you I need

56
00:14:56.320 --> 00:15:11.600
to know >> good >> easy to follow that's wonderful all right so for K uh grade K we had more than half the students reach or above grade level performance band by the end of the year uh there is a parallel growth structure here meaning that when you look at them, they look basically

57
00:15:11.600 --> 00:15:27.680
the same. Basically meaning that our both our reading and mathematics suggest that those patterns are consistent, meaning that our teachers are generally presenting that information the same way. So we get generally the same results. Uh however, there are some results indicating strong overall progress. A notable proportion is right

58
00:15:27.680 --> 00:15:43.600
over here in our one grade level below, but we have about a quarter of our population below grade levels. So something for us to look forward or towards moving moving forward. uh first grade uh the most significant improvement occurred among students performing uh furthest below grade level

59
00:15:43.600 --> 00:15:58.320
with a percentage of students uh two grade levels below expectations nearly eliminated meaning we went from 8.6 6 to 0 and then 12.1 to 1.7. Major drops there. Uh the percentage of students performing m or above grade level increased by more than 30 percentage

60
00:15:58.320 --> 00:16:16.160
points above mathematics in both sides. Again while there is strong progress here, both of those >> bless you. U about onethird of the students remain one grade level below expectations both content areas for first grade highlighting again continued need for our target instructional supports in both those areas.

61
00:16:16.160 --> 00:16:35.279
for second grade. How am I doing for speed? Here we are. >> Y slow it down. No. All right. So, uh for second grade, uh the most notable improvement again is our students performing two or more grade levels below. Additionally, uh the percentage

62
00:16:35.279 --> 00:16:51.040
of students performing or above grade level increased by more than 40% for both mid or above grade level. Uh that would be the dark green colors. And then again while these are meaningful and and impactful areas uh we do see that we have continuing loading progress in mathematics specifically dealing with we

63
00:16:51.040 --> 00:17:10.160
have 27.5% in the 4.1 generally indicating about a third going on in the mathematics area and again 25% or so in one grade level below and two grade levels below the language. When we take a look at third grade, uh there are some significant gains here

64
00:17:10.160 --> 00:17:26.640
among students performing again uh further below grade level. Uh reading demonstrated broad upward terms. What I mean by that is if you take a look at starting here, you'll see a nice little curve going all the way up. If you kind of visualize that, I wish I could do this with a pen so you could see it.

65
00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:40.880
It's a nice line. And it's one of those things you look for on most of these graphs. The way that it kind of lines up. When I say broad, meaning that you have a general increase. It's almost like a step moving from from column to column moving up. Mathematics demonstrated particularly strong

66
00:17:40.880 --> 00:17:58.240
acceleration. It went from 2.2% to 38% or above grade level. And again, although that we have positive gains here, we have about 25% of our students in reading and 40% of our students below grade level both in mathematics and language arts. So, we have to be careful, make sure that we're moving forward, we're addressing that.

67
00:17:58.240 --> 00:18:14.880
>> Zach, does this include special education as well? >> Yeah. the whole whole group of students. I did not tease out like an up. So, fourth grade uh again we're seeing major reductions in two or more grade levels below. But this is one of these areas that was a head scratcher for me. Uh if

68
00:18:14.880 --> 00:18:32.160
you take a look at reading here, one grade level below, you see drops in both two grade levels and three grade levels. You see a drop in early on but an increase in mid-grade level below. This is not an official term at all, but I'm kind of making this up. It's more this is like like a mid-grade level band

69
00:18:32.160 --> 00:18:48.320
challenge here when you're taking a look at this. Meaning that these students are dropping these students are also dropping. That means they're dumping somewhere. So they're not all falling in mid or grade level. It means that we're having a stoppage here that's occurring in one grade level below. So moving forward for language arts, we have to make sure that we're focusing in on that

70
00:18:48.320 --> 00:19:04.240
specifically in fourth grade so that our students are advancing past that one grade level below component. Mathematics demonstrated particularly strong acceleration. I went from 9% to 41 41.9% in that above grade level. So large increases there. Obviously, you want to

71
00:19:04.240 --> 00:19:22.799
make sure that you're aware of what's going on in the lower bands. We still have about 25% and you tack on your uh two and three grade levels. You're somewhere in that 30 35% below grade. All right, fifth grade. Uh so again, most significant reductions were

72
00:19:22.799 --> 00:19:39.600
performed multiple grades below. uh reading demonstrated growth particularly through decreases in students performing two grade levels below. Uh in this case we have approximately 55% of our students um for literacy and specifically in language arts uh are

73
00:19:39.600 --> 00:19:55.840
functioning below grade level when we factored in one grade level below, two grade levels below and three grade levels below. Uh definitely something we're taking a look at in that particular grade level. So mathematics demonstrated a stronger acceleration with substantial increases in middle grade level approximately 40% of those students are below grade level for

74
00:19:55.840 --> 00:20:11.840
mathematics question. >> Okay told you be very objective of what's going on here. Make sure that you have all the information. Okay. So for sixth grade uh most notable improvement occurred through reductions of percentage of

75
00:20:11.840 --> 00:20:28.320
students three or more grade levels below. Our reading results reflected overall growth including increase in students within or above grade level. Uh the lowest performing category however were the students in performing two grade levels below. You'll notice that it it creeps up here in this section and

76
00:20:28.320 --> 00:20:44.400
13.3 down to 12.6. We see a drop also early on. It's it's a drop. It's not super significant in terms of percentages but it's a drop nonetheless. Uh mathematics demonstrated an upward curve again across all performance bands. I mentioned this earlier so you can see it again. It's a gra gradual

77
00:20:44.400 --> 00:21:00.000
increase as it moves across especially in one grade very level that could be decreased. Uh now this was asked of me earlier this morning by Dr. Kellogg. I hope I represent this well for everyone here. Uh it was requested that I show a mid

78
00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:16.799
late and above band breakdown. So you know this uh I'll use the green here. This portion here this end ofear student uh can I break this down? The total 41 students here. Can I break it down in terms of how many of the students were at the mid of the year, how many of the

79
00:21:16.799 --> 00:21:32.159
students at the later part of the year, and how many of the students were beyond that particular grade level. Uh, so I apologize for the lack of prettiness with this. It's just more of the raw data. But when you take a look at kindergarten all the way down, the way you would read this is that for kindergarten, of the total students that

80
00:21:32.159 --> 00:21:47.840
were considered mid or above grade level, 62 of that group were considered mid on grade level. uh 34 of them were late grade level meaning at the end of the school year and then two of them were above grade level meaning that they were functioning in first or second or third grade. So in

81
00:21:47.840 --> 00:22:04.159
this case the percentage breakdown is just of those numbers up here. So of that performance band uh of mid or above grade level 63% of them represented that midroup 34% of them represented the late group and 2% represented the above

82
00:22:04.159 --> 00:22:19.200
group. I didn't have a huge amount of time to look over all this data, but I did pick out a few things right from the get-go. Uh, every grade for language arts or reading, excuse me, had students performing above grade level. Uh, in particular, uh, grades 2, five, and six.

83
00:22:19.200 --> 00:22:35.200
Kindergarten and grade one, again, I apologize. I can't be objective with this one because I didn't have enough time really to look at it. I have to think that because you're looking at some of the more primary instructional expectations in those grade levels, you're going to see smaller numbers in those areas comparatively to some of the

84
00:22:35.200 --> 00:22:51.039
other that again that's just conjecture at this point until information. Uh I would suggest to you that this indicates the district appears to have stronger system for advancing students past that early onset understanding of what's going on as you're seeing students past

85
00:22:51.039 --> 00:23:06.559
this mid-grade getting much higher. Mathematics is another story because math performance is a much more concentrated than mid-grade level band where nearly every grade level has close to 85 or 86% of the students at mid grade level. Uh and above grade level performance is extremely limited

86
00:23:06.559 --> 00:23:22.880
particularly in grades uh K through three. You see a number of zeros there a lot of goose sex as far as that. And uh again this would more than likely indicate the math instructions appear successful in getting them to the midpoint but a harder time pushing them past that.

87
00:23:22.880 --> 00:23:39.039
So I I mean does the district consider a midlevel student not on grade level? Correct. Like they're not if they're a mid kindergarten they're not I already considers that on grade level. >> Does the district consider that on grade level? >> Yeah. Based on the testing that would be

88
00:23:39.039 --> 00:23:54.799
considered your own grade level. That's why like they that's why it doesn't typically tease it out. It just considers if you're that dark green you're considered like mastering you're mastering it. Um, when we do it this way, it's it's like the late almost saying like it's

89
00:23:54.799 --> 00:24:10.159
>> late end of year and above is above. So to me, late is on grade level the end of the year. Mid is mid year. So that would be 1.6. >> But doesn't I Ready consider that mid still though considering it on grade level or am I mistaken? >> No, you're right.

90
00:24:10.159 --> 00:24:25.440
>> Yeah, that's how like I Ready sets it out. I agree with you. It doesn't seem that way, but that's how I Ready lays it out. But how do we know that that I mean just because I ready says that means they're on grade level? >> It's supposed to mirror what on grade

91
00:24:25.440 --> 00:24:41.200
level mimics for NGSLA which I don't even I was just having this conversation earlier. This a whole another philosophical conversation for another day. Um like I think it's a extremely what's the word I'm looking for? Um >> subject

92
00:24:41.200 --> 00:24:57.600
what's ambitious. uh goal, but we say like for NJSLA about half the state is always considered not at grade level, let's say for ELA. I >> I think that's I think that's a little bit exaggerated. Um and so what I does

93
00:24:57.600 --> 00:25:14.400
is they they use statistically to reflect what's going to be expected of those students for NJSLA to be considered on grade level. So I feel like that target is a is a lot meaning that late that would be

94
00:25:14.400 --> 00:25:31.919
a very in my mind over I think mid is appropriate for grade let's say grade two math that is on grade level and that is appropriate as a district I think it is um and that's why they lump it all in with that like dark green mid to late because it would be sufficient for that

95
00:25:31.919 --> 00:25:47.039
grade level >> you know a lot of the reading that I do with I already >> I'm not saying that No, no. In in terms of grade level preparedness and readiness, and when I've read all the information concerning that, I think why they group that all together is they're indicating that at that point those

96
00:25:47.039 --> 00:26:03.200
students are ready to accept the information at a higher level. And at those points, the cut offs, at least the cut offs that were provided when I found them today, they're they're pretty subjective. They're like hard. >> What's the span? >> I can send them to you. I cannot memorize it, please. >> I don't like the one. Yeah. So basically

97
00:26:03.200 --> 00:26:18.480
what they the way they set it up is that at the end of the year like it's it's a numerical value that they place and you can actually see what they at the beginning there what they considered like one low grade level whatnot and then they break it over at the end of the year what they consider those three bands to be and it's also you can see where they consider students are like

98
00:26:18.480 --> 00:26:33.600
let's say we're looking at kindergarten are they functioning at a level or second grade level or way beyond >> right >> and I don't know I had this conversation not too long ago and I know I'm extending this too much uh actually I'm going to dibbles here and I'll I'll share it today with you. Um,

99
00:26:33.600 --> 00:26:51.840
can I pause that for a second? All right. So, before we really get into devils, the only real difference here. >> Sorry, I can't do the rest of it, guys. >> No, not even. >> Let me let me let me speed this up. So, the only difference here is we have different color coding set up. You have

100
00:26:51.840 --> 00:27:07.440
light blue. Now, we're adding green, yellow, and red. Uh, for dibbles, when they take a look at it, they cut everything off pretty much here at the core support. They are saying from the paperwork standpoint course support up means that students are ready for tier one support type instruction that they

101
00:27:07.440 --> 00:27:23.360
are ready to take on whatever the educator is putting down in the classroom the general educator. Now when they report this information dibbles would look at this and say 30 plus 31.1 means that 61.1% of the port portion is

102
00:27:23.360 --> 00:27:39.520
ready for core and core support plus and they're ready to go. I didn't think that was good enough, so I separated it all out so you could see where everybody fell. All right, but that is an example that I think I is doing. They're really taking a look at it in terms of saying to you how prepared people are moving forward for the grade level instruction

103
00:27:39.520 --> 00:27:54.640
that's moving on in the room, which is why I think they're identifying med how prepared they are moving forward. At least the literature when I read it, that's what I'm getting. And again, I'll send that all to you so you can get >> No, no, that's fine. I just I find that quite interesting to be quite I've never

104
00:27:54.640 --> 00:28:11.919
worked with a system that considers a mid to be an on level child honestly. >> No. >> Okay. So, um for kindergarten dibbles, uh student performance shifted towards stronger outcomes with increased percentage of students performing within the core and core support plus uh ranges

105
00:28:11.919 --> 00:28:28.399
and corresponding of course decreases in both strategic as well as intensive support. I do provide you all of the hard data down here in case you're interested in what those numbers look like. When we move for first grade, we very much are seeing similar data across the board here. Uh where we are seeing

106
00:28:28.399 --> 00:28:44.720
shifts in core support moving up for both plus as well as general core support and both reductions in strategic support and intensive support. The difference here is that from overall we have 70.5% of grade one actually function in the core course support ranges. meaning that frankly they are

107
00:28:44.720 --> 00:29:00.559
very much ready for foundational reading skills in third grade level. Uh for second grade uh we are likewise seeing the same thing. We see a little bump in course support. We see another bump in course support course support plus and core support and reductions in

108
00:29:00.559 --> 00:29:16.240
both strategic as well as intensive support. Uh overall by the end of the year we had 67.5% of second grade students performing within the core support ranges. third grade. We're getting a mixed message here in the third grade. Uh overall, we're seeing mixed movement in student literacy

109
00:29:16.240 --> 00:29:31.039
performance from the beginning to the end of this particular school year. Uh while the percentage of students performing with the course support range increased, growth was not consistent across all the other bands. We had an increase in core support plus a decrease in core support, an increase in strategic support, and an increase in

110
00:29:31.039 --> 00:29:46.799
intensive support. Uh generally, you take a look at this as an important transitional point, especially for our third graders and NJSLA testing overall. generally meaning that we want to focus in on our foundational reading and fluency skills in those particular areas. >> They refine in second grade but not sorry

111
00:29:46.799 --> 00:30:03.200
>> foundationally they refine in second grade but not in third grade. >> There is a there is a shift. Yeah, absolutely. >> When we take a look at fourth we are seeing very similar results as we did in third grade and meaning that we're seeing mixed movement across the board. Uh we have increases in core support but

112
00:30:03.200 --> 00:30:19.919
decreases in c I keep missing the plus part. I want them to change the name of this. It kills me every time I read it. So we are seeing increases in course support plus but decreases in course support, increases in strategic and increases in intensive support. But by the end of the year we had 43.4% of

113
00:30:19.919 --> 00:30:35.919
grade student grade four students performing within the course core support and course support plus ranges. Again this indicates generally that we want a need for continued emphasis and differentiated instruction literacy. >> Can you explain the difference between obviously core support is just classroom instruction. Can you explain course

114
00:30:35.919 --> 00:30:51.919
support plus strate? >> So the literature basically points out saying that this is another one of those like percentage bases and and forgive me I don't remember the exact percentages but the way it's set up it's it's saying that if you were landing in core support >> No I mean what the actually oh okay go

115
00:30:51.919 --> 00:31:07.760
ahead keep going keep going no I'm thinking that it's all us >> that is grouping these children as core support plus and core support >> us. So, no, it's dibbles. Dibbles. >> So, it's my completion. I was thinking it was the district that had the kids.

116
00:31:07.760 --> 00:31:23.760
My fault. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Sure. Good. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? >> All right. All right. So, that's great. >> Uh, grade five. Again, uh, we're seeing a mixed movement in student literacy performance here. Uh, we have a distribution of students performance

117
00:31:23.760 --> 00:31:37.760
shifting across these support levels. an increase in core support plus decrease in course support decrease in strategic but an increase in intensive by the end of the year we had 47.7% of grade five students perform within the core support plus ranges

118
00:31:37.760 --> 00:31:54.240
for grade six uh again mixed movement student literacy performance uh we had increases course support plus but decreases in course support decreases in strategic and an increase in intensive support by the end

119
00:31:54.240 --> 00:32:10.000
of the year we 16.7% of grade six students perform within the core support course support plus ranges. Now in terms of the math screener which is our next topic uh we are are utilizing two different

120
00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:26.399
screeners at this point. Uh for K 1 and two we're using a math universal screener and this was a home developed screener. Uh when we get to three, four and five all I can show you are the results that we had from the beginning of the year which was the MRI and the

121
00:32:26.399 --> 00:32:42.640
end of the year mass screener and once we get to that I'll show you what's going on and what we can and can't get from that moving forward with this. So in general for our screener uh we do have positive growth across mathematical readiness from the beginning of the year to the end of the year for kindergarten. Uh the percentage of students performing

122
00:32:42.640 --> 00:32:58.320
on above grade level did increase by 20.7 percentage points. Uh indicating generally that more students develop the foundational skills for mathematics in this grade level for >> so you said this is a screener that we >> Yes. >> Okay. So it's not standardized in any way.

123
00:32:58.320 --> 00:33:14.880
>> Uh I would need some help with that. We talked about this um at the beginning of the year when we told you we were actually last year when we told you this is what the math math committee was working on. So even though Zach said it's homegrown, it is pulled from

124
00:33:14.880 --> 00:33:31.360
different places that are research based and put together. >> So it's not because it's not the instrument itself is not standardized. >> Correct. Okay. >> For first grade uh first grade we had a universal screener. Uh again we showed

125
00:33:31.360 --> 00:33:47.360
some significant growth here in terms of this universal screener for first grade. Uh the percentages point for one or above did increase by 25 percentage points and we see corresponding reductions of both at risk and emergency. Uh generally this indicates that the students were definitely ready for the end of year first grade

126
00:33:47.360 --> 00:34:03.440
instruction total. When we look at second grade again likewise we have an increase for our universal screen earning percentage. Uh specifically on or above at 18.1% from the beginning of the year to the end of the year uh again indicating that grade level students majority of them were prepared and

127
00:34:03.440 --> 00:34:20.079
developed for foundational math skills. When we get to third grade this is what I was discussing with you earlier beginning of the year our students took the MRI. I gave you the most recent information meaning our middle of the year information. That was the last snapshot that we had and then I gave you

128
00:34:20.079 --> 00:34:36.480
the new universal screener results at the end of the particular school year. I would very much uh suggest that you do not look at these as a comparison. These are quite literally just snapshots in time. Please don't compare A to B. Uh this would be your apple, that would be

129
00:34:36.480 --> 00:34:51.440
your orange, however you want to take a look at it. They're completely different tools >> giving us different information. Although, interesting enough, the data looks very similar. >> Yeah. saying they're consistent. >> All right. So, I I can give you nothing other than this is where the students

130
00:34:51.440 --> 00:35:08.160
landed for these particular items and just so that you have an idea of where those particular percentages landed overall. And again, I'm not going to waste your time reading all those because I know you can take care of those, but they were the results for third grade. These are the results for fourth grade. Again, looking very similar. And here are the results for

131
00:35:08.160 --> 00:35:24.880
fifth grade. Uh sixth grade, we did stick with the MOI throughout the entire year. and you are seeing uh the results of that. So for our sixth grade results, we had an increase overall for on or above 22.7 percentage points. We did have

132
00:35:24.880 --> 00:35:40.160
corresponding decreases at risk and emergency overall. And again, this would indicate that a majority of our students are ready for grade level learning at this stage. Now the last few slides I have for you is more like where is this information all sort of fall falling and what are we

133
00:35:40.160 --> 00:35:55.760
doing with it at this point? Obviously, this is occurring throughout the entire year as far as assessment and monitoring, but the adjustments phase is really what we're taking this information. Now, we go back to of course Mold and Dr. Kellogg, the administrative team. What decisions do we want to make based upon this information and adjustments that we

134
00:35:55.760 --> 00:36:11.359
have? Right now, I don't have those answers for you. So, please don't ask because I would be able to answer you. But, uh really that's one of those items where we're trying to figure out what would be the best adjustments that we would make moving forward. And then generally, we hope that we see some growth and we rinse and repeat and we do it over and over again. The biggest

135
00:36:11.359 --> 00:36:27.760
thing is that we recognize it's not necessarily a linear process. It's something that we have to keep going back to over and over again. The last component I have for you are my references so you know that I'm not lying to you. >> How do we do? >> All right. Cool. Okay. >> Any questions? I I didn't leave a

136
00:36:27.760 --> 00:36:45.440
question slide. I know you were asking questions along the way. Is there anything that you'd like me to address or go? >> I just have a comment. I mean, for as many years as I've been sitting on this floor, these presentations have always been disheartening. To be quite honest with you, this year's is probably one of

137
00:36:45.440 --> 00:37:00.880
the worst that I've seen in terms of growth from years gone by. Um, obviously we've been told that we're looking at the data, we're working on it, we're going to do this and do that, but I think at some point we need to have some

138
00:37:00.880 --> 00:37:15.599
kind of plan, legitimate plan that's presented to us with um benchmarks that need to be met at certain points of the year that we can look at because we keep saying the same dismal results for our kids and it's

139
00:37:15.599 --> 00:37:33.440
unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. And now this year we are going to be left with less resources in terms of intervention because of our lack of basic skill teachers. So um with all the support that that we've given and had

140
00:37:33.440 --> 00:37:52.760
for these kids in terms of uh teachers and resources, it has not made the effects that we had hoped. That's for sure. So, I don't know how anybody else feels about it, but it's very disheartening.

141
00:37:55.680 --> 00:38:12.160
>> How do we see where we compare with other counts and how they're doing it? >> That would be the uh NJ you would have to go on the New Jersey Department of Ed website, >> but more than statewide >> like Monroe, as an example. I've always thought it

142
00:38:12.160 --> 00:38:27.920
was a little weird that like at Main Road we start bouncing them room to room all day long. That's in my opinion that's too much movement for a seven seven-year-old 8-year-old. They get distracted so easy and then they walk in and then you got to do the lows and the good mornings all over again. Leave them where they're at. One teacher teaches

143
00:38:27.920 --> 00:38:43.119
them like for majority of the day. Again, just my opinion. My nerd doesn't move them I don't believe as much. So where do those numbers like if you can tweak small things like maybe >> when you sum up >> the activity through the day the movement the starting over they don't

144
00:38:43.119 --> 00:38:59.920
like this teacher they like that teacher >> I don't know what the answer is and honestly it's not our position to decide right >> but it is our position to ensure student success and progress and I don't think we're doing a good job of that because

145
00:38:59.920 --> 00:39:15.920
we don't have a checks and balances for us in terms of we uh report three times a year and three times a year it's pretty much the same thing everything every year we see. So if we go back to the first slide um

146
00:39:15.920 --> 00:39:32.640
Zach go all the way back to the beginning when you have the five years of goals. So when Zach uh talked about when he said that Dr. and I were talking about how to look at goals for not like these are the goals we're suggesting for this

147
00:39:32.640 --> 00:39:48.800
year but for 2728 um after processing all this if you look at the baseline right the baseline when we start this is so this is my thing once I really again got here dug in and really looked at it our district goals are based on student

148
00:39:48.800 --> 00:40:05.200
growth but then every slide that followed after this was all about performance about how they actually did not growth So, if you look at this, like doc explained, and by the way, that stock analogy I thought was really good. Um, I love I love like metaphors. I love analogies. I think it it helps me

149
00:40:05.200 --> 00:40:21.520
understand. I don't know if it helps anyone else, but when we look at the stock, when we say it goes up and down, up and down, up and down, it's volatile, but what's the overall trend? Um, the overall trend for growth, if you notice, is absolutely up. So, if we look at our baseline, group A, 29%.

150
00:40:21.520 --> 00:40:38.000
>> That's CO. I don't even want to I mean, honestly, can we just leave CO alone? How many years ago was that? >> So this is growth though. So we're looking at like so 2122. Even if we look at that one for the actual and then we go across student growth >> 40 41 47 44 45

151
00:40:38.000 --> 00:40:53.119
>> is about stretch growth. >> So stretch growth. >> If you're looking at the percentages that's not growth for for group A. >> Yeah. So the percentages are the amount of kids who hit stretch growth. >> Right. I know. >> Right. So it's not >> we initially did this one because they were so low. We wanted to start

152
00:40:53.119 --> 00:41:10.079
pinpointing and getting some type of growth for those kids who are a grade level or two grade levels below. >> Right. So your point I agree like that coming out of COVID stretch growth made a lot of sense because kids had a lot of growing to do. >> But like the way Zach kind of described how you kind of hit like that final

153
00:41:10.079 --> 00:41:25.040
point where it kind of levels out for growth. Meaning we can't keep expecting those massive rates of growth. That will level out. So all those slides that follow are about are they on grade level or not. So I was talking with Dr.

154
00:41:25.040 --> 00:41:42.319
Slavven about some ideas for maybe 27 28 kind of changing the growth structure and the way the goals are presented to focus more about where are the kids landing as opposed to growth because your your your level of how many kids are hitting stretch growth will hit like

155
00:41:42.319 --> 00:41:59.040
a saturation point and I feel like it's it is a little bit more difficult in that regard. is not really giving you the information that you want. We want to try to get as many kids on grade level as we can. So, I'm not really a huge fan of the idea of the stretch growth as being the goal, but I do want

156
00:41:59.040 --> 00:42:15.760
to keep it right now for 2627 to be consistent. It's it's what we have. And I feel like right now I I do want to stick with it, but I want to take this year to talk it over with the team to say, what do we want to have for 2728? If we work it out and we still feel like stretch is going to be the way to go,

157
00:42:15.760 --> 00:42:31.200
then I'll come back and I'll explain why. But if we decide as a team that it's not, I'll come back and explain why not. Um, so that's kind of the first thing is I'm not even exactly sure goal-wise where I want it to go cuz I'm walking in now is like this is the first school year for me to actually start a

158
00:42:31.200 --> 00:42:47.359
school year. Um, I think that also too to I think to Michelle Michelle's point about where do we stand comparatively speaking, I don't want to say it's all sunshine and roses because it's not. But it's also not 100% doom and gloom. Meaning when we look at

159
00:42:47.359 --> 00:43:03.520
ourselves comparatively speaking, we are doing okay in the sense that I do feel like these standards for what they consider on grade level are again the words eluding me right now, but I feel like they're it's what I'm looking for. It's not that it's unattainable, but

160
00:43:03.520 --> 00:43:20.000
like no one has 100%. Even the best performing districts in all of New Jersey might only have 70%. And that's like the best. I do feel like that's a it's it's unrealistic. I guess that's the word I'm going to go with. It's unrealistic to think you're never going to get 100%. No one does in New Jersey.

161
00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:35.520
Um, and if you really look at it, at least 20% of your population is classified. And not that doesn't mean they can't be on grade level, but there's a strong likelihood and probability that they won't be. They'll be probably at least maybe a grade below even with all the supports. So, we realistically are saying like we are

162
00:43:35.520 --> 00:43:50.319
doing comparatively speaking to other people in Gloucester County, we're doing we're doing what like we're above the state and we can get you those numbers for I Ready. we are doing like national norm I ready we are there I think 52%

163
00:43:50.319 --> 00:44:07.040
being the norm is what's odd I think the test itself saying that 52% of kids is considered the norm for the national average for this test is just such an unrealistic setup that it makes it seem so much worse than it really is if you look at like I think even Dibbles is a

164
00:44:07.040 --> 00:44:23.440
little bit more realistic when you look at like the dibbles results dibbles is going to give you a little bit is going to give you a more realistic expectation of what like real grade level should look like. >> I think a realistic assessment as well, >> right? So, and that's where I'm like, is it our assessment or are kids really doing that bit? So, I do agree when you

165
00:44:23.440 --> 00:44:39.359
look at it comparatively speaking to the rest of the county and the state as a whole, but it is good to compare with people that you're familiar with and say like who are we similar to? What does it look like? >> Well, and how are they doing? What are they doing different? >> Correct. that if someone's super successful, we will look at that and say, but but what I'm saying like when I

166
00:44:39.359 --> 00:44:56.000
first came in to interview, I looked at Franklin's data for NJSLA and looked at it comparatively speaking and you're doing decent, meaning there wasn't like these gaping holes. I'm like, oof, like I'm going to have to get in there and they're a mess. You're not like comparatively speaking in state, you are doing okay. Um, if we look at though,

167
00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:12.560
like I did say like the exceeding is a concern for me and we've talked about differentiation and I would like to to start talking to people about that about why we don't really have anyone in that exceeding category bothers me a little bit, but we'll get there. Um, but like

168
00:45:12.560 --> 00:45:28.640
we didn't even qualify for the one state grant. I think I put it in the one update. Um, the state had a grant for ELA for for early reading. >> The bridge >> the bridge the bridge grant like our data was too good. we didn't qualify for it. >> They didn't qualify. The Orlando was so low. >> So, comparatively speaking with our

169
00:45:28.640 --> 00:45:44.960
neighbors, we're doing better, but that's not that's not to say that I'm happy and that I'm satisfied. I do agree we need to do better. So, that's where I'm at is that we need to do better, but I I'm not like it's not like a five alarm fire, but but I'm I'm I'm always sniffing for smoke and we're going to do

170
00:45:44.960 --> 00:46:00.240
the best that we absolutely can. Um I need definitely like a um to we have to sort of get our bearings because to your point now we're doing it completely different but we have to see what that looks like because this year with the reduced staff we are definitely going to have to see what that translates into

171
00:46:00.240 --> 00:46:16.400
and what that looks like. Um definitely glad to answer any questions along the way. we can give updated uh results as they come in the sense of we usually do this presentation once a year and when we circle back this time next year I really do hope to have some different information not just about numbers but

172
00:46:16.400 --> 00:46:33.359
even just about process um we have our admin retreat by the way tomorrow so the board like just to your point so for three days so Tuesday Wednesday Thursday the admin it's like blackout for like vacation the admin team will be be with me and we are going to talk about

173
00:46:33.359 --> 00:46:48.800
teaching um like what are we looking for in evaluation? What kind of PD are we providing? Where are our concerns as an administrative team? Like what are we doing to help support our staff the best we can and providing the best educational guidance that we can to

174
00:46:48.800 --> 00:47:05.599
help? And and we're asking questions like what questions should we be asking as leaders and what should we be looking for? And what are those green flags that we want to emulate? Because even within our own district, we can look and see certain classrooms are historically outperform other ones. And then it's

175
00:47:05.599 --> 00:47:21.200
like, okay, so what are the best practices that that they could share out and what are they doing? But it's again coming I've been talking to Dr. Slavven about the the how these new roles morphing is to help us look for those kind of things like statistically speaking where are our good pockets,

176
00:47:21.200 --> 00:47:36.960
>> right? because we want to emulate them as much as we want to identify the like quote unquote pockets of concern and also address them what what is that concern or what are we going to do about it. So, it is definitely on the radar and we have 3 days literally starting tomorrow to talk about it

177
00:47:36.960 --> 00:47:56.240
and I'll share with you that admin retreat agenda next year like when it comes time and you get all my stuff like you'll get that whole PowerPoint and get that whole packet. >> Great question, comment. Any others? >> Thank you. Thanks.

178
00:47:56.240 --> 00:48:38.480
>> You're welcome. You threw your hair out. All right, moving on to our first public comment. Uh, for agenda items only, I'd like to make a motion to open to the public. Do I have a second?

179
00:48:38.480 --> 00:48:55.680
>> All in favor? >> Um, like to address the board, please come up and state your full name and address for consistency and equal time. If you wish to address the board, we'll have three minutes without interruption. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the board? Come on up. Hi. Uh, Patty Ellen, uh, support

180
00:48:55.680 --> 00:49:12.800
staff president. Um, just had a question on human resources number eight. It's a new job description. Um, just curious why we are adding positions when we had all of the riffs that were happening in the spring. I didn't know what the need

181
00:49:12.800 --> 00:49:30.559
is, why we're doing it, if it's something that's happening soon or next year or whatever. >> Yeah. So, first step is is the job description to get approved. Um, the job has not been advertised yet. And what the goal of that is is based on

182
00:49:30.559 --> 00:49:46.160
whatever candidate we find, if we find for the supervisor, like I said, we're actively searching, actively interviewing for a supervisor position. Um, when we did when the RIP when the reductions in force occurred, part of that plan was we had to reduce the

183
00:49:46.160 --> 00:50:02.000
salary line. That's still the plan. But what happens is that things have to be moved and shifted because all the responsibilities still have to get done. So it may actually be an an added title, but let's just say

184
00:50:02.000 --> 00:50:18.880
someone who's already functioning um in that department were to get that position. It wouldn't be a whole new salary. It might only be a little bit. And because of other things that have been reduced, they might take on some of those roles and

185
00:50:18.880 --> 00:50:35.760
now it's just the titles have changed, but the salary is actually going to end up being the same. So it won't be a whole new person and a whole new the goal would be not like a whole new salary to add in. Ultimately, that salary line has still been reduced. PE things have to shift so that way things

186
00:50:35.760 --> 00:50:52.640
can get covered. It just might look different because with everything that's happened, we've realized with the transportation department, we do need some redundancies and we do need to start building from within and having people who instead of maybe just functioning as like a floater that if

187
00:50:52.640 --> 00:51:08.160
they start taking classes and get their certification could also function in the office when they're not driving. And then now you have somebody who's capable of stepping in when needed, but yet we're really not paying much more than them just being a floater. So it's about

188
00:51:08.160 --> 00:51:26.240
trying to get maximum efficiency like more more duties in one role than multiple people doing multiple different things with multiple titles and multiple salaries. So this is similar to the two secretary positions where they were given the stipen or the extra increase

189
00:51:26.240 --> 00:51:43.920
but they now have two jobs. story. >> Correct. >> Because now like the one position was for um an administrative assistant for transportation and maintenance. So she's not taking on any of the extra duties that would be required

190
00:51:43.920 --> 00:51:58.640
>> of this new position. >> Yes. So that whole department is hopefully shifting. Okay. meaning so instead of the titles are look will look different but the roles will also have to get covered and they're going to be divvied up differently. So it's kind of like if

191
00:51:58.640 --> 00:52:15.920
you took a stack of like five playing cards and it originally it each person there was five people and they each got a card. There might only be four people now but like that fifth card got cut up and like pieces of that fifth card have been broken off and given to different different roles. So step one is to get

192
00:52:15.920 --> 00:52:31.359
the job description like accepted and then we have to we might advertise see what comes in see who has interest and then go from there. So I'm working closely with Trish because the whole idea is to spend less money >> right

193
00:52:31.359 --> 00:52:48.000
>> and to have it be more efficient but yet sp be more efficient. spend less money, be more efficient, and then hopefully said grow even with within our own. So that way they get that reward for working hard and improving their

194
00:52:48.000 --> 00:53:04.319
knowledge and taking the courses and hopefully then moving up to be that supervisor one day. >> Yes. >> Thanks. >> Y any other member of the public? >> All right. Uh see any motion to close

195
00:53:04.319 --> 00:53:20.559
the first public comment section. Do I have a second? Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Um, reports. Um, I don't have really anything important on the email I sent earlier. If everyone today, if you can check your email, please check your email regarding the financial committee

196
00:53:20.559 --> 00:53:37.440
that we'll be putting together. I'm in that deadline. Dr. Tob, >> my report was really quick. I didn't have any cute pictures because no one's in the building right now. I love when I visit classrooms. I like putting them in. But um uh I did mean to grab out to ESY and I did not do that and get any pictures and I was definitely mad at

197
00:53:37.440 --> 00:53:54.079
myself for that. So I need to to to do that. Um so I just listed for the board just different things though that I did go to but it's more on the boring side not with pictures about um just different meetings, different potential things. Um Rowan had a meeting with superintendent with the new commissioner

198
00:53:54.079 --> 00:54:10.640
of education was there. Um, but it was honestly ended up being more of a PR thing and I was a little disappointed about the actual content. Um, so so yeah, that was it for me.

199
00:54:10.640 --> 00:54:26.640
>> I have a quick question. May I? You said you met with Deli regarding potential shared services. Is this any any new ideas come up? >> There was like three or four on the table, but nothing nothing that came to fruition yet. Yeah, it was like some things that he had, some ideas that I

200
00:54:26.640 --> 00:54:43.839
had, but like like the one thing he brought up like we're kind of because of our reductions in force that like we're kind of almost short in that one area and it would have like overt taxed our person too much. Um because like we used to have two now we only have one of them and like it it just wouldn't have worked. Um, and same thing like flip it

201
00:54:43.839 --> 00:54:59.920
back. Like there were certain things that I was like we kind of would like to maybe share but it's just not in the cards right now. But we're continuing to have those conversations, you know, as they come up. >> Okay. >> Right. Barb, >> do you want me to talk about this now?

202
00:54:59.920 --> 00:55:14.400
Okay. >> What I've done was I've taken um Dr. Kellogg's revised uh board of bow and um it's really just you're going to rate like different

203
00:55:14.400 --> 00:55:30.079
categories in different areas. Um so in the document um I I can send it out to you in an email. Finish it even if you've done it already. Can you do it again? And what we what um Alicia added today was and I don't mean

204
00:55:30.079 --> 00:55:46.160
>> you mean a board self assessment not my email. >> No, but you did the you did the doc. >> I created it. You're assessing yourselves. We're rating ourselves. >> Right. Board members. All right. >> When you look at it'll say the board does this, the board did does or does

205
00:55:46.160 --> 00:56:01.920
not do this. And and it's a scale one to five scale. I was going to ask would you please uh Alicia was kind enough to add an area where you could comment if you could just put a little comment particularly if you give a really like a high rating or a low rating so that we

206
00:56:01.920 --> 00:56:16.799
can sit down and figure out like if you put like a lower rating in I don't know I'll make something up uh agenda items. I don't know um why why that happens so that when I sit down and look at it with Michelle because she doesn't know she's doing it yet. Um

207
00:56:16.799 --> 00:56:34.480
>> she does now. She got me all told. >> We'll sit down and like kind of put it together like much easier than it was for Dr. Kellogg and much quicker, but at least we'll have a foundation to start. Um, I have it I can send it out to you. Um, and we ask that you put your name on

208
00:56:34.480 --> 00:56:50.400
it. Not so we can go, okay, well, Mary said whatever, but so that we know everybody did or did not turn it in and we're not waiting on that last one. Or sometimes they were sent in segments. I think last time >> we're doing it twice. It got more confusing. Just put >> Yeah, like Yes, you stick your name. You know, >> do you want me to help you with the

209
00:56:50.400 --> 00:57:07.200
settings? Cuz I can do collect You can collect the email and then you can limit it to one response. >> Oh, I I can do that. I know how to do that. Okay. Thanks. Yep. >> Okay. Thanks. Because I don't know how to do that. >> So, that's coming in. And if you have any questions, you can go on the uh the schoolboard website, NJSBA website, and

210
00:57:07.200 --> 00:57:23.200
there and look on the actual their evaluation, which is so comprehensive, and it's not even that good. I my opinion. Um that rough >> erase that bill. Um

211
00:57:23.200 --> 00:57:39.440
I'm sorry. So and I appreciate you doing that Dr. Ver. So >> you're welcome. You could look on there and see if you have any questions about a particular category. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Barb. Um I don't think there's any liaison reports. There really has not been any activities. And

212
00:57:39.440 --> 00:57:54.480
then this is a new thing. I just saw that on there. PTO PTA fundraiser report. So, um this is me just um I I just I don't know if you guys have realized I do really um value transparency. I do try to be transparent. Um and I just feel like

213
00:57:54.480 --> 00:58:11.680
even though the PTO/PTAs are not governed by the board, um it's still money that passes through the school. And so I just felt like for transparency purposes like you should be aware of the fundraisers that they're having and that it the money is being collected. So,

214
00:58:11.680 --> 00:58:27.839
this is for likeformational purposes. That's why it's in the reports section. So, if you ever had a question about any of the PTO or PTA fundraisers, like so you know what's coming um before they happen and if you have any issues or concerns, you could always bring them to my attention and I could,

215
00:58:27.839 --> 00:58:44.880
you know, try to talk to them. But like I said, even though it's not directly overseen by the board, it's just more for your information. >> Thank you. You're >> all right. Um moving on to approval of minutes. Um, I make a motion to approve the minutes from June 17th and June

216
00:58:44.880 --> 00:59:07.359
22nd. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I abstain from the 17th. Trish, >> I also have to for the 17th. >> All right. Um, human resources. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve

217
00:59:07.359 --> 00:59:24.480
human resources items G1 to G. I always mess this up. 11. Um, as recommended by the superintendent. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Changing Lee, >> yes. >> Cunningham, >> yes. >> Doyle,

218
00:59:24.480 --> 00:59:39.680
>> yes. >> Brown, >> yes. >> Wilson, >> yes. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Star, sorry, that's it. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. I need policy. >> No, you didn't. >> Oh, >> I just saw that.

219
00:59:39.680 --> 00:59:53.440
>> I forgot about that. >> I'll do it in old business. No, this is old business. >> Okay, we'll do it in old business. Um, all right. Education items. Um, all right. I make a motion to approve education items as recommended by the

220
00:59:53.440 --> 01:00:11.760
superintendent H1 to H7. Do I have a second? >> No. Second. Second. >> Second, >> Michelle. Trish roll. >> Brown. >> Yes. >> Wilson. >> Yes. >> Smith. >> Yes. >> Shangley.

221
01:00:11.760 --> 01:00:34.799
>> Yes. >> Cunningham. >> Yes. >> Doyle. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. I'm not sure. >> You do, right? Okay. So,

222
01:00:34.799 --> 01:00:50.480
all right. So, um if you guys notice, we're not used to seeing this under here, but um these are Dr. Kellogg's goals for goals for the next school year. Um I make a motion to approve district gold I1

223
01:00:50.480 --> 01:01:06.319
to I1 and recommended by the superintendent. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Trish. >> Cuttingham. Yes, >> yes >> Brown. >> Yes, >> Wilson. >> Yes, >> Smith. >> Yes, >> Changelini.

224
01:01:06.319 --> 01:01:21.440
>> Yes, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. General administration items, just our usual data. Um, I make a motion to approve the district the general

225
01:01:21.440 --> 01:01:38.480
general administration items J1 to J6 as recommended by the superintendent. Do I have a second? Second >> Trish >> Smith. >> Yes. >> Changing. >> Yes. >> Cunningham. >> Yes. >> Doyle. >> Yes. >> Brown. >> Yes. >> Wilson.

226
01:01:38.480 --> 01:01:53.520
>> Yes. >> Go. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Keep this going. We have operations. Nothing's changed since this was released to us. Um >> there was the bill listed. >> Oh, one bill. >> Yeah.

227
01:01:53.520 --> 01:02:35.520
>> All right. on a second if you want to look at that bill too. >> All right. Are we good to vote? >> There's another change. The um we added recycling of the outdated and end of life technology equipment. Um the LCIT

228
01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:50.559
provided uh the list that you can click on and basically that'll be recycled. Once that's all reviewed and recycled, uh the company will provide a residual value, but they're not able to do that at this point until they look at all the the

229
01:02:50.559 --> 01:03:06.480
equipment. It's not going to be drastic by any means. Don't get your hopes up. >> Correct. >> Something's better than nothing. >> I'll pass. Right. Absolutely. >> Those were the only things um added

230
01:03:06.480 --> 01:03:22.559
since you got the agenda. >> Okay. All right. Um, I make a motion to approve operation items K1 to K 20 as recommended by the superintendent.

231
01:03:22.559 --> 01:03:39.520
Do I have a second? Second, >> Wilson. >> Um, can I I don't because I'm no longer with that. Can I vote with not being with that company anymore? >> Um,

232
01:03:39.520 --> 01:03:59.039
>> yes. It's because I'm no longer with them >> affiliated. >> Right. >> Excellent. >> So I can although I do know >> Smith, >> yes. >> Changi, >> yes. >> Cunningham, >> yes.

233
01:03:59.039 --> 01:04:15.280
>> Doyle, >> yes. >> Brown, >> yes. >> Progresso, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right, old business. All right, I'm going to go over the A lot of the policies are language and code, but there are a couple um ones

234
01:04:15.280 --> 01:04:32.400
that need a little bit more explanation. So, we met on June 22nd. >> Forgotten that >> I know forever. >> It does feel like a long time ago. >> It was um the superintendent. So, policy probably not going to go in order of what they were on the agenda. So, but not that that matters for their um

235
01:04:32.400 --> 01:04:48.400
policy 1230 which superintendent's duties that was just minor language changes. Um there's policy 2200 for curriculum. Strauss s may um completely rewrote the policy due to the multitude of changes required by the New Jersey

236
01:04:48.400 --> 01:05:05.920
DOE. Um so right now we have to have our pacing guides acceptable online, our curriculum pacing guides accessible online as well as um NJSLA standards and mandates that have changed since 2020. um policy 0162, notice of board meetings

237
01:05:05.920 --> 01:05:21.680
that was revised um that we have to have a section on our website um listing obviously which we do our board meetings and we no longer have to provide legal notices through newspapers. So there's no more hard copies that way. It's all

238
01:05:21.680 --> 01:05:38.640
on our social media or website. Um this and this kind of goes with it. Policy 0162.01 legal notices. This is a new policy but it's the same thing. Um we are going to have um chapter 72 was approved adding

239
01:05:38.640 --> 01:05:55.920
the statute. So details about our district website. We have to require um or we have to display our legal notices and we have to have a spot on our website for the DOE. Um so that parents or whomever goes to our website can access the DOE through our website. Um

240
01:05:55.920 --> 01:06:11.359
policy 1643 family leave. This was revised. Um, basically the time period was reduced for an employee to qualify. This is the NJ FLA. So, it's not FMLA, it's not the Fed, this is just the

241
01:06:11.359 --> 01:06:30.079
states. Um, the requirements dropped from 12 months to 3 months. >> And previous hours that were required of work to qualify was 1,000. Now it's only 250. So, um, those um qu ifications for

242
01:06:30.079 --> 01:06:47.280
employees to um put in for NJ FMLA had lowered. Um policy 2260, equity in school and classroom practices. Again, that was revised really just code that had to be changed. Um

243
01:06:47.280 --> 01:07:03.680
policy 5561, use of physical restraint and seclusion techniques for students with disabilities. Again, minor revisions. um the superintendent or or whomever is in charge has to designate um and that all that all incidents are

244
01:07:03.680 --> 01:07:19.119
reported which we already do. We're already talking um policy 6112, 6115.02 and 6311 all go along with and correct me if I'm wrong person title one federal

245
01:07:19.119 --> 01:07:33.680
funding. Um basically districts were monitored by the state. um and straight determined that the revisions were needed in policies to comply with the office of fiscal accountability and guidance. So

246
01:07:33.680 --> 01:07:49.760
basically the only policy 6115.01 is the only new one um and has not yet been um provided to us. It's supposed to supposed to be released. Wait a minute. No, that's not

247
01:07:49.760 --> 01:08:05.599
right. Um, no, they haven't they haven't released it yet, right? Stress they didn't release that's 6471. Wrong one. Sorry, my bad. Those three 6112, 6115.02, and 6311 are revised language for the

248
01:08:05.599 --> 01:08:22.960
title one funding. That's >> 6471. They haven't prepared. They didn't release it yet because there's been more code revisions and they'll release it in the next alert. >> Right. I have it in a box not to talk about, but I talked about it anyway. Um so that's why I wrote me this stuff. Um policy 8561 procurement procedures for

249
01:08:22.960 --> 01:08:38.480
school nutrition programs. Um basically the end uh New Jersey division division of agriculture is requiring us to update um our procedures and to align with their model policy that they put out in October of 2025 which um we already do.

250
01:08:38.480 --> 01:08:54.799
Chris monitors this. We are part of the national school lunch program. So we're already aligned with and following that policy. The only other one is um and you had this separately sent to you um by Kristen was the tardiness policy which

251
01:08:54.799 --> 01:09:10.159
was 5240. Um initially if a child had um five unexcused absences I believe it was >> tardies they were five times >> it equal one absence. So if a child came

252
01:09:10.159 --> 01:09:26.080
in late, five minutes late, two minutes late, whatever, um those five unexcused or excused starties, I guess would would qualify as an unexcused absence. So um in talking with Dr. Kellogg, you know that again, there could be

253
01:09:26.080 --> 01:09:44.000
times when someone's coming in 5 minutes late um and they're missing 25 minutes of school for the week and being charged in unexcused absence. So it really didn't the crime didn't relate to the punishment was what was felt. Um so instead now what will happen is um when

254
01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:59.600
a child is chronically absent has has five or more because that's what we initially have. It looks like we changed a little bit here. Um as tardiness tardy children come to school it will be determined if this is becoming chronic. If it is an

255
01:09:59.600 --> 01:10:17.760
administration will um reach out for parent connection in terms of what's going on, they may request documentation. They may request a meeting. Um they may ask them to come in depending on how the tardy is happening. Is it consistent? Is it

256
01:10:17.760 --> 01:10:34.800
chronic or not? Um and if there is a pattern then there will be a meeting that will be scheduled with administration and I don't know I believe there's going to be some kind of procedure that is developed amongst the three buildings

257
01:10:34.800 --> 01:10:49.760
>> consistent procedure from >> from admin to >> yeah so that you know when they go from Janer to main road it's not going to be a different oh well you know he was starting five times and I never heard anything well you should have so that kind of thing it'll beistant through the

258
01:10:49.760 --> 01:11:05.120
schools as to how they handle this and the meetings that they have and when they will occur. So that was sent uh through an email to you have that one already revised. I think it's on the agenda too, but it was sent separately

259
01:11:05.120 --> 01:11:22.320
as well. So those were the policies that we approved. >> Does anybody have any questions? >> Yes. The only other policy that um I'm going to bring up is and I spoke to some of

260
01:11:22.320 --> 01:11:37.520
you about this about the recess policy. We had approved um a policy back. We had changed it not based on the recess. We had there were other language that was changed and and recess was part of that policy. We have for years had 30 minutes

261
01:11:37.520 --> 01:11:54.080
of recess. But when the policy was approved, it was just taken right from St. estimate and stress estimate only had 20 minutes in there. Um there was some discussion about it, it was around budget time. Things were really crazy and um when I reached out to Alicia

262
01:11:54.080 --> 01:12:11.120
because I hadn't figured out, I couldn't remember how we resolved it, what we resolved um and Alicia had spoken to members um on her own to see if they wanted to bring it back and there at that time they did not. The reason I'm bringing it up now is um because I was

263
01:12:11.120 --> 01:12:28.239
reading some more recent research on recess that had come out May of this year in regards to the benefits for students um not only for the social and the um physicalness of it but also the cognitive benefits of recess and how

264
01:12:28.239 --> 01:12:44.239
their brain needs a reset and again not just a recess time but breaks through the day but I'm discussing in terms of recess So, the reason I'm bringing it up is I feel that it's in our kids' benefit for us to go back to a 30 minute recess that

265
01:12:44.239 --> 01:13:01.840
we had previously and um just wanted to bring that to the board to see if there was any interest in doing that. >> Yeah, I I called each of you individually and we talked about two items. The >> whole tax >> debacle and then the recess.

266
01:13:01.840 --> 01:13:17.120
>> The only person I didn't speak to was Greg. We never played phone tag. Okay. >> So is it >> and it was so the policy says 20 just so you know the policy says 20 as the minimum but we went through the uh we have leadership

267
01:13:17.120 --> 01:13:33.360
committee structure in the schools where we have SLC's which is school leadership committee which consists of members of that school and then we also have DLC which is district leadership committee where representatives from each of the buildings all come to a district meeting which has admin supervisors teachers

268
01:13:33.360 --> 01:13:49.679
different like CST members etc. Um this this uh recess was brought up to those groups, those leadership committees. Um Jan Beer does have 30 minutes right now. So Janer has more than what our policy says in the schedule for next year. Um

269
01:13:49.679 --> 01:14:07.360
Main Road has like about I want to say it's like 25 when all is said and done. Um and then Ritter has >> 27 >> 27 and Ritter has 21. um >> 23 >> 23. So Ritter and Main Road were

270
01:14:07.360 --> 01:14:23.120
actually really excited like administratively, teacher-wise, etc. to actually go down to 20. They did bump it up with with some transition time and then did bump it up a little bit. So January does still have 30. Um but Main Road has a little less and then Ritter

271
01:14:23.120 --> 01:14:38.480
has a little less than that. Um, we also do advocate for brain breaks throughout the classes because I do agree that you do need cognitive rest while you're having these long stretches of academic um, like stress. You do need some brain

272
01:14:38.480 --> 01:14:53.760
breaks. Um, so that is something that we do advocate cognitively throughout these block sessions, but everybody doesn't have 20 minutes. Jan, you're just 30. >> Just so everyone >> I I would definitely 30 minutes or more.

273
01:14:53.760 --> 01:15:10.480
Why would grunt less >> when you get to that age there again too? Um we talked about how so having like intermittent brain breaks is really good when you stand up you do like little things throughout a long stretch of academic block you break it up a

274
01:15:10.480 --> 01:15:26.960
little bit. But once you when you talk to all the teachers that are out monitoring recess and when you talk to the people who are involved after about 15 minutes with kids without structure they start to melt down just to be quite be quite honest. And once you get to that like 20 minute mark, kids are, for lack of a better word, they're getting a

275
01:15:26.960 --> 01:15:42.800
little bored. And then what happens is that's where, like you see the younger ages, meltdowns start to occur. That's when like fights start to occur. We, and that's not to say we do it just because there's going to be difficult, but it's better to have more frequent interruptions as opposed to a long

276
01:15:42.800 --> 01:15:57.600
unstructured break. If you've ever been around unstructured time, >> I'm going to I'm going to beg to differ. If you read the research, that's not true. both is on 45 minutes is the optimum amount of time. >> Oh my gosh. >> I'm not and I'm not saying that, but if you if we're going to follow the

277
01:15:57.600 --> 01:16:12.800
research that's best for our kids, both of those work in tandem. It's not just one is better than the other. >> And then I will I just I'll say from my perspective that um a 45minute unstructured period would be extremely difficult in real life to make come to fruition without there being issues.

278
01:16:12.800 --> 01:16:28.960
>> There's I mean I time-wise that just would not it would not work in a school day. I totally get that. But when you talk about a 30-minut recess, you're you're also talking about getting there and getting back to the class because that 20 minutes is really 15 minutes of recess. >> So those times I just gave you have

279
01:16:28.960 --> 01:16:44.800
transition times. >> We don't even have to do recess for sixth grade technically, right? >> That's on um it's come. >> Well, I mean Michelle and I have gone back and forth. We agree to disagree on this. Um, you know, in my my opinion is

280
01:16:44.800 --> 01:16:56.159
the board that's not our role to dictate the amount of minutes recesses. Our role is to make sure they're following policy and law. And the law is 20